Report Precis
Report of the Assistant Director
Planning and Transportation to the
Planning Regulatory Board
Date: 15/12/2009
Doc No
Subject
Applications under Town and Country Planning Legislation.
Purpose of Report
This report presents for decision planning, listed building, advertisement, Council development applications and also proposals for works to or felling of trees covered by a Preservation Order and miscellaneous items.
Information
The proposals presented for decision are set out within the index to the front of the attached report. Applications included under Section A are recommended for approval and conditions are summarised at the end of each application.
Applications listed under Section B are recommended for refusal and the reason(s) for refusal are set out at the end of each application.
Other sections of the report may include consultations by neighbouring planning authorities and miscellaneous items.
Access for the Disabled Implications
Where there are any such implications they will be referred to within the individual report.
Financial Implications
None
Crime and Disorder Implications
Where there are any such implications they will be referred to within the individual reports.
Human Rights Act
The Council has considered the general implications of the Human Rights Act in this agenda report.
1
Representations
Where representations are received in respect of an application, a summary of those representations is provided in the application report which reflects the key points that have been expressed regarding the proposal.
Members are reminded that they have access to all documentation relating to the application, including the full text of any representations and any correspondence which has occurred between the Council and the applicant or any agent of the applicant.
Recommendation(s)
That the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations set out in the main report which is attached.
Full report attached for public and press copy (unless Confidential item).
2 BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION PO Box 604, Barnsley, S70 9FE AS RECOMMENDED
To: The Chairman and members of the Planning Regulatory Board Date:15/12/2009
Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 Part III Applications
Notes
1. Permissions granted with reserved matters (Standard Condition 1) i. Detailed application for approval must be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of the grant of this outline permission and
ii. The development to which the permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:
a) The expiration of three years from the date of the outline planning permission, or
b) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
for the following reason:
“In order to comply with Section92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990”.
2. Permissions granted without reserved matters (Standard Condition 2)
The development for which permission is hereby granted shall be begun within a period of three years from the date of this permission for the following reason:
“In order to comply with the provisions of Section91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990”.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
These are contained within the application files listed in the following schedule of planning applications.
They are available for inspection at Barnsley Connects, The Civic Centre, Eldon Street, Barnsley, S70 2JL.
3 SITE VISITS
2009/1299 Page 7
Erection of a two storey linked annexe to nursing home. Riverside Nursing Home, Camborne Way, Monk Bretton, Barnsley, S Yorks, S71 2NR
2009/1259 Page 14
Mixed use development comprising uses within classes A1, A2, A3 and A5. Hangmanstone Depot, Sheffield Road, Birdwell, Barnsley, S70 5TR
2009/0994 Page 24
Erection of grain storage extension to existing building Lee Lane Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S36 9NN
2008/0838 Page 33
Erection of a five-turbine wind farm with a height of 125m to blade tip and associated infrastructure including transformers, access tracks, temporary construction compound and new access from Cranberry Road and Mossley Road. Land adjacent to Sheephouse Farm, Mortimer Road, Penistone, Sheffield, S36 9FJ.
SECTION A - APPROVALS
2009/0847 Page 75
Variation of condition 21 of approved application 2008/0171. Wind Farm, Whitley Road, Whitley Common, Barnsley
2009/1009 Page 89
Erection of an agricultural storage building (Resubmission) Farm, Bagger Wood Hill, Hood Green, Sheffield
4
2009/1091 Page 94
Removal of condition 9 (retention of footpath) of previously approved application 2008/1397 for conversion of church to dwelling Thurgoland Methodist Church, Cote Lane, Thurgoland, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S35 7AE
2009/1093 Page 98
Change of use from residential to residential family care centre and erection of single storey rear extension 30 Gawber Road, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S75 2AF
2009/1381 Page 103
Change of use from residential to a residential family care centre. (Retrospective) 32 Gawber Road, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S75 2AF
2009/1121 Page 107
Erection of a deer unit building. Little Doubting Farm, Hartcliff Hill Road, Cubley, Sheffield
2009/1262 Page 113
Erection of a two storey extension to existing Mill building and change of use for commercial use. Corn Mill, Bullhouse Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Penistone Sheffield
2009/1287 Page 118
Residential development of 100 no. 2 & 3 bedroomed dwellings (Resubmission of application no: 2009/0657) Land at Leslie, Raymond & Reginald Road, Kendray, Barnsley
2009/1352 Page 126
Change of use from open land to form part of residential curtilage. Land adjacent to 84 Rose Grove, Wombwell, Barnsley, South Yorkshire. S73 8NB
5
2009/1356 Page 130
Erection of five townhouses. Melville Street, Wombwell, Barnsley, S73 8FL
2009/1368 Page 136
Demolition of existing schools, St Michaels Catholic and Church of England High School, St Dominics Catholic Primary School and Edward Sheerien High School. Erection of a new catholic and church of England Advanced Learning Centre (Outline) St Michael's Catholic & C.Of.E School, Carlton Road, Barnsley St Dominic's Primary School, Carlton Road, Barnsley Edward Sheerian High School, Carlton Road, Barnsley
2009/1454 Page 146
Improved access and service road, car park and associated works at retail park. (Resubmission) The Peel Centre Retail Park, Harborough Hill Road, Barnsley South Yorkshire, S71 1JE
SECTION B - REFUSALS
2009/0904 Page 151
Erection of first floor extension, erection of two storey extension and creation of car parking area to nursing home. Holly Tree Lodge, Sceptone Grove, Shafton, Barnsley
6 SITE VISITS
2009/1299 Park Lane Healthcare LTD Erection of a two storey linked annexe to nursing home. Riverside Nursing Home, Camborne Way, Monk Bretton, Barnsley, S Yorks, S71 2NR
Ten individual letters of objection and one on behalf of residents. Referred to board by a member.
Site Description
The site is approximately 0.6Ha and accommodates a single storey red brick residential home. The site is accessed via Cambourne Way which is a residential cul de sac. There is an existing car park to the west of the existing building currently providing parking for 12 vehicles.
The application site is located to the North of the existing building and slopes steeply up from South to North. There are residential properties surrounding the site on all sides. These are at a higher level to the North and East.
Site History
2006/0165 – Erection of single storey rear extension to provide 17 additional bedrooms to residential home – approved
2007/1598 – Erection of 3 storey 40 bedroom nursing home – refused
2007/2122 – Erection of a 2 storey 32 bedroom nursing home – refused & appeal dismissed.
Proposed Development
The applicant seeks permission to erect a two storey linked annex, adding an additional 30 bedrooms, to an existing single storey nursing home. The existing nursing home currently has 50 bedrooms, although three will be lost through construction of the extension. The extension is attached to the north elevation of the existing building in two places, creating an internal courtyard. The materials are proposed to match the existing building.
The applicant also seeks to extend the car park adding an additional 9 spaces as well as a turning head and motorcycle and cycle parking.
Policy Context
UDP- Housing Policy Area
LDF - Unallocated
BE6 – The Council will seek to achieve good design standards for all types of development.
BE6A – In assessing any proposed development layout, the Council will seek to avoid opportunities for crime.
BE6B – In assessing any proposed development to which the public will have access…the Council will seek, where appropriate…to ensure the creation of a fully accessible environment.
7 H5B – Planning permission will be granted for residential care and supported living schemes in residential areas provided that:
A – Satisfactory parking and manoeuvring space is available B – Adequate amenity space is provided C – The amenity of neighbouring properties and the wider locality is not adversely affected, and D – Proposals for the conversion of properties or extensions to existing homes do not adversely affect the appearance or character of the building, harm the character of the area or constitute overdevelopment.
H8D – Planning for infill development within existing residential areas will only be granted where development would not result in harm to the local environment or amenities of existing residents create traffic problems or prejudice possible future development.
T2 – Development will only be allowed if the additional demand for travel generated can be accommodated on the highway network without significant detriment to the environment or the safety and ease of movement of vehicles and pedestrians using the network.
SPG 2 provides guidance on separation distances between existing and proposed habitable rooms.
Consultations
Drainage – details to be checked by building control
Highways DC – no objections subject to conditions
SY Police – No comments received
Yorkshire Water – No objections subject to conditions
Coal Authority – No comments received
Waste management – provided advice on the appropriate location of the refuse store.
Representations
Eleven letters of objection have been received. The main points of concern are:
Reduced privacy levels Increased volume of traffic Increased noise and disturbance Lack of parking Disturbance during construction Reduced highway safety Reduced residential amenity The proposal is out of character with the area Overshadowing Not in-keeping with the existing building Impact on biodiversity Drainage issues and capacity of sewers
8 Assessment
Principle of development - The erection of an extension to a nursing home is acceptable in principle where it does not reduce residential and visual amenity to an unreasonable degree. The development will also only be allowed if the additional demand for travel generated can be accommodated on the highway network.
Residential Amenity - The previous application (2007/2122), for a separate new building adjacent to the bottom of the bank to the northern boundary, was refused partly on grounds of residential amenity. The reason for refusal stated ‘the development constitutes overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to the amenities of the adjacent properties by reason of loss of outlook and general disturbance from increased activity on the site. In addition, residents of the proposed nursing home would have suffered from substandard amenity by virtue of lack at outlook and overshadowing’. The Inspector who dismissed the appeal also stated ‘despite the distance from the houses and screening on the boundary, the proposed building would rise out from the hollow of the site and have an over-dominant and overbearing impact on the occupiers of the houses’.
However, the revised proposal has aimed to address these issues through a comprehensive re design. The scheme is still primarily 2 storey, but is now an extension to the existing care home and not a stand alone building. Where the previous building was one long rectangular block the revised proposal is broken up and has off shoots. Instead of the residents overlooking a large continuous hipped roof parallel to the Northern boundary of the site, the majority of the extension is at right angles to the Northern boundary with a much reduced area of roof facing the dwellings on Helston Crescent. In addition, in-between the two wings is a courtyard with planting as well as additional trees proposed along the boundaries. This will improve the outlook of the residents from the previous proposal and also break up the development so that it does not result in an overbearing and over dominant structure.
Unlike the previous scheme there are very few habitable room windows facing North and East towards the properties on Helston Crescent. Larger elevations and habitable room windows have now been introduced to the West adjacent to the properties on Mylor Court. However, the habitable room windows are located over 10 metres from the boundary with existing private amenity space and the distance between existing and proposed habitable room windows is in excess of 21 metres, in line with SPG 2. Although SPG 2 specifically relates to the design and layout of new housing, the proposal is a form of residential development and the acceptable separation distances outlined in SPG 2 between existing properties and the proposal are a good indicator of acceptable residential amenity and privacy levels. This is in addition to the protection afforded by the difference in levels between the existing homes and the proposal.
It is noted that the car park is to be extended and along the boundary with No. 13 Mylor Court. However, this was not cited as a significant issue by the Council or the Planning Inspector with the previous application. It is also a relatively small carpark extension and should not unreasonably increase noise and disturbance above existing levels. The Planning Inspector stated ‘The dwellings in Mylor Court are bungalows which are well screened from the site by a close boarded fence and hedges’.
In addition to the residential amenity of the existing residents within the area, the Council and Planning Inspector also cited the amenity of future residents of the development as a concern. The Inspector stated ‘the rooms along the northern elevation of the proposed building would receive little sun and would have their natural light reduced by the high level of the ground to the rear. The outlook towards the high bank would be very limited with the effect that the atmosphere within…would be harmfully oppressive’. However, on the revised proposal both the end elevations facing the north embankment are devoid of habitable room windows and the elevation adjacent to the steep eastern bank only contains corridor windows.
9 The majority of the windows are positioned around the open courtyards (providing at least 10 metres separation distance between habitable room windows to provide adequate privacy levels) and the western elevation. In addition, the day room to the south of the courtyard has been kept single storey with a flat roof and low eaves height in order to allow the maximum amount of light and provide adequate amenity levels for residents.
Numerous residents stated noise and disturbance and increased traffic during the construction phase as a concern. However, this can be controlled by a condition to limit deliveries and work involving plant and machinery to sociable hours to help maintain the amenity of residents during the construction of the building.
Visual Amenity - The second reason for refusal on the previous application related to the appearance of the building. In particular the scale and regimented arrangement of windows produced a building that would have been bland and devoid of architectural merit’. However, the revised scheme is no longer a detached, stand alone rectangular block. It is now attached to the existing building and has added architectural interest.
The building is stepped up from the existing single storey building and, adjacent to the car park, is attached by a single storey glazed link moving up to a single storey hipped roof section which in turn is attached to a two storey element. This helps the development to relate to the host property and not be a separate overpowering and unrelated addition, as was the previous scheme. This is in accordance with UDP policies BE6 and H5B.
As the extension is now a series of wings and off shoots it has eradicated the regimented fenestration which was a major failing of the previous scheme. There are also numerous levels, roof pitches and angles which have broken up the large roofs previously evident, improving the outlook of the dwellings on Helston Crescent overlooking the site.
The applicant has also submitted an indicative landscaping scheme which was lacking before. There are internal courtyards with hardsurfacing and also planted areas, as well as improved planting around the perimeter of the site and on the steep banking. This will improve visual amenity for both the existing neighbouring residents and the future occupants of the residential home, not to mention helping the building settle into its surrounding and softening the development.
The impact on the character of the wider area would be very limited due to the topography. In this regard, the extension would not be visible from public vantage points. Whilst on a larger scale, the extension does reference design features in the vicinity, in particular the relatively shallow hipped roofs.
Highway Safety - The proposed car park increases provision from 12 spaces to 21 spaces and introduces a cycle and motor cycle parking. Although Highways DC have some concerns regarding the number of spaces provided, SPD32 ‘Parking, Transport Assessments and Travel Plans’ only provides guidance on maximum number of spaces and not minimum. A turning area has also been provided within the car park to accommodate larger service and emergency vehicles. This represents a significant improvement as the existing car park does not include a turning head, leading to awkward manoeuvres by service vehicles on Cambourne Way.
Highways DC requested a travel plan, however, due to the scale of the work and the parking provided this is not seen as necessary.
Drainage - Yorkshire water and the Councils Drainage Engineer have both been consulted. They consider that the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating the additional foul and surface water. A number of conditions can be imposed in the event that permission is granted.
10 Biodiversity - There are no designated wildlife sites within close proximity to the site and there is no evidence of any protected species. As such, it is not considered that there is any basis to either resist an otherwise acceptable development or require mitigation measures. A landscaping scheme is included to introduce trees and shrubs.
Refuse - A refuse store has been provided on the site in close proximity to the site entrance. This is an appropriate location as it reduces the need for the refuse vehicle to enter the site and reduces health and safety risk to pedestrians and parked vehicles, in accordance with guidance provided by waste management.
Concluding comments
The proposed extension addresses and overcomes the previous reasons for refusal on applications 2007/1598 and 2007/2122 as well the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector regarding the dismissed appeal. Residential amenity will be maintained to a reasonable degree and the extension now relates to the existing building and has added design interest which will maintain visual amenity to a reasonable degree.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The external materials shall match those used in the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
3 The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved (Drawing numbers; 09:05:03,rev. H, 09:05:04, rev. F, 09:05:05, rev. E, 09:05:08, rev. A) unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
4 The parking/manoeuvring facilities, indicated on the submitted plan, shall be surfaced in a solid bound material (i.e. not loose chippings) and made available for the manoeuvring and parking of motor vehicles prior to the development being brought into use, and shall be retained for that sole purpose at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
5 All surface water run-off shall be collected and disposed of within the site and shall not be allowed to discharge onto the public highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety
6 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works. Reason: To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.
11
7 No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development can be properly drained.
8 Construction or remediation work comprising the use of plant, machinery or equipment, or deliveries of materials shall only take place between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1400 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents and in accordance with UDP Policy ES1, Pollution.
9 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscaping works, including details of the species, positions and planted heights of proposed trees and shrubs; together with details of the position and condition of any existing trees and hedgerows to be retained. The approved hard landscaping details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the building(s). Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
10 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which die within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
12
13
2009/1259 Hartwoods Estate Ltd Mixed use development comprising uses within classes A1, A2, A3 and A5. Hangmanstone Depot, Sheffield Road, Birdwell, Barnsley, S70 5TR
Letters of representation have been received both in support and in objection to the proposal. In support, there are 10 letters, a petition of 865 signatures and Councillor Sylvester has also written in support of the application. There are 6 letters of objection, a petition of 202 signatures and Cllr Andrews has also objected.
Site Description
The site forms part of a larger area of land which is allocated as an Employment Policy Area in the Barnsley Unitary Development Plan. The site is located along the frontage of Sheffield Road and borders Rockingham Business Park to the rear which supports a variety of businesses, namely industrial within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8.
Sheffield Road is a main arterial road into Barnsley town centre which links to the M1, at Junction 36 and the Dearne Valley Parkway. There are currently two access points into the site, the main one being directly off Sheffield Road, towards the centre of the site and the other off Rockingham Row, a relatively new road which serves the wider Rockingham Business Park.
The site is largely unused and in a poor condition. It is covered with a concrete/tarmac hard standing, with the exception of a large prominent red brick industrial building and small office unit which are located towards the centre of the site, close to Sheffield Road. The sites frontage onto Sheffield road comprises of a brick boundary wall which supports railings above.
Site History
The site has a longstanding industrial use and the planning history reflects this. The matter of the site’s redevelopment to support, amongst other things retail uses is not new. In 2008 a full planning application was submitted to the Authority for a mixed use development comprising of A1 (Retail), A3 (Restaurant/Café), A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) and B1 (offices) uses. This application was withdrawn prior to the recommendation for refusal being presented to Members of the Planning and Regulatory Board.
Proposed Development
The application comprises of a single storey building sited towards the southern boundary of the site. The building is proposed to be subdivided into 6 independent units accommodating A1, A2, A3 and A5 uses. The resulting mix of uses and floor space for the development would be as follows:
725m² for A1 (Shops) 465m² for A3 (Restaurants and Cafe) 93m² for A5 (Hot Food Takeaways)
14 The development is proposed to be served with 41 parking spaces located along the sites frontage with Sheffield Road, two of these spaces would be designated for disabled persons. The car park is intended for both customer and employee use and would be accessed from Sheffield road. A service yard incorporating a HGV turning facility is proposed to the rear of the buildings, and this will be accessed separately via Rockingham Row. Pedestrian footpath links are shown between the site and Sheffield Road , the main vehicle entrance would achieve a 2.4m x 120m visibility splay. The frontage is proposed to have a landscaped buffer supporting trees and low level shrubs whilst a 1m dry stone wall would be constructed along the highway boundary to screen views of the parking area.
The building design is a single storey terrace, independence is however given to the appearance of the units by variations in their roof height and fenestration. Traditional materials which reference the sites existing building would be utilised including brick, slates, and coursed stone. Parking areas are proposed to be defined from the tarmac entrance by block paved areas.
The site plan identifies that the northern part of the site could be developed to support three office blocks, 38 car parking spaces and associated landscaping. However, these units are only identified for indicative purposes only and there is no commitment in this application to deliver them nor would the Authority be in position to secure them.
The application includes a Commercial Property Assessment, Design & Access Statement, Planning Statement and Retail Assessment.
Policy Context
Barnsley Unitary Development Plan
The site is identified as an employment policy area (Policy HN4) within the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Other Relevant policies include:
ED2 Uses on Employment Sites S1 Shopping/Commercial Centre S2 Shopping and Commercial Centres Cont’d S3 Retail Development Outside Defined Centres S7 Hot Food Takeaways ED4 Economic Development and Residential Amenity ED7 Existing Employment Areas. BE6 Design Standards T2 Development and the Highway Network T2a Development and the Highway Network
Supplementary Planning Guidance
SPG24 Reuse of Employment Policy Areas SPG23 Uses on Employment Sites
National Planning Policy
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPG4 Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms
15 PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Development (Consultation Paper) PPS6: Planning for Town Centres PPG13: Transport
Regional Planning Policy
Regional Spatial Strategy for the Yorkshire and Humber
SY1 – Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should support continued regeneration of principal towns, support their regeneration and strengthen their service centre roles.
YH4 YH5 – Principal towns should be the prime focus for shopping
YH6 – Local service centres should be protected and enhanced.
E3 – Existing allocations should be utilised appropriately, sufficient land and premises should be made available to accommodate growth. Need for additional office, retail and leisure uses should be focused on existing town centres.
Consultations
BDA: Object to the development, Barnsley is currently not meeting RSS targets on allocated employment land to meet the 5yr supply. The proposal represents an inappropriate use of employment land. Coal Authority: No objections. Design: No objections subject to amendments to internal layout, clarification of materials. Design of the scheme is considered to be traditional and safe. Drainage: No objections subject to a condition requiring drainage details to be submitted. Highways DC: No objections in principle. Regulatory Services: No objections subject to conditions SYPTE: No objections to the scheme in a reasonably sustainable location, close to public and private transport links. Yorkshire Water: No comments received
Representations
The application has been advertised by way of a site and press notice and adjacent properties have been consulted in writing.
In support of the application:
A petition of 865 signatures, ten letters and a representation from Councillor Sylvester has been received. It is of note that 55 of the signatures are from addresses which are located well outside Birdwell and its surrounding townships. The reasons for support can be summarised as follows:
The development will be convenient to local residents and provide services not currently available in Birdwell. The existing land and buildings are an eyesore which detracts from the area. The development will provide local jobs.
16 The development will be an asset to elderly residents of Birdwell. A neighbourhood centre is just what Birdwell needs. Sheffield Road is one of the main gateways into Barnsley, the development should be supported as it will create a good impression to anyone visiting the town.
Councillor Sylvester’s gives his full support to the development and comments as follows:
The visual impact on the area could only be beneficial for the local community and commuters that use the link into Barnsley. Birdwell has a very basic selection of retail and can only benefit by more choice. Over the years housing has increased and the community has grown but not shops and retail so people have to travel to the food giants to get a better selection. Tankersley and Pilley, which are just a 5 minute walk away, are cut of from all shops apart from 1 local store due to the M1 mortorway. Only a foot bridge connects them to Birdwell and then nothing is available within a reasonable walking distance for young mothers and the elderly. At the moment in Barnsley jobs are hard to get as businesses are folding on a weekly basis. The proposed retail park will create 60 plus jobs for the people of Barnsley and hopefully local people will benefit the most. Barnsley Council are committed at the moment to get businesses to invest in the town and create jobs. Barnsley Council at the moment should be welcoming all local businesses to invest in the borough.
In objection to the application:
A petition of 202 signatures, 6 letters and a representation from Councillor Andrews has been received.
Birdwell does not need this development. Sheffield Road is already extremely busy, the development will only result in more cars passing through the village. Traffic will conflict with children visiting the Academy and nursery adjacent to the site. The Hot food outlet will attract anti social behaviour and litter. There is already a Co-Operative shop and the convenience store at the Shell garage, takeaways, post office, chemist, newsagents and salons serving residents of Birdwell, additional facilities are not required the proposed development is likely to impact upon the viability of these existing stores.
Councillor Andrews comments as follows:
The application would, if granted, lead to loss of industrial land. Given that insufficient land remains for future employment use within the area, this development would reduce it even more. The traffic that the site would bring in is also unacceptable. The A61 at most times of the day, is busy and cars turning right from both directions to access both this application and also the Theatre would lead to confusion and accidents.
17 Principle
Loss of Employment Land
The application site is a Brownfield industrial site which is allocated as an employment policy area within the adopted UDP. Any development of the site falling outside of the scope of B1, B2 and B8 uses as identified within the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order therefore represents a departure from the development plan. In determining the application the proposal must therefore be considered against Policy ED7 and more detailed criteria set out in SPG23 and SPG24. Policy ED7 specifically states that other employment generating uses may be permitted if they are compatible with adjoining land uses however, it identifies that uses within Class A1 (Shops) and A2 (Financial & Professional Services) will not be permitted in any circumstances as to do so would be contrary to the objective of protecting and enhancing the Borough’s existing and established shopping and commercial centres.
Supplementary Planning Guidance note 24 provides the framework to establish and assess alternative land uses on designated employment sites. Only in exceptional circumstances can this be justified. This can be established against the following 3 criteria:
1) Redevelopment should not result in a significant loss of jobs. 2) The proposal should comply with relevant UDP polices and have an acceptable relationship to surrounding uses. 3) There must be an adequate supply of employment land within the surrounding community area.
It is acknowledged that the site is currently vacant and therefore the proposal would not result in the loss of any jobs. In addition, although the site borders existing employment uses and also residential properties to the south, it is relatively self contained with its own independent access and service arrangements.
However, the current availability of employment land within the borough is also a matter of great concern and land allocated for new employment use now represents less than the 5 year supply required by RSS. The application has been accompanied by a report from Stanhope Property Consultancy which appraises the need for B1 office development within the Borough. It concludes that in the present climate there is insufficient demand for such accommodation either at this location or elsewhere within the borough. This is also supported by the applicants own experience who own and let both industrial and commercial property within the area. The report however, focussed primarily on current market conditions for office developments and cited two speculative developments (Unit 7 Claycliffe Business Park and Acorn House, Mount Osbourne Business Park) which, at the time of writing, had not been let.
There is however, no preference for the site to support office uses above more traditional industrial uses and as such it is not considered that the accompanying report is sufficiently robust to provide a sound evidence base to justify a departure from UDP and RSS policy. It is also of note that one of the examples sited (Acorn House) is currently subject to a planning application for alterations pending occupation. Having regard to the current difficult market conditions, existing employment parks in close proximity to the site, such as Maple Park at Wentworth Park, is currently still well let. In any case, short-term economic difficulties should not outweigh the long-term intentions of National, Regional and local planning polices.
18 Compared to other employment allocated sites, the site is well placed in terms of access by both public and private transportation, via the Strategic Highway Network. With regard to PPG4, the emerging PPS4 and SPG24 the site represents a strategic location given that it fronts onto the A61 and is within close proximity to junction 36 of the M1 motorway. As such it is considered to represent a prime location for employers to site industrial or commercial premises. Such sites can provide a valuable base for local firms and local job opportunities, including members of the community least able to undertake a long commute to work whose transport options may be limited.
The Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) identifies that in economic terms, plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should help deliver economic growth, taking into account potential annual growth of 1,430 jobs in Barnsley above 2006 total job figures. These jobs should be provided on appropriately located previously developed land and current development plan allocations. It is therefore important that there is sufficient availability of land and premises in sustainable locations to meet the needs of a modern economy. The applicants rightly point out that the supermarket and restaurant alone could provide in the region of 45 jobs which comparatively maybe more than what some industrial uses could deliver. The planning authority have no prejudice against this type of employment, retail jobs like those within any other sector make an important contribution towards the Borough’s challenging requirements for a net growth in jobs, as identified with the RSS. However, economic arguments for the site to relinquish potential jobs in B1, B2, B8 in substitution for jobs in retail are questionable. This is considered to be a significant retail development outside of a defined centre, concerns are therefore raised that it may be harmful to sustaining and regenerating established centres and as such the development may only provide jobs which are offset by job losses elsewhere in the District. These grounds are therefore not considered to be sufficient to justify a departure from UDP policy ED7.
Therefore, in terms of compliance with UDP policy, the development raises serious concerns. The proposed uses are also a direct contravention to the advice contained in UDP Policies S1, S3, S7, SPG23, PPS6 and also Policy YH5 of the adopted RSS for the Yorkshire and Humber.
Retail
In addition to establish the principle of the land use the development needs to be assessed against PP6 which contains the Government’s guidance on determining retail development on sites outside of defined centres. The retail policy context contained in PPS6 provides various tests which proposals should satisfy. This guidance is also reflected in Local Plan policies S1, S2 and S3 which in essence require that retail development should only be permitted within established retail centres.
The regeneration of existing shopping centres is an issue highlighted in Policies YH4 & YH5 of the RSS. This states that all new retail and commercial development should be directed towards existing Principal Towns. Hoyland is allocated as a Principal Town in the RSS and, although it has suffered from a lack of investment, it can be regenerated by focusing development towards the centre and reducing competition from surrounding localities in line with RSS Policy YH4, YH5, PPS6 and UDP Policy S2. Any new development outside this Principal Town would run counter to this policy and the aspirations for sustainable regeneration.
In this instance the scale of the development is a serious cause for concern in that the units would not exclusively serve a local need within Birdwell but would appear to form a new neighbourhood centre which would compete with those nearby. Birdwell was categorised as a large village in the 2005 Core Strategy Preferred Options document and is regarded as not having a significant role as a retail or leisure centre.
19 Whilst the emerging LDF carries little weight in the determination of applications, it is not envisaged that a centre is required or will be created within the settlement within the next development plan period. Therefore given that it is considered that the scale of the development is excessive to the needs of Birdwell, the principle for any such development should not be progressed by way of a planning application but instead by representation in the preparation of the forthcoming LDF.
To justify any such development outside of a defined centre PPS6 requires that applicants successfully demonstrate there is a need for the development, that the development is of an appropriate scale, that there are no more central sites for the development, that there is no unacceptable impact on existing centres and that the location is accessible.
This matter was a fundamental concern on the initial planning submission which was not accompanied with an adequate PPS6 assessment. Such an assessment has been undertaken and submitted with this application but it has failed to include a sequential approach which identifies if there are viable sites which are both suitable and available within defined local centres (Hoyland Common, Hoyland, Worsbrough). Another criticism of the assessment is that it only concentrates on the retail aspect of the proposal, when in fact all aspects of the development are town centre uses. As such it is appropriate that consideration is given to the cumulative impact of the uses combined, and their corresponding impact upon established retail centres. In this regard it is not considered the need and scale of the development have been sufficiently justified. In the absence of being able to identify that nearby centres would not be adversely affected the application is considered to be contrary to policy S3.
The consultation paper issued for a revised PPS4 identifies retail development as economic development, it also identifies that full consideration should be given to the economic aspects of a planning proposal, alongside both social and environmental aspects so as to ensure that communities and all sectors of those communities have access to jobs and services as well as an attractive environment. Even though it has not been published in its final form it is nonetheless considered to be a material consideration in this instance. Amongst other things, the draft policy makes several recommendations relating to retail development. In this regard polices EC18, EC19 and EC21 are of specific relevance, as they relate to supporting information required to justify main town centre uses in out of centre locations. The recommendations complement PPS6 by renewing the emphasis placed upon the requirement of the sequential approach (Policy EC19) to site selection. Policy EC21 clearly identifies that where a sufficiently robust sequential test to site selection has not be applied then planning permission should be refused. Therefore, from a retail policy perspective, the development, as proposed, is considered to be contrary to the advice considered within draft PPS4.
To summarise, both PPS6 and the Development Plan strive to direct retail investment towards existing centres. Consequently, the current proposal is not consistent with the strategy of the Development Plan nor the advice presented in current and emerging Government Policy. In the absence of a robust justification to indicate otherwise, the application cannot be supported.
Design / Visual Amenity
At present owing to the lack of occupancy the site contributes little to the street scene. The dilapidated state of the existing building forms somewhat of an eyesore at a relatively strategic site on a main arterial road through Birdwell to Barnsley town centre. Therefore there is no objection to its redevelopment in visual terms.
20 The design of the development had been cited as a reason to refuse the previous planning application. Policy BE6 states that the Council should seek a good standard of design in all new development, and this is reflect in more recent Government Guidance such as PPS1 which states that ‘design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted’.
The accompanying design and access statement include a detailed rational which fully justifies the design evolution process. The resulting development is considered to be of a sufficient quality which is sympathetic to its surroundings in its scale, materials and facade treatment. Some concerns are raised with regard to the applicants commitment to the detail which has been submitted as several references are made within the statement to indicative design’. However, this is a full application and all details are treated accordingly.
The building comprises of an elongated single storey terraced which would have the restaurant and convenience store sited as ‘hubs’ at the ends of the development and four individual units being sited in-between. Independence is given to the appearance of the units by variations in their roof height and fenestration. Traditional materials which reference the sites existing building would be utilised, this would consist of brick, slates, and coursed stone.
Service areas are located to the rear of the development and border Rockingham business park and as such are well screened from surrounding public vistas. Parking is located to the front of the development with bays being expressed with block paving. Especially welcome are the stone wall and trees fronting Sheffield Road which help to screen the parking areas also provide the street scene with a general uplift.
The accompanying plans indicate a generally restrained approach for signage, both on the buildings and on the approach from Sheffield Road, which also helps to give the development a sense of prestige/quality. Overall, there are no objections made with regard to the design and layout and the development is considered to satisfy the requirements of policy BE6 and PPS1.
Highways
Matters relating to highway safety and the impact of the development upon the A61 have been raised within the objections to the development proposal. Sheffield Road is a principal road which links the M1 Motorway with Barnsley town centre, accordingly it handles a significant volume of traffic. Within the representations it is suggested that the addition of the retail development will result in a material increase in vehicle movements along Sheffield Road causing added congestion and inconvenience to existing residents. In addition it is suggested that the increase in vehicles accessing and egressing the site will present safety concerns.
These matters have been fully assessed by Highways DC who have raised no objections to the principle of the development. They identify that Sheffield Road should be widened in order to accommodate a right turn only to help maintain the free flow of traffic along Sheffield Road. These works could be adequately accommodated by widening the carriageway slightly into the site, all other matters could be appropriately addressed by planning conditions. The visibility splays for cars accessing and egressing the site are sufficient to ensure that they can do so in a safe and coherent manner without risk to vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Service areas are separated meaning that there is no conflict between visitors and commercial traffic. It is also considered that the overall traffic generated is comparable to that if the site was developed for B1, B2 or B8 employment purposes. Therefore, from a highway safety perspective, the proposal is considered to adhere to the provisions of polices T2 and T2a.
21 Furthermore, the site occupies a favourable location with regard to public transport provision with 4 bus routes passing the site providing connections to the Town Centre, Hoyland, Wombwell, Elsecar, Ecclesfield, Chapeltown and Sheffield city centre. It could therefore be presumed that a reasonable level of customers or employees visiting the site would do so by sustainable means.
Conclusion
The principle of the scheme is considered to be unacceptable as it conflicts with local, regional and national planning policies. It is not considered that material considerations exist to support a departure from the development plan and insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the development in terms of its impact upon other local centres. The development would result in the loss of employment land which would further burden the Authority’s ability to meet RSS targets on economic and job growth. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements in PPS 1, PPS 6, policy YH4, YH5 in the RSS, Unitary Development Plan policies ED7, S1, S2, S3, S7, and Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes 23 & 24.
Recommendation
Refuse
1 The site is allocated as an Employment Policy Area in the approved Barnsley UDP, policy ED7 permits development of such sites for uses falling within use classes B1, B2 and B8. The redevelopment of such sites for retail purposes is specifically identified as being inappropriate on such sites therefore the proposal is a direct contravention of this policy. Furthermore because it is considered that the development represents a significant retail development outside of a defined centre, concerns are raised that the development may only provide jobs which are offset by job losses elsewhere in the District. As such it is considered to be contrary to the objectives of UDP polices ED7, S1, S2 and S3 and RSS policies YH4,YH5 and E3.
2 The proposed development of the site for retail purposes would be contrary to Barnsley Unitary Development Plan Policies ED7, S1, S2, S3, S7 Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes 23 & 24, RSS Policies YH4 & YH5 and the advice contained in PPS6 in that:
a) The applicant has failed to provide a sufficiently robust evidence base, in line with the advice contained in PPS6, to justify the need and scale of the development. The scale amounts to a new local centre and it s not considered that Birdwell needs such a development either now or across the next development plan period.
b) It has also not been adequately demonstrated that the development would not have an adverse impact upon the viability of nearby local centres at Hoyland Common, and Hoyland. c) It is considered that the development is contrary to Regional Spatial Strategy Planning policies YH4 & YH5 which attempts to locate new development and investment within existing Local and Principal Shopping and Commercial Centre's, which in this instance are Hoyland Common and Hoyland.
22 23
2009/0994 Goldthorpe Corn Millers Ltd Erection of grain storage extension to existing building Lee Lane Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S36 9NN
3 objections received This application is put to the Board at the request of Members and was deferred from the November Board for a site visit
Description
Goldthorpe Corn Mill is situated to the east of the rural village of Millhouse Green and within the Green Belt. Goldthorpe Mill has been operating from this site since 1981 at this time the main mill building was erected with a further extension being built in 1989. The site is surrounded on three sides by open countryside and has residential properties to the east. The site is well screened with a number of trees along the boundaries which screen the buildings effectively from surrounding vantage points.
The site currently consists of the main mill building and the smaller extensions attached to the side. To the east of the site are two dilapidated buildings, one of which is currently used for storage, and the other, which is attached to Myrefield House annex. This area of the site is currently overgrown and has a mixture of hardstanding, grass and shrubs.
The closest property is the annex used in connection with Myrefield House. This property was originally a barn and gained approval for conversion into a annex flat in 1997, with a condition that it was to be ancillary to Myrefield House and not to be used as a separate dwelling. This annex flat has one secondary window in the side elevation to a nursery, with the main window being in the rear elevation. The building also has two velux roof lights on this side.
Proposed Development
The proposal consists of the erection of an extension to the existing mill to provide a grain storage area. The application has been amended during the course of the application. The original plans showed the proposal as a separate building 27.5m width by 30m length, 8.7m in height, and within 3.5m of the boundary with the adjacent residential property. The amended plans show it as an extension attached to the existing building being of the same height, however now approximately 10.5m away from the boundary. The building is to be constructed of plasticol brown profile sheeting to match the existing buildings on site with two large rollershutter doors.
In terms of the operations of the building, the applicant has provided the following details:- The current hours of business are 8.00 - 5.30 Monday to Saturday - Closed on Sundays
The hours of operation will not change with the construction of the grain store
The mill provides products to local business farmers /and stock farms. The mill is surrounded by customers of around a 25 mile radius.
It is not possible to estimate the current number of movements into the entire mill, as trade dictates how busy or quiet the companies own fleet of lorries are, but lorries delivering into the proposed new site will be minimal, approx 15 per week.
Most of the deliveries into the new site will be made by using outside contractors
Compound Fertiliser is always stored in double skinned bulk tote bags
24 Fertiliser will not be stored in the new site at all. This is due to the original requirement that it may not be stored alongside feed materials.
All materials will and always have been tipped inside both the current and proposed storage sheds. The proposed height of the new grain store is to accommodate articulated vehicles to enable them enough clearance to discharge goods inside the store.
The floor width is determined by the natural angle of the repose of loose grain and there is a need for the storage to be substantial enough to have space for a large tonnage of grain at certain times of the year, particularly at harvest time.
It is not viable to separate the manufacturing and storage. The cost of storage off site both in monetary values and cost to the environment would be significant. The whole point of on site storage is to keep the cost to the environment to a minimum by not transporting the goods more than once before using for the end product. The business would have lots more costs as two sites require more staff wages.
It is not possible to relocate for cost implications and because our customer base is in the local area. This would have a significant cost to the environment. The applicant has provided a statement of justification which states the economic factors, reasons for the need for the building and the very special circumstances involved. In summary:-
The firm employs 12 people and serves the local agricultural industry providing feedstuffs and fertilizers Proposal will allow the retention and expansion of this local employer Fertilizers and feed must be stored separately, the new extension will provide a designated space for storing grain Market ebbs and flows will enable company to buy and store grain when it is financially viable If the firm cannot extend they will have to stop selling fertilizer which is approximately 25% of turnover – possible loss of jobs New store could lead to larger turnover and additional employment
The applicant has provided a statement of very special circumstances, which are as follows:-
‘In this case the very special circumstances are primarily the need to preserve local jobs by allowing the business to modernise, as required by developing legislation. The existing business is located here and it would be unreasonable to expect it now to re-locate to a site outside the Green Belt given the significant financial investment in buildings and equipment that has already been made. In addition, the development can be carried out within the existing curtilage, on a brownfield site, and will result in the removal of two unsightly buildings.’
Policy Context
Unitary Development Plan – Green Belt
National Planning Policy Guidance in PPG 2 ‘Green Belts’ - sets out the types of development that may be acceptable within Green Belt locations. These include agricultural buildings and buildings such as small stables which are appropriate within rural areas. Other development is inappropriate and carries a general presumption against unless it can be justified by very special circumstances.
Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Sustainable Development within Rural Areas’ makes clear;- The Government’s objectives for rural areas that are relevant to this Planning Policy Statement (PPS) are:
25 To raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas with sustainable economic growth and diversification.
To promote more sustainable patterns of development, discouraging the development of ‘greenfield’ land, and, where such land must be used, ensuring it is not used wastefully.
Promoting the development of the English regions by improving their economic performance so that all are able to reach their full potential by developing competitive, diverse and thriving rural enterprise that provides a range of jobs and underpins strong economies.
To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors where farming achieves high environmental standards, minimising impact on natural resources, and manages valued landscapes and biodiversity; contributes both directly and indirectly to rural economic diversity; is itself competitive and profitable; and provides high quality products that the public wants.
The policies contained within the UDP reflect national guidance.
Policy GS7 - precludes all development within the Green Belt, unless it maintains the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
Policy GS8 - indicates that unless the buildings are for a use that is appropriate to a rural area the construction of new buildings will not be permitted ‘except in very special circumstances’. It is for the applicant to demonstrate what very special circumstances apply.
Policy GS8A – Allows for the extension of buildings within the Green Belt subject to assessment of its impact on the openness and the character of the Green Belt.
Policy GS9 - indicates that development within the Green Belt should not by reason of siting, materials or design result in visual harm to the Green Belt.
Policy ED10 – the expansion of existing firms will normally be permitted subject to satisfactory standards of design, the amenity of neighbouring uses, and adequate car parking, loading and vehicle manoeuvring facilities.
Policy BE6 - the council will seek to achieve good design standards for all types of development. Proposals for development will be assessed using the following design criteria: a) The quality of layout, and suitability of scale of the development b) The use, quality, design and landscape treatment of open land within the site and the area around buildings c) The standard of detailed design and facing materials of proposed buildings d) The suitability of the whole development for its proposed context and its relationship with adjoining land uses. Designs which the council considers unsatisfactory in terms of any of these criteria will be rejected.
ES1 - the council will refuse proposals for development which are likely to result in harm to the environment through excessive levels of pollution arising either within the site to be developed or occasioned elsewhere by the proposed development. The council will in particular resist development which is likely to result in housing, schools, hospitals or other sensitive land uses being subjected to excessive levels of air, noise or other pollution. Where development is permitted the council will seek to ensure that resulting pollution is avoided or minimised.
26 Consultations
Environment Agency – No comments
Penistone Town Council – No objections
Yorkshire Water Services Limited – No objections subject to condition
Highways DC – No objection subject to conditions
Drainage, FAO Steve Kilner – No objection subject to condition
Regulatory Services - No objection subject to conditions
Barnsley Development Agency - From a business perspective it appears unreasonable to expect the Company to write off the investment in existing, relatively modern plant and accommodation and to move to another site, all to achieve a relatively small extension within the confines of a relatively large existing site and at least partially on the footprint of existing buildings.
The existing facilities are very much a bespoke development for their purposes and are presumably well located to receive grain and provide supplies to an agricultural market. They appear to have a good prima facia reason for a location in a rural/ agricultural area.
Should they vacate, it is possible that there would not be a large market for the existing buildings and plant. Any alternative users are likely to be akin to B2 or perhaps transport related users. It is not unreasonable to imagine that this could then result in a long vacancy /partial vacancy/possible dereliction which would cause more negative effects than those supposed in connection with the current proposals.
If the company does not have the new accommodation it appears they will be unable to meet necessary DeFRA standards. If, as it appears, a move is unviable as a financial proposition, then there may be a prospect of losing the company and its current employment/future employment potential.
If the operations were to move, the nearest prospects would be Capitol Park, some 9 miles away or Wentworth Park some 14 miles away. In both cases there are some doubts that the nature of the use and likely costs would fit well with respective aspirations of the business park owners or the applicant company.
Nearer at hand Century Works on the A 628 has accommodation available in existing buildings, but it appears to me that accommodation on offer is neither large enough nor of suitable spec for such a user.
Allocated employment land in Penistone town is not currently available and is too inaccessible for the sort of transport associated with such a company.
Representations
3 objections received from neighbouring properties including a statement of objection:-
Amended drawings show the distance between proposed building and Myrefield House has been increased slightly – however this would have no material impact Noise nuisance from vehicles loading/unloading Long hours of operation
27 Overbearing/overshadowing impact Pollution and risk to health from dust and fertilizers Vermin/pests Fire risk Application does not meet validation requirements Proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt – no allowance in Green Belt policy for the extension of existing buildings Harmful to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt – no special circumstances Contrary to national and local policy Impact on protected species Site is unsustainable Trees would be lost as part of the application Impact upon highway safety
Assessment
Material Consideration
Principle of development Residential Amenity Dust and Noise Visual Amenity Landscaping Drainage Highway Safety
Principle of development - The construction of a commercial/industrial building within the Green Belt is inappropriate development within the Green Belt and as such any harm would need to be outweighed by very special circumstances. The applicant has indicated that the very special circumstances are primarily the need to preserve local jobs by allowing the business to modernise, as required by developing legislation. The existing business is located here and it would be unreasonable to expect it now to re-locate to a site outside the Green Belt given the significant financial investment in buildings and equipment that has already been made. In addition, the development can be carried out within the existing curtilage, on a brownfield site, and will result in the removal of two unsightly buildings.
Policy ED10 does state that consideration should be given for relocation of a business. However, as can be seen from the comments of Barnsley Development Agency, the prospect of gaining another site in the near locality would be very difficult with employment land in Penistone, Thurlstone and Millhouse Green not being available. Opportunities further away may be possible but this would not be guaranteed and would involve moving the business away from the local customers it serves. The company could split its operations into two different sites but again this would raise problems on finding a site and would also have an impact on sustainability and the environment with increase traffic movements between the two sites. Furthermore, Policy ED10 only states that relocation should be considered where it is not possible to accommodate the desired extension on the site. It is considered that the site can adequately accommodate the proposed development and its impacts are considered in greater detail in the rest of this report.
28 Whilst the business is not an agricultural use as it is not connected with a farm holding, it is an established use in this location, serving the rural economy. The applicant has stated that it if the building cannot be provided that the company will be obliged to stop selling fertilizer, which makes up about 25% of the overall turnover. This would add an extra pressure on the company to retain current employment levels. The use has been in operation in the Green Belt for many years and the current operation serve surrounding agricultural businesses, and is ideally located for this. It is unlikely that a relocation of the business will be possible due to the lack of suitable sites and the financial constraints and as the existing site is unlikely to be suitable for re-use, this may lead to dereliction and harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt. Therefore it is considered that the expansion of this business on its existing site is the only viable option for Goldthorpes.
As there are no allowances in Green Belt policy for the expansion of existing businesses, this development must be justified by very special circumstances. On balance, the retention and expansion of this long established company serving agricultural operations and the minimal impact upon the character and openness of the Green Belt warrants a relaxation of Green Belt policy in this instance.
Residential Amenity - As the building is to be situated close to the dwellings to the east the impact upon the residential amenity must be carefully assessed to ensure the residential amenity of these properties is not compromised. The main issues are whether the proposed extension will cause any significant impact by way of overshadowing and overbearing impact, or by way of dust and noise disturbance.
Overshadowing and Overbearing Impact
The proposal is situated approximately 10.5m away from the boundary with the annex used in connection with Myrefield House. The extension will be at a level approximately 0.9m higher than the ground level of Myrefield House to tie in with the existing building. However within 3m of the side of the extension, the land will be graded down to the same level as the neighbouring dwelling. In addition it is proposed that there will be belt of trees planted along this boundary to soften the impact.
The annex is situated along the boundary and has its main habitable room windows facing east with two windows facing the north. The annex at the first floor has one secondary window serving a nursery, with the main window facing the north and two velux rooflights to the west elevation, facing the proposed extension. It is accepted that there will be an impact upon the secondary window in this side elevation, however this is a secondary window and it not afforded the same protection as if it was a main habitable room window. As there are no principle habitable room windows in this side elevation and as the main windows are located on the east elevation, there will be minimal impact. Myrefield House itself is situated 12m away from the boundary and set further forward on the site with outlook across the adjacent site frontage, resulting in a 22m separation distance between the proposed extension and the main front habitable room windows in this elevation which faces the site. This is considered to be adequate. The main garden area is situated to the north and is unlikely to be overshadowed by the building.
Dust and Noise
In terms of noise there are no objections subject to the imposition of conditions relating to hours of opening, number of vehicle manoeuvres and the introduction of noise vehicle reversing alarms. On the original permission for the corn mill building, in 1982, the hours of operation were controlled and it is considered that a similar condition should again be imposed to ensure operations are only carries out in daytime hours and not at all in Sundays or bank holidays. With regards to the condition on alarms Regulatory Services have acknowledged that they have received no complaints on noise from the site and as such this is unnecessary. In terms of vehicle manoeuvres the applicant has indicated that this would involve an additional 15 vehicles per week which
29 equates to less than 3 vehicles per day. This is not considered to be excessive and given that it would be limited to daytime hours, and the site has been in operation as a commercial operation for a number of years, conditioning this is not considered reasonable or necessary.
Whilst this extension brings the use closer to the residential properties to the east, the building is to be used for storage only and the existing operation hours are to be followed. It is also unlikely that there will be any excessive dust as the tipper lorries will discharge the feed inside the building, in order to ensure minimal dust, but also to protect the product from inclement weather. It is considered that the proposals are unlikely to cause any significant additional impact upon residential amenity by way of dust and noise disturbance.
Visual Amenity – An Important issue is whether the proposal will harm the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and if the resultant development would have a harmful effect on its character and appearance. The site is well screened by trees along the frontage and is not prominent from main public vantage points. The proposed extension allows for the removal of the dilapidated buildings and unkempt land to the east. Whilst the extension is large, it is not out of character with the remainder of the buildings on site and follows the original ridge line. The extension is to be constructed of matching materials and is of a similar construction and colour to agricultural buildings within the Green Belt. To the north the extension will be more visible but it will be seen as part of the existing structure and not as a stand alone building and therefore, in my opinion, will not appear as a prominent feature on the site.
As the site is well screened and the extension is to be constructed of matching design and materials, it is therefore considered that there will not be any significant impact upon the openness of the Green Belt, in accord with Policy GS9.
Landscaping - There will be no loss of trees to the frontage and it is proposed that there will be additional planting to the side boundaries to help mitigate the effect of the building from the adjacent residential dwelling.
Drainage - The site is not in a Flood Risk Area and the Environment Agency have raised no objections. In addition the Council’s Drainage Officer and Yorkshire Water have also raised no objection subject to conditions requesting details of drainage including details of surface water drainage. It is also requested details of the private drain owner and calculations to prove the adequacy of the existing private drain connection before work commences on site.
Highway Safety - The highways section have no objections to the proposal bearing in mind the current use of the site, and that the accesses will remain the same. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety as there is sufficient room for the parking and maneuvering of vehicles safely and the existing accesses are considered suitable.
Conclusion
The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. However, it is considered that the very special circumstances put forward by the applicant outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness.
Additionally, the proposal represents an approximate 40% increase to an existing large building in the Green Belt. However, the height and floor area of the extension are the minimum size for the requirements of the commercial operation of the premises. In my opinion, the proposal is well screened from the highway, matches the existing building in terms of height and materials and would result in the removal of two existing dilapidated buildings on the site. I do not, therefore, consider the proposal would have a significant effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
30 The input on the proposal on the occupiers of Myrefield House and Annex is also an important consideration. However, on balance due to the distance, orientation of main windows and position of the dwelling, it is not considered there will be any significant impact on residential amenity.
I do not consider the proposal requires referral to the Secretary of State under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 and is, therefore, recommended that permission be granted.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The external materials shall match those used in the existing building. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
3 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the amended plans and specifications received on 16 September 2009, unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any minor variation. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as amendments have been submitted during the course of processing the application and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
4 Construction or remediation work comprising the use of plant, machinery or equipment, or deliveries of materials shall only take place between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1400 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents and in accordance with UDP Policy ES1, Pollution.
5 No piped discharge of surface water from the application site shall take place until works to provide a satisfactory outfall for surface water have been completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before development commences. Reason: To ensure the site is properly drained and surface water is not discharged to the foul sewerage system which will prevent overloading.
6 No development shall commence until details of the private drain owner and calculations to prove the adequacy of the existing private drain connection have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the area.
7 Deliveries to and operations within the grain store shall only take place between the hours of 0800 & 1730 Monday to Saturday and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents and in accordance with UDP Policy ES1, Pollution.
31 32
2008/0838 Evelop UK Ltd Erection of a five-turbine wind farm with a height of 125m to blade tip and associated infrastructure including transformers, access tracks, temporary construction compound and new access from Cranberry Road and Mossley Road. Land adjacent to Sheephouse Farm, Mortimer Road, Penistone, Sheffield, S36 9FJ.
1075 letters of objection. 1037 letters of support. A representation of objection has been received containing 275 signatures from the western edge of Stocksbridge. Objection from the Protect Sheephouse Group.
Objection from Sheffield City Council Objection from Peak District National Park Objection from Councillor Robert Barnard, Councillor John Wilson, Councillor Andrew Millner and Councillor Steve Webber Objection from Angela Smith MP Objection from Michael Clapham MP Support from Councillor Jillian Creasy (Sheffield City Council)
History
2008/1667 - Application to allow the 70m high wind monitoring mast permitted under planning permission 2008/0784 to remain for a further period of 12 months – The mast is due to be removed by 16th December 2009.
Background
The proposal was assessed under the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 1999 (as amended) and it was concluded that an EIA was required for the following reasons: - it exceeds criteria under Schedule 2 paragraph 3 (i) in that it is more than 2 turbines and hub heights exceed 15m. It was considered that the proposal had potentially significant environmental effects. The application has therefore been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES).
Site Location and Description
The linear 54.5 hectare site is located in open countryside and lies on a south facing valley slope, along the north side of the Porter Valley. The settlement of Penistone lies approximately 1.1km to the north, Stocksbridge 1.1km to the south east and the Peak District National Park within 2.5km to the south. The urban conurbations of Barnsley and Sheffield lie 10km to the north east and 16km to the south east respectively.
The site is within a predominantly pasture landscape, characterised by dry stone walls and quiet country lanes, set within the Southern Pennine fringe. The site itself is set slightly below a ridge and the proposed wind farm runs generally east to west along agricultural fields. The site hosts extensive southerly views into Stocksbridge, Midhopestones, Langsett and further afield, the Peak District National Park. Above the site and to the north runs Cranberry Road from which access is taken. A Public Right Of Way runs through the site (from north to south) and Mortimer Road runs through the western portion of the site. Further to the north the land falls away on a gentler gradient, hosting views towards the settlements of Oxspring (1.8km) and Penistone.
33 On the opposite facing hillside and within the Sheffield City Council area lies the gritstone settlement and Conservation Area of Midhopestones (1.1km) and the western edge of Stocksbridge. The River Porter sits in the valley bottom meandering from the western moorlands and outer perimeters of rural Barnsley, into north Sheffield. Owing to the steep valley sides when viewed from the south, the area promotes an enclosed landscape, enhanced by the delicate nature of the south facing hillside which is a rich tapestry of farmsteads, quiet steep country lanes and a scattering of copse woodland. However, the same hillside is also traversed by electricity pylons which to some extent break up its dominant rural nature. A major trunk road (A616) also runs through the valley bottom and acts as a major transport corridor linking Sheffield and Manchester.
Further to the south, on the opposite slope to the site and at higher level, the landscape changes and breaks out into heath land and open moors typifying the edge of the Peak District National Park. The village of Langsett lies to the south west along the valley (2.9km) and the main settlement of Stocksbridge is located further down the valley to the east. Along the same ridge as the site to the east lies the village of Green Moor, at a distance of approximately 2.5km.
The turbines are proposed in a generally linear formation running along the valley side (east to west). Turbine 1 would be located on the north west of the site, whilst turbine 5 would be located on the eastern edge, with turbines 2, 3, and 4 sitting in between. The turbines would be separated by a distance of approximately 270m, apart from turbine 1 which is proposed approximately 500m from turbine 2, divided by Mortimer Road and located on a slightly higher level.
There are 42 residential properties within 1km of the site, a few lying down slope of the site to the south, but most are to the north. A number of dwellings are strung out intermittently on the top of the ridge following the rural roads which perimeter the site. A total of 18 buildings within 1km are Listed. Within 5km of the site lie 11 Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
Proposed Development
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 5 wind turbines each with a maximum height to blade tip of 125m. Each turbine proposed would comprise an 80m tapered tubular tower and 3 blades with a diameter of 90m (each blade being 45m in length). The finish and colour is proposed to be a minimum reflective, semi-matt mid grey/off white coating which is familiarly associated with wind farms. The applicant has stated that the turbines would consist of 2.5MW Nordex N90 turbines, which would result in a wind farm with an approximate capacity of 12.5MW.
The proposal comprises ancillary infrastructure including both temporary and permanent access tracks which would extend over a combined distance of approximately 2km. Two new permanent accesses are proposed off Mossley Road and Cranberry Road with a temporary access for the delivery of turbine parts further to the west along Mossley Road. Areas are included for hard- standing for construction purposes, a temporary site compound with associated parking, underground cabling and a number of new culverts.
It is estimated that approximately 46,000 tonnes of material (which would include crushed rock or stone and concrete) would be required to facilitate the works. The turbines would be located on concrete foundations measuring approximately 17m by 17m and each base would include reinforced steel. Topsoils and subsoils (previously stripped and stored) would then be placed over each base. Crane pads are proposed adjacent to each of the concrete bases (20m by 40m) and, following construction of the turbines, it is proposed to dress them in topsoils and subsoils.
34 Access tracks would be created by excavating soils and storing on site. Compacted stone would be imported to create the tracks and drainage ditches would be excavated alongside. All temporary access tracks and areas would be reinstated following the construction phase of the development. The remaining access tracks would be partially dressed in soils in order to reduce their width. A temporary compound to store fuels, materials, equipment and parking for up to 15 vehicles is proposed adjacent to the site entrance on Mossley Road. This would be reinstated following the cessation of construction activities.
The construction phase is proposed to place up to 12 months and approximately 9000 vehicular movements including cars, vans and HGV’s are anticipated during this period. The applicant proposes delivering the turbine blades from junction 37 of the M1, along the A629, Roughbirchworth Lane, Back Lane and onto Cranberry Road. The components and other deliveries are proposed to travel from junction 36 of the M1.
An element of micrositing is included in the proposal (in respect of the precise location of the turbines and infrastructure). However, it is anticipated that this would not exceed 15m in any direction and would, in any event, require final written approval by the Council.
The wind farm is proposed to be connected to a substation located approximately 600m to the east, where the generated electricity would be exported and metered to the grid.
The applicant proposes that the wind farm has an operational life of 25 years. On this basis, it is considered that a temporary permission is being applied for, after which all equipment and infrastructure would be removed, and the site restored to a condition suitable for agriculture within 6 months. Based on an output of 12.5MW, it is anticipated that the wind farm could provide electricity for approximately 9000 homes across the National Grid.
In addition to the details outlined, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement (ES) and a number of additional documents which were submitted during the course of the application. The topics outlined are covered in more detail in this report.
The application site is located in the Green Belt and PPS22 states “when located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development, which may impact on the openness of the green belt. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given to the visual impact of projects, and developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources”.
The applicant considers that the very special circumstances associated with the scheme include the following:
- A reduction of 24,800 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide emissions associated with the generation of electricity and; - A significant contribution towards the RSS renewable energy installed capacity for the Barnsley District, South Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humber as a whole for 2021; - Habitat enhancement; - Diversification for local farmers.
The applicant has volunteered a community benefit fund of approximately £80,000 - £100,000 per annum. This would be paid during the lifetime of the project once the turbines became operational. However, this figure would be dependant upon a number of variables including the electricity price at the time. The voluntary community fund is separate to the planning application and is, therefore, not a material planning consideration.
35 Policy Context
National Policy Background
Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy (2007) – confirms the requirement for 10% of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2010 and 20% by 2020. In particular, highlights a Statement of Need for renewables which outlines, inter alia:
New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. Individual renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through reduced emissions and more diverse supplies of energy, which helps the reliability of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when considering renewable proposals. These wider benefits are not always immediately visible to the specific locality in which the project is sited. However, the benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole are significant and this must be reflected in the weight given to these considerations by decision makers in reaching their decisions.
Planning for a Sustainable Future White Paper (2007) – provides further support for renewable energy schemes.
“Delivering infrastructure (renewable energy) will involve challenges. The benefits of infrastructure are often widely dispersed and enjoyed by society as a whole, while the impacts of these projects tend to be concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the installation. So, while we all reap the rewards of new and improved infrastructure, the impacts tend to fall disproportionately on a few of us”
It also goes on to say:
“Although often relatively small projects, windfarm schemes have a vital role to play in increasing energy from renewable sources and helping us to meet our carbon emission reduction targets”.
Climate Change Act (2008) – the UK has passed legislation which introduces the world’s first long term legally binding framework to tackle the dangers of climate change. The targets are as follows:
- Reductions in CO2 emissions of at least 26% by 2020, against a 1990 baseline. - Greenhouse gas emission reductions through action in the UK and abroad of at least 80% by 2050.
Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage 2008) - while change within the setting of historic sites may often be acceptable in certain instances development will be considered inappropriate. Among particular factors which should be borne in mind when assessing the acceptability of developments within the setting of historic sites is visual dominance, scale, intervisibility, vistas and sight lines, movement effects and to what extent a setting has already been altered. It also notes that one important feature of wind energy developments is their general reversibility.
UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) – identifies that Renewable energy is key to a low-carbon energy future. As part of this move to a low-carbon economy, it advises we need a step change in renewable energy use in heat, electricity and transport.
36 National Planning Policies
Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) – aims, amongst other matters, to effectively protect the environment, promote the prudent use of natural resources, protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and address the causes and potential impacts of climate change.
Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (Planning and Climate Change) – states that the evidence that climate change is happening, and that man-made emissions are its main cause, is strong and indisputable. The Government believes that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the world today. In particular, planning authorities should, amongst other matters, not require applicants to demonstrate overall need for renewable energy or its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal should be sited in a particular location.
Planning Policy Guidance 2 (Green Belts) – the primary purpose of Green Belts is to preserve their openness and help protect the countryside from urban sprawl and development. There is a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and any such development should not be approved unless accompanied by very special circumstances which outweigh conflict with the policy by reason of harm.
Planning Policy Statement 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) – seeks to protect open countryside giving the highest level of protection to the most valued landscapes. Local Authorities should, amongst other matters, support development that delivers diverse and sustainable farming enterprises; take account of the need to protect natural resources; provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS22 and conserve specific features and sites of landscape, wildlife and historic or architectural value.
Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) – the objectives for planning through this policy are to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. Also places emphasis on restoring and where possible enhancing biodiversity.
Planning Policy Guidance 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) - advises that local authorities should expect developers to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special interest of the site or structure in question, and to provide such written information or drawings as may be required to understand the significance of a site or structure before an application is determined.
In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, local authorities are required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Paragraph 4.14 advises with regard to Conservation Areas:
Section 72 of the Act requires that special attention shall be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. This requirement extends to all powers under the Planning Acts, not only those which relate directly to historic buildings. The desirability of preserving or enhancing the area should also, in the Secretary of State's view, be a material consideration in the planning authority's handling of development proposals which are outside the conservation area but would affect its setting, or views into or out of the area.
37 Planning Policy Guidance 16 (Archaeology and Planning) - states that developers should enter into preliminary discussions with the Local Planning Authority to establish the likelihood of archaeological remains, and that they may wish to carry out their own investigations. This would include a desk top survey, previous discoveries, maps, county archives, and geophysical surveys.
Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy) – PPS22 is accompanied by a companion guide which provides specific guidance on wind energy. In particular the main document reaffirms the role which renewable energy developments can play in adhering to the key principles of Sustainable Development.
There are a number of key principles which planners should consider. These include:
- Regional and local policies should promote and encourage, rather than restrict the development of renewable energy resources; - The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining planning applications; - Planning bodies should not make assumptions about the technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects;
The fact that a regional target for renewable energy generation has been reached should not be used in itself to refuse planning permission.
The document states that when located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development, which may impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given to the visual impact of projects, and developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.
PPS22 states that local landscape and local nature conservation designations should not in themselves be used to refuse planning permission.
PPS22 recognises that of all renewable technologies, wind farms are likely to have the greatest visual landscape effects. However, Local Authorities should recognise that the impact of turbines will vary according to the size and number and type of landscape involved, and these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached which require their future decommissioning.
PPS22 advises on landscape considerations and states:
The landscape and visual effects of particular renewable energy developments will vary on a case by case basis according to the type of development, its location and the landscape setting of the proposed development. Some of these effects may be minimised through appropriate siting, design and landscaping schemes, depending on the size and type of development proposed. Proposed developments should be assessed using objective descriptive material and analysis wherever possible even though the final decision on the visual and landscape effects will be, to some extent, one made by professional judgment.
Planning Authorities should take into account the cumulative impact of wind energy generation in particular areas but not set arbitrary limits in local development documents on the numbers of turbines that will be acceptable in a particular location.
38 Planning Policy Guidance 24 (Planning and Noise) - outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise.
Regional Policy Background
Regional Spatial Strategy (2008) – the Regional Spatial Strategy for the Yorkshire and Humber Region aims to guide development in the region up to 2026. It forms part of the Development Plan and is therefore a material consideration.
Policy YH2: Climate Change and Resource Use – states that plans, strategies and investment decisions should help meet the targets to reduce greenhouse gas emission in the region by 20- 25% by 2016.
Policy ENV5: Energy – reduce greenhouse gases, improve energy efficiency and maximise efficient use of power sources. Renewable energy capacity should be maximised by delivering regional and sub regional targets as follows:
South Yorkshire 47 MW (2010) and 160MW (2021) Barnsley 14 MW (2010) and 34MW (2021)
These indicative Local Authority targets should, where possible, be exceeded.
ENV8: Biodiversity - the Region will safeguard and enhance biodiversity and geological heritage, and ensure that the natural environment functions as an integrated network of habitats.
ENV10: Landscape - the aim is to recognise and build on the distinctive landscape character of the Region, and help parts of the countryside remain an important natural resource and safeguarding and enhancing landscapes that contribute to the distinctive character of Yorkshire and the Humber.
The National Parks Act provides statutory protection for National Parks, and management plans exist for both these and the AONBs. PPS1 provides for higher quality building design and materials in line with local distinctiveness, and PPS7 states that Local Development Documents should provide sufficient protection for landscape areas, using tools like landscape character assessment. Development in areas adjacent to the National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty must not prejudice the qualities of the designated area.
SY1 (C8) - Protect and enhance the biodiversity and landscape character of the Southern Pennine Fringe, Humberhead Levels, Southern Magnesian Limestone and Coalfield landscape character areas, and the integrity of internationally important biodiversity sites.
SY1 (E5) - Manage development in rural areas, particularly in the western area adjoining the Peak District National Park and in the Pennine fringe, to reflect environmental quality, meet local housing needs and encourage small scale commercial activity to diversify local economies.
Local Policy Context
The site is allocated as Green Belt and South Yorkshire Forest in the Barnsley Unitary Development Plan.
The following saved policies apply:
Policy ES5 – the culverting of watercourses will not be permitted unless there are overriding public safety consideration or development could not be achieved in any other way.
39
Policy GS7 – development within the Green Belt will not be permitted unless it maintains the openness of, and does not conflict with the purposes of including land in, the Green Belt.
Policy GS9 – development in the Green Belt should not result in significant harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
Policy GS12 – the best and most versatile agricultural land is a national resource and such land should be protected from development.
Policy GS15 – the Council will seek to safeguard important habitats and species from any activities which would cause disturbance, pollution or other damage.
Policy GS18 – development which may adversely affect nature conservation sites, such development will not be approved unless the case for development outweighs the case for safeguarding the conservation interest.
Policy GS22 – the Council seeks to promote and enhance tree, woodland and hedgerow coverage throughout the Borough.
Policy GS24 – any development within the Forest Area must accord with policies in this Plan and developers will be encouraged to make a positive contribution to the forest.
Policy BE2 – development which would adversely affect the special architectural or historic character of listed buildings will not be permitted.
Policy BE3 – there is a presumption in favour of preserving archaeological remains.
Policy BE6 – the Council will seek to achieve good design standards for all types of development.
Policy ES12 – outlines the factors which will be considered in respect of proposals for wind energy generation and that the Council will expect a detailed statement which has regard to the various issues.
Policies ES12A, ES12B, ES12C – these policies relate to the design of the turbines, removal following cessation of use, site restoration and their safeguarding in respect of controlling development so as to protect them from a reduction in local wind speeds.
The UDP also states that ‘In the light of experience it seems unlikely that large scale wind turbines would be acceptable within 450 metres of the nearest dwelling’ but ‘this cannot be considered absolute and each case will have to be assessed separately’.
Policy T2 – development will only be allowed if the additional demand for travel generated can be accommodated on the highway network without significant detriment to the environment or the safety and ease of movement of vehicles and pedestrians using the network.
Countryside Commission’s Countryside Character Areas – Yorkshire Southern Pennine Fringe (JCA37) – highlights the eastern slopes of the Pennines, numerous steep valley sided slopes, extensive urban influences, predominance of pastoral farming and the dramatic interplay of views between settlements and surrounding hillsides as key characteristics of the area.
40 Barnsley Landscape Character Assessment (2002) - The Council recognises the vital importance of maintaining and enhancing the landscape of the Borough, pursuing and supporting this objective through positive measures or initiatives and, when considering development or other proposals, taking full account of their effect on and contribution to the landscape, including water resources.
Peak District National Park Landscape Character Assessment (2008) and Landscape Strategy and Action Plan (2009) – Provides a framework for identifying different landscape areas within the Peak Park.
Consultations
Environment Agency – No objection subject to appropriate planning conditions regarding improving biodiversity and protecting local watercourses.
Natural England – No objection subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition regarding bat monitoring and habitat enhancement.
English Heritage – Do not wish to offer any comments. They advise that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance.
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) – No objection. The development is sufficient distance from the Special Protection Area for there to be any significant concerns.
Highways Agency – No objection subject to a condition requiring a construction management plan for the management of HGV’s and abnormal loads.
Highways DC – Initially raised concerns about both the amount of traffic required, and the capability of the highway network to cope with the size/weight of vehicles in terms of geometric layout and structural integrity. They requested additional details, including a route assessment.
Following the submission of further information by the applicant, including an abnormal loads survey, they have no objections.
National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – No objection.
Ministry of Defence (MOD) – No objection. Advise that they must be informed of construction dates, the height of construction equipment and the co-ordinates of each turbine.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – Wish to make no site-specific observations.
Government Office – No comment at this stage in respect of the Environmental Statement.
Regulatory Services – Consider the application is marginal with regard to compliance with noise guidance (ETSU-R-97). They raise concerns about the small margin between the predicted noise levels and the noise limits. However, the proposal meets the ETSU-R-97 standard and they do not consider a reason for refusal based on noise alone can be substantiated. If permission was granted they would request post installation monitoring and a condition imposing noise limits at individual properties.
41 Landscape Design Group – Following the submission of supplementary visual information, the Landscape Design Group considers that the quality of the photomontages in the further submission is vastly superior to the initial submission. They consider that the methodology and conclusions drawn in the viewpoint analysis are fair and representative and follow accepted practice and established guidelines within the field. The methodology used in the cumulative assessment is thorough and goes some way towards addressing the issues in a reasoned manner.
They state that the plans showing the theoretical visibility of the wind farm show minimal visibility to the west and south of the development with the undulating local landform playing a significant role. This when combined with the additional factor of further screening from vegetation, built form etc. indicates that the impact from the siting of the wind farm would, in relative terms, be acceptable from this area.
Local Impact
They state the most significantly affected areas are generally within the immediate environs of the site with the greatest impacts being on residents on the western periphery of Stocksbridge, the village of Midhopestones and the southernmost edges of Penistone (Cubley) and Oxspring, all of which are within 2km. In all these areas the contrast between the enormity of the turbines when referenced against the immediate character and scale of the locality is the main issue, and as there is little that can be done with regard to mitigation it is these areas that will suffer the greatest impacts in visual terms. In these locations the turbines introduce a wholly new and somewhat omnipresent intrusion into the landscape at a scale and proximity which for some there is little scope for avoidance. Their presence, however, has to be offset against an existing array of large scale, man-made interventions (pylons, masts, roads, buildings etc) and though their intrusion has the added factor of dynamic visual stimulation through blade rotation, this impact would, in many cases, be filtered by localised screening and other visual distractions present in this urban fringe setting.
Cumulative Impact
They state that there is no doubt that development on this scale is visually intrusive and on a scale that defies any attempt at effective visual mitigation. Another concern with the proposal is that it is appreciably separate to the cluster currently formed by Royd Moor and the extant permissions at Blackstone Edge and Hazlehead, and therefore, would significantly extend the perceived impression of wind farms in the landscape within the Borough. It does, however, have in its favour the fact that due to local topography its significant visibility and intrusion into the landscape is restricted more to its immediate environs. Cumulative visibility is generally restricted to more distant locations where the perceived scale and the relevance of the development in the landscape is somewhat reduced and is therefore ultimately less intrusive.
They consider cumulative impact on views out of the Peak Park is a significant factor and whilst the Sheephouse turbines would notably broaden the perception of wind farms in the landscape, they consider the distances involved, with perhaps the exception of one or two locations sufficiently filter their impact to an extent whereby their overall significance is acceptable.
Impact on the Peak Park
They consider that the impact is significant and whilst it is tempered by distance, the overriding impression the development gives is to noticeably broaden the physical perspective of turbines (existing and proposed) in the landscape.
42 In overall conclusion: - they state that this proposal is the largest individual scheme presented to the Authority to date in terms and height/number of turbines. It is located away from existing/consented wind farms, closer to housing (both individual properties and large residential areas) and is near to designated landscape areas (Conservation Areas, Peak Park). In almost all instances they consider the magnitude of these effects is significantly reduced in landscape terms by other issues (i.e. topography existing landscape use and landscape character). Where significant impacts have been identified, they consider the scale and magnitude does not prove of a substantial enough nature to recommend out and out refusal of the scheme, particularly when put in to the context of its limited lifespan and the intention to reinstate the site to its previous state. In instances where the landscape issues are on the brink of acceptability, particularly with regards to public perception, they do not feel on close and objective scrutiny that these alone add up to dismissal of the scheme.
Effects on Registered Parks and Gardens – From the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment the stated magnitude of change is negligible and impact is never more than moderate-minor (in terms of the Assessment of Effects upon Sites on the Register of Parks and Gardens). There is no reason to doubt this based on the fact the nearest park is 6km distance, and that frequent screening by mature trees is a common feature of historic parks and gardens.
Conservation Areas - Hoylandswaine, Langsett, Penistone, Thurlstone. It is considered that the setting and views out of the Barnsley Conservation Areas are not impacted to any great degree by virtue of distance and screening. The most significant effects are on Midhopestones Conservation Area in Sheffield.
Peak District National Park Authority – Object on the following grounds:
1) Unacceptable visual impact and harm to the National Park landscape; 2) Cumulative effect when added to existing and approved wind farms; 3) Negative impact on recreational use of the National Park and the wider rural economy.
Kirklees Council – Object. The Council is concerned at the potential impact on visual amenity of a development of this height and scale in views from this District.
Sheffield City Council – Object. They consider that the application represents a massive visual disamenity and conflicts with Policy GE28 of the City Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
Penistone Town Council (Barnsley) – Object. They make the following points:
- The wind farm proposed is too close to properties; - Potential damage to the highway infrastructure; - Potential damage to the dry stone walls during transport to site; - Potential damage to the carriageway surfaces during transport to the site; - Interference with electronic equipment; - Accumulation of wind farms in the area.
Hunshelf Parish Council (Barnsley) – Object due to the scale of the turbines in relation to the landscape. They consider that a construction of the size proposed would be grossly intrusive to this area of countryside so close to Barnsley and Sheffield. They comment that the quietness and uninterrupted views of the area would be lost and the character of the area would change.
They are concerned that the ecology may be compromised and that locals have witnessed a number of bats in the area.
Raise concerns regarding the potential of shadow and flicker effect from the turbines and the possible effects on physical and mental health.
43
Once the wind farm is decommissioned, the Parish have concerns that the site would become ‘brown field’ and lose its Green Belt status.
They raise concerns that one of the turbines is located close to a busy lane and this could cause a hazard to users of the roads. They are also concerned at the potential of ice to build up on the blades and cause a hazard to nearby roads and they feel the turbines should be located away from places where people might be at risk. They suggest that a minimum distance of 300m from any habitation or roads.
Finally, the Parish considers it vital that Officers and Members visit a site with turbines of this size prior to any decision being made.
Langsett Parish Council (Barnsley) – Object. They consider that residents both near and far from the proposed development have uninterrupted views towards the moor land within the Peak District National Park and this classic and enviable vista would be spoiled. They also wish for the following points to be considered:
- Strobing, operational noise and disruption to television reception are almost certain problems and they are already being experienced at Royd Moor wind farm.
- There is potential damage and injury that could be caused by ice fling and even the possible collapse of the structures.
- Departure from the UDP.
- Building within the Green Belt.
The proposal involves moving heavy plant to the site by road. This would potentially damage the surrounding road network. It would also pose a danger to other road users.
Oxspring Parish Council (Barnsley) – Object to the proposal on the following grounds:
- The Parish do not consider the proposal amounts to very special circumstances and should therefore not be allowed in the Green Belt. - The construction traffic would cause major disruption, as would widening the road which is proposed. - The turbines would result in an adverse visual impact as their size and height is too intrusive. - The noise generated from the proposed turbines would be heard up to 1.5 miles away. - The effect on local wildlife. Research has shown that bats are particularly vulnerable. - Adverse impacts on local agriculture including cattle. - There may be a loss or weakening of television signal and mobile telephone signals in the area. - Flicker/strobing effects will be a nuisance for those living nearby and on passing traffic.
The Parish also object because they do not think it is possible for the large vehicles delivering the turbines to access the site through the village. They also raise concerns regarding the weight of vehicles and do not think the roads running through the village could support vehicles.
Thurgoland Parish Council (Barnsley) – Object on the basis that the turbines would have a detrimental visual impact on the surrounding countryside. The Parish also consider that it may not be possible to transport the turbines on the route proposed, and that the transportation of other related material will be problematic due to the narrow lanes.
44 Stocksbridge Town Council (Sheffield) – Object due to the wind turbines being so large, the loss of amenity for the residents of Stocksbridge and the siting of the wind farm in an area of Green Belt.
Bradfield Parish Council (Sheffield) – Object. The Council wish to note their support of the objections raised by Stocksbridge Town Council with respect to the siting of the wind farm in a Green Belt area, the height of the wind turbines and the loss of amenity for local residents.
In particular, the Parish Council support the objections of the residents of Midhopestones. They consider that the turbines would have a massive visual impact on a Conservation Area which is of historical importance.
Ecclesfield Parish Council (Sheffield) – Object. They consider the cumulative impact of several turbines in one location has an unreasonably disadvantageous effect on the area. It affects the quality of life of the inhabitants both physically and mentally as well as the increased visible intrusion into the landscape.
Arquiva (Broadcast and Communications Company) – No objection.
British Horse Society – Wish to make the following comments:
- Note that riders use public roads to access bridleways. They wish to see a 200m minimum separation distance from the turbine to the road. Turbine 5 is therefore in conflict; - Their statement confirms there are no bridleways within 2.5km of the site. However, there is a bridleway within 1 km from the site; - Horses will proceed along Cranberry Road and will not have full views of the turbines but will only be able to see the tops of the turbines. In particular, for horses approaching from the West, along Salter Hill Lane, the turbines will suddenly come into view as they pass the wood and this may startle them; - There would be a large number of traffic movements through the construction period. It is important that local riders are made aware of the hours when these vehicles are proposing to deliver to the site; - The proposed Blackstone Edge proposal would be sited on rough pasture land. Those proposed at Sheephouse Heights would be on much better quality land, some of which is currently being used to grow crops.
Campaign for National Parks – Object to the impact the proposal would have on the setting, landscape and special qualities of the Peak Park. They also consider the proposal would have a prejudicial impact on recreational users who enjoy the Peak Park for its space and wilderness, a significant element of the Parks purposes. Finally, they consider the proposed scheme should be considered in relation to nearby Royd Moor and the cumulative effects this would have on the landscape and public enjoyment of the area.
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) – Provide a detailed objection to the proposal:
CPRE are concerned by the proliferation of such large developments in the Upper Don Valley. They consider that if this proposal and all other proposals with planning consent are developed, then South Yorkshire would exceed the 2010 target by 60MW. They also consider that if Barnsley MBC were to approve Blackstone Edge, Spicer Hill and Sheephouse Heights wind farms then the Borough would have an installed capacity of 40MW which would exceed the 2021 target of 34MW.
Whilst CPRE acknowledge that PPS22 states that renewable energy targets are a minimum and should not in themselves be used to refuse permission, the sub-regional and local target must be considered where an application has significant landscape and visual impacts. In this case there are major concerns regarding the sensitivity of the landscape, the cumulative impacts and the landscapes capacity to absorb further large scale wind farms in the area.
45
CPRE consider that the site lies approximately 2km from the Peak Park and 1km from Sheffield and that the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) should provide detailed guidance on landscape issues. The LCA identifies the site as sitting within Penistone Upland Farming Landscape Character Area. The landscape sensitivity to built development within this area is judged to be high and the landscape capacity is considered to be low. CPRE do not agree with the applicants conclusions that the impact upon the landscape character is not significant.
In light of the major visual impact on the character of the area, CPRE considers the proposal contrary to Green Belt policy.
CPRE are also concerned about the significant visual impacts on the Peak District National Park. They consider that the 6% of the Peak Park affected covers a locally widespread area of open moorland which is famed for its desolate and exposed tracts of moorland top that stretch great distances and create a sense of remoteness. They also consider that the cumulative visual impact on the Peak Park is a significant concern, and there is potential for simultaneous views of five wind farms when viewed from moorland on the south and west.
CPRE consider that the cumulative impact of this proposal, along with Royd Moor, Hazlehead and those under consideration at Spicer Hill and Blackstone Edge to be significant. They also consider that the South Pennine Fringe/Upper Don area does not have any further capacity for wind farms.
Overall, the renewable energy contributions of this proposal do not outweigh the landscape impacts. Although the sub-regional and local targets cannot be used themselves to refuse applications of this type, they should not carry greater weight where the visual impacts and landscape damage of a proposal are significant. They consider the sensitivity of the Green Belt, National Park, the magnitude of change and cumulative and sequential impacts, that the harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt significantly outweighs the benefits associated with the development.
British Telecom – No objection.
Forestry Commission – No comments received.
Ramblers Association – No objection.
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a programme of archaeological works.
South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service – No objection.
South Yorkshire Forest – No comments.
South Yorkshire Badger Group – No objection.
Yorkshire Water Services Limited – No objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Yorkshire Wildlife Trust – No comments.
Public Rights of Way – No objection.
Drainage – No objection subject to appropriate planning conditions.
46 South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service – No objection.
Countryside – No comments.
National Grid – No objection.
BBC Reception Advice – No objection.
OFCOM – No objection.
CE Electric – No objection.
CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd – No objection.
Joint Radio Company – No objection subject to the imposition of planning conditions to mitigate any potential effects on the YEDL link.
Representations
The proposal was advertised as an EIA application, a Major application and a Departure from the development plan. Site notices were displayed in Penistone, Cubley, Midhopestones, Upper Midhope, Langsett and Oxspring, Stocksbridge, Bolsterstone. Site notices were also displayed within close proximity of the site. Furthermore, neighbour letters were sent to a number of properties within the aforementioned settlements. Press notices were displayed in the Barnsley and Sheffield local press.
A total of 1075 objection letters and 1037 letters of support have been received. In addition, a petition of objection to the proposal containing 275 signatures from the western edge of Stocksbridge has been received.
Representations can generally be split between signed pro-forma type letters with a standard set of reasons, hand written signature and address and letters comprising a standard type which includes hand written comments for supporting the application and an address. A small number are original hand written letters.
Individual Objections are geographically varied. They have been received from the following areas:
- Penistone and Cubley – 337 objections.
- Stocksbridge and Deepcar – 290 objections.
- Ingbirchworth – 7 objections.
- Millhouse Green, Crow Edge and Dunford Bridge – 37 objections.
- Silkstone Common and Cawthorne – 13 objections.
- Langsett – 6 objections.
- Oxspring – 52 objections.
- Thurgoland – 31 objections.
- Wortley and Green Moor - 17 objections.
47
- Upper Midhope – 2 objections.
- Midhopestones – 13 objections.
- Bolsterstone – 14 objections. A representation has also been received from Bolsterstone Community Group. The group has 200 members and 31 of its members are in support of the proposal and 62 are against.
256 objections have also been received from other areas including Barnsley (areas not included above), Sheffield (areas not included above), Rotherham, Huddersfield, Denby Dale, Bradford and areas outside the region (including Leicester and London).
Objections cover a range of issues. However, almost all objectors referred to landscape and visual impact. The issues raised can be summarised as follows:
Visual Impact:
- The proposal would have a significant visual impact on a beautiful landscape. The area is a steep slope which overlooks the Upper Don Valley and is one of the most scenic parts of the area; - The size of the development is wholly disproportionate to the local area; - It will impact on the quality of life for those living in the area and dominate their views; - There are already a number of existing and proposed wind farms in the area; - The visual impact on the Peak District National Park will be massive. The proposed turbines on a tranquil hillside will ruin the area beyond belief; - They will industrialise the landscape; - The site is in the Green Belt and there are no special circumstances which outweigh the visual harm; - The turbines would harm the Conservation Areas of Midhopestones, Langsett and Bolsterstone and the turbines would significantly harm their character; - Impact on recreation and walkers using the surrounding area.
Highways:
- The proposal will involve a significant traffic hazard to users of local roads; - The long vehicles delivering the turbine blades would not be able to access the site; - The A616 is already a dangerous road and the turbines would be a hazard and distraction to drivers; - The turbines would be even more of a distraction for drivers at night; - The delivery of the turbines and concrete would damage roads running through Oxspring; - The vehicular movements would present a hazard to walkers and horse riders.
Noise:
- The turbines would cause noise pollution to nearby residents; - The turbines would be audible across the valley in Midhopestones; - The potential for low frequency noise up to 1.5 miles from the turbines; - Potential noise disruption for the residents of Cubley and Oxspring; - Noise can travel a distance of up to 1.9 miles from the turbines. - Noise can impact on people’s mental health and cause a range of adverse health impacts.
Ecology:
- There would be an impact on birds including owls, kestrels, lapwings;
48 - Evidence shows that turbines kill bats; - There are deers, hares and rabbits on the site; - Sheephouse Wood is located close to the site and hosts a number of species which could be affected; - Badgers are present in the area and this would potentially harm or kill them which would be illegal; - A number of watercourses cross the site.
Other Issues:
- The turbines would cause shadow flicker and this could potentially harm nearby residents and road users; - Ice fling could cause a hazard to local residents, road users and users of footpaths; - The turbines could be unsafe and fall over. This could impact on road and footpath users; - The turbines could set on fire; - Significant disruption to the television, mobile phone and satellite to the residents of Penistone, Oxspring, Stocksbridge, Midhopestones and Langsett; - Wind turbines are not a viable technology, nuclear is a better option; - The Carbon Dioxide savings proposed by the applicant are not a true representation. Royd Moor has a significantly less capacity factor rather than the 30% proposed on this application; - No benefit to the local communities; - Building the wind farm would result in more Carbon Dioxide than the wind farm itself will save; - The highly optimistic Carbon Dioxide savings represents less than 1 millionth of global emissions; - There is no evidence that there will be any local job opportunities; - The applicant makes vague statements about the potential positive socio-economic impacts; - Wind power is intermittent meaning that it is an unreliable energy source. - During the summer months when the sun is at a low angle there is the potential for shadow flashing through windows. - Conflicts with the Human Rights Act and the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life.
In addition, a petition containing 275 objections has been received. These signatures are from a number of residents on Smithy Moor Lane, Smithy Moor Avenue, Cross Lane, Unsliven Road, Newton Avenue, Manchester Road, Goddard Avenue, Churchill Road, Woolley Road, Winston Avenue, Glebelands Road, Green Lane, New Hall Crescent and Ibbotson Avenue. It is noted that a number of the signatories have also sent in individual letters of objection.
Protect Sheephouse Group – A local opposition group comprising mainly residents from the Stocksbridge and Penistone area. They object on the following grounds:
- The proposal does not satisfy PPS22 or Green Belt policy in that there are no very special circumstances in this case which outweigh the other harm caused by the proposed development. The other harm, in particular, refers to impact on the landscape and the conflict with Barnsley’s Landscape Character Assessment; - It conflicts with the purposes of the Peak Park and policies contained within the Regional Spatial Strategy;
The Group submitted a separate noise report by Dick Bowdler (acoustic consultant). This found that the noise levels from the turbines are likely to be 2 to 3 dB higher than those shown in the ES submitted by the applicant. It also questions the validity of the background noise levels submitted with the ES. Overall, they consider that between 9 and 16 properties would fail to meet the ETSU- R-97 limits (noise limits applicable to wind farms) during the daytime and 6 properties at night time.
Following the submission of a further noise report by the applicant, an additional noise report on behalf of the Protect Sheephouse Group has been carried out. The report findings comprise:
49
- there would be a major loss of amenity where turbine noise level exceeds background noise levels by 8dB or more; - the proposal is marginal and only just meets the ETSU-R-97 noise limits; - the only way the turbines can be accommodated on the site is by running on a lower setting and even then there is no margin for error; - it is intended to turn the turbines onto a higher setting at night, thus increasing the level of noise.
The Group submitted a separate and detailed critique of the applicants’ assessment of the landscape and visual impact (Geoffrey Sinclair). The main points in the report outline the following:
- There is no justification as to why this particular site was selected. Decision makers cannot decide whether this is the site with the least environmental disadvantages or whether there are others with lesser adverse impacts; - The ES fails to single out impacts on Open Access Land. The proposal would be seen from such areas including Hartfcliff Hill, Brock Holes, Hunshelf Bank and the northern section of Whitwell Moor and would affect enjoyment and purpose by introducing incongruous features; - The impact on the Midhopestones AHLV would be highly significant; - The blades would have a swept area of 6362m². Whilst the footprint of the turbine base is relatively small, they have impacts on unprecedented scale on the surrounding landscape and visual receptors; - The introduction of these turbines would have far reaching and adverse consequences to the character and enjoyment of the area itself and its perception from the facing slopes of the Peak Park; - Submitted a detailed assessment of the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal. Using a different methodology to the submitted ES, the assessment found that the sensitivity, magnitude and resulting significance on the visual resource tended to be underplayed. This resulted in some of the view points being classed as having a major/extreme significance. The assessment notes that the applicants ES is unable to reflect and distinguish the full spectrum of effects.
Stocksbridge Community Forum – Object. In a recorded vote 28 people were against the proposal and 0 were in favour. Their objections are based on the following observations:
- The ecological survey does not appear to have taken into account the effect on several species of birds; - The presence of deer in the local woods has not been recognised; - The visual representations seem to have minimised the dominance of the turbines, which would appear far taller;
The Penistone and District Society consider that the proliferation of wind turbines surrounding Penistone would be unacceptable. They do not consider that wind turbines are the most efficient way of delivering clean electrical energy.
50 Angela Smith MP objects to the proposal for the following reasons:
- The impact upon the Peak District National Park will be intrusive and from many vantage points the static visual impact would be further compounded and exacerbated by the movement of the blades themselves, an effect often underestimated. The National Park and its hinterland come under enormous pressure from developments. The Park’s valued characteristics are treasured by local communities both inside and outside the Park. Conservation of the Park’s special landscape character is of vital importance which is not outweighed by the applicants supporting case for the turbines. It does not amount to special or overriding circumstances; - The proposal has a detrimental effect on the setting and extensive views from the higher and open part of the Midhopestones Conservation Area. It would also be possible to see the turbines from the Bolsterstone Conservation Area and in both cases the loss of visual amenity outweighs any special circumstances for constructing a facility on this scale; - The flicker phenomenon of wind turbines could have an adverse effect on the A616 which has a history of crashes and safety issues; - The site is characterised as rural agricultural land and the construction of 5 turbines would alter the nature of the land for the worse. When measured against PPG2, the development would be inappropriate. Likewise, the construction of access roads would also be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - The movement of large amounts of heavy equipment would have a negative impact on the surrounding road network. The surrounding roads are rural country lanes; - Overall, the application should be rejected based on the comments above.
A further objection was submitted by Angela Smith MP outlining the following concerns:
- The cumulative impact of the proposal would create the potential for a more significant increase in the concentration of wind farms in the Barnsley/north Sheffield area; - The proposal would conflict with the need to protect the South Pennine Fringe area, especially when viewed from the Peak Park. It would therefore conflict with the RSS. - The proposal has a significant adverse impact on a number of individual residential properties particularly concentrated on Underbank/Smithy Moor (Stocksbridge), Midhope and Cubley. It would dominate their outlook to an unreasonable degree; - It would conflict with the purposes of the National Park which is set out in the Environment Act 1995; - The noise report submitted on behalf of the Sheephouse Heights Action Group challenges some of the conclusions made by the applicant. This report should be seriously considered; - There is no pressing need for the development given Barnsley’s relative progress in terms of achieving targets.
Michael Clapham MP objects to the proposal for the following reasons:
- The Yorkshire and Humber RSS describes the need to protect the environment of the South Pennine Fringe. The visibility of the turbines from the Peak Park will break the harmony and tranquillity of the environment; - The proposal will compromise residential outlook to an unreasonable degree; - The natural beauty of the Peak Park should be preserved over the erection of these turbines which will devalue the landscape (Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995); - The application will be detrimental to Midhopestones Conservation Area and Bolsterstone Conservation Area due to visual intrusion; - The noise level of the turbines will be higher than shown in the Environmental Statement. A number of properties will suffer a loss of amenity during both day and night time.
51 Councillors Robert Barnard, John Wilson, Andrew Millner and Steve Webber object to the proposal. Councillor Barnard objects on a variety of highways matters including; - vehicles would not be capable of reaching the site on the proposed routes, the impact on the highway network. Further reasons for objection are;- the turbines are too close to a Public Right Of Way; the impact on TV reception; the impact on bats; the photomontages submitted with the application underplay the impact of the turbines. Councillor Steve Webber objects for the same reasons.
Councillor John Wilson objects on the basis of noise and the visual amenity impacting on the quality of life for the local community. He also considers there would be the potential to impact on public safety as one of the turbines is located close to a Public Right Of Way and 130m from the nearest road.
Councillor Andrew Millner objects on the basis of visual impact and proximity to other wind farms (existing, planned or proposed).
Support - 1037 letters have been received.
573 have been received from the Stocksbridge/Penistone area. The rest are geographically varied, including Sheffield, Leeds, Nottinghamshire and a few from areas throughout the UK. One letter has been received from New Zealand. More than half of the letters of representation are signed pro-forma type letters with a standard set of reasons, hand written signature and address. The rests are standard type letters which includes hand written comments for supporting the application and an address. A small number are original hand written letters. The observations received include:
- Wind farms are a carbon free method of producing electricity; - Climate change is the greatest threat facing our planet and we need to take urgent action to tackle it; - These turbines would contribute towards the Yorkshire and Humber target of 708MW by 2010; - Wind farms help improve the UK’s energy security; - It would provide electricity for over 9000 homes; - There is potential for an adverse impact on the Peak District National Park from climate change; - The impact on birds posed by climate change is a much greater threat than wind turbines; Cars kill 10 million birds per year; in the UK approximately 1 is killed by each turbine; - The turbines would not interfere with views into or from the Peak District National Park; - The visual impact is outweighed by the need to tackle climate change; - There are no noise or shadow flicker issues; - This is a better alternative to nuclear power.
Representations also make related references to climate change, global warming and how the proposal would help combat these adverse effects.
Sheffield Friends of the Earth support the application based on the reasons above.
A representation has been received from Sheffield Campaign Against Climate Change. They state support for the wind farm. As well as reiterating points already made, they consider that whilst the turbines would be visible from the Peak District National Park, they would be hidden by many view points due to the undulating landscape. Furthermore, the site is neither unspoilt, nor too close to homes.
52 A representation has been received from Councillor Jillian Creasey (Sheffield City Council, Central Ward Member) in support of the application. She considers the impacts on dwellings to be purely aesthetic and that the occupants would not be affected by noise or shadow flicker. The need to prevent climate change (which would have a far more deleterious effect on the landscape than five wind turbines) and to meet carbon reduction targets is more important than changing the view.
A representation in support of the application has been received on behalf of the GMB Trade Union Barnsley branch. They consider the likely effects of climate change mean alternative sources of energy are vital to the future of the planet. The wind farm would significantly contribute to the local and regional renewable energy targets. The turbines would not be seriously detrimental to the views of the area.
A representation in support of the application has been received from Penistone Friends of the Earth. They consider that renewable energy is needed and wind is the most advanced technology at the moment. They also cite the need for an energy mix, including wind power in high up places such as Penistone. They consider that Sheephouse Heights will greatly increase the amount of renewable energy in our area, helping to start the Green Energy revolution in the same way Barnsley’s pits helped in the industrial revolution. Penistone Friends of the Earth support this development as they see it making a significant impact on the regional and local level of renewable energy generation, and as such, supporting the government’s aim of tackling climate change.
Assessment
Material Considerations
Principle of development Design and layout Landscape and Visual Impact Impact on Conservation Areas Impact on the Peak District National Park Cumulative Impact Listed buildings/structures and Archaeology Residential Amenity Noise Highway Safety Ecology, Biodiversity and Hydrology Other Issues Conclusion
Principle of development - PPS1 Supplement (Planning and Climate Change) states that “the evidence that climate change is happening, and that man-made emissions are its main cause is strong and indisputable”. Energy security and scarcity are also factors which have prompted the delivery of policies which are designed to promote a diverse, low carbon energy mix. The challenge to society is enormous and, in short, requires a step change in renewable energy use in heat, electricity and transport over the next decades. There appears to be no doubt that wind farms will have a major role to play in the short term.
In order to facilitate this change, the Government has issued a host of papers outlining the role that renewable energy has to play in reducing fossil fuel dependence. The Climate Change Act (2008) provides the most recent impetus, requiring a cut in carbon emissions of some 80% by 2050, with current 2020 local targets likely to be increased.
53 The Government advises that wind farm schemes have a vital role to play in increasing energy from renewable sources and that these schemes whilst not always appearing to convey a local benefit, will provide crucial wider national benefits shared through all communities. This factor is a material consideration which should be given significant weight in considering these proposals.
PPS1 states that it is not for Local Authorities to make assumptions about the viability of wind farms, question the energy justification, or why a proposal should be sited in a particular location.
On a regional basis, Local Authorities are charged with meeting and where possible exceeding targets for the Region and the Sub-Region. These Megawatt (MW) grid-connected capacity targets are set out in the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy 2008 as follows:
South Yorkshire 47 MW (2010) and 160MW (2021) Barnsley 14 MW (2010) and 34MW (2021)
The outlined targets are a minimum and it is expected that targets should be exceeded. PPS22 states that the fact that a regional target for renewable energy generation has been reached should not be used in itself to refuse planning permission.
In considering wind farm developments, Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) advises that Local Planning Authorities should take into account, in respect of various issues, existing wind farms, consented developments and other planning applications received. Within Barnsley Borough the current position is as follows:
Category Wind Farm Capacity (MW) Comments Existing Royd Moor, Whitley 6.5 13 turbines 54m Road, Penistone high to blade tip. Due to be decommissioned 2018. Consented Hazlehead, Crow 7.5 3 turbines 101m Edge high to blade tip (2006/1575). Construction anticipated in 2010.
Consented Blackstone Edge 6.0 3 turbines 101m high to blade tip (2008/0171). Not yet been constructed. Other Planning Applications Spicer Hill, between 6.6 3 turbines at up to Whitley Road and 95m. Current Spicer House Lane, application being Penistone. processed (2009/0572).
54 Currently, Barnsley has one existing wind farm (Royd Moor) and two extant permissions (Hazlehead and Blackstone Edge). Assuming Hazlehead (2006/1575) and Blackstone Edge (2008/0171) are built and commissioned, and Royd Moor remains until 2018; Barnsley Borough would achieve a capacity of approximately 20 MW. If this current application was granted planning permission, then a total of 32.5MW could be achieved, although the Royd Moor wind farm planning permission expires in 2018. Furthermore, Spicer Hill Wind Farm (2009/0572) is currently being considered by the Council and this has the potential to make further inroads into the targets.
In short, this means that extant and current permissions are in place which would exceed the 2010 target. The current and extant permissions alone would not result in the 2021 target of 34MW being met. However, it is fair to conclude that the Council are making progress in terms of meeting these the immediate and longer term targets.
In terms of the principle of development, the site is in the Green Belt. It is considered that the proposal would affect openness, and is therefore an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The applicant has put forward a number of very special circumstances which they consider outweigh harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm in order for the development to be permitted.
Design and layout - By the very nature of their scale, these turbines would be highly visible from a number of locations. The 3 bladed design and appearance is fairly uniform and typical of other wind farm developments. There is little scope for providing a suitable layout which mitigates visual impact whilst accepting limitations of on-site constraints. The applicant states that, in line with the requirements of PPS22, the scheme has been designed to take into account site constraints. Indeed, the layout and design of the wind farm takes into account the land ownership, location of existing services, public safety, other structures on site, access and egress and the effects of the design life of the structures.
Landscape and Visual Impact - The landscape advice is in my view inconclusive. Inevitably, wind turbines of this scale would have a significant visual impact on the landscape, compounded by the fact there are no other structures of the same magnitude in the immediate area. A large majority of the representations received make reference to landscape and visual impact.
The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted as part of the ES addresses the likely effects on the landscape resource, on the perception of the landscape and on visual amenity. The LVIA includes a cumulative assessment, and the exercise was carried out in accordance with the Landscape Institute’s Guidelines along with a number of associated documents, and in consultation with various consultees. The assessment is supplemented by plans of Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) which indicates the extent to which the wind farm would be visible. Furthermore, wireframes and photomontages are included in the ES which show the proposed wind farm from a variety of viewpoints. These tools are for guidance purposes and have limitations, not least that the photomontages tend to underplay the true visual impact (although they have been carried out in accordance with good practice guidelines).
The site lies within Barnsley and close to the Sheffield and Peak Park boundaries within the Green Belt. Generally, land to the north, and for a number of kilometers to the east and west falls within Barnsley (including the settlements of Penistone, Oxspring, Green Moor, Cubley), whilst over 1km to the south and generally on the opposite side of the valley, the land is within Sheffield (including the settlements of Midhopestones, Stocksbridge, Bolsterstone and Langsett). Further to the south and up the opposite valley slope lies the Peak Park at a distance of approximately 2.5km (including the settlement of Upper Midhope).
55 Sheffield City Council objects on the basis that they consider the application represents a massive visual dis-amenity, conflicting with Policy GE28 of the City Council’s Unitary Development Plan. Policy GE28 includes the following:
The development of wind turbines will be permitted where, individually or cumulatively and taking into account any proposed mitigation measures:
- impacts on the landscape would be kept to an acceptable level, particularly in Areas of High Landscape Value and in areas conspicuous from the National Park; and - there would be no significant adverse effects on the living conditions of people nearby from noise, shadow flicker or electromagnetic interference, or risk to public safety; and - no damage would be caused to a SSSI or Local Nature Reserve and there would be no significant harm to other nature conservation sites, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings or significant archaeological sites; and - provision is made for the removal of the installation when its use ceases, and the restoration of the site to its original condition.
It is worth noting that this policy has now been superseded by relevant policies in the Sheffield Development Framework (adopted March 2009). There are no policies in the Sheffield Development Framework of direct relevance. However, the Council’s reasons for objecting to the proposal are based on the visual dis-amenity and GE28 was applicable at the time of objection.
Effects on Local Landscape Character
Overall, the landscape in the surrounding area undulates to varying degrees which results in a complex variety of views which can significantly alter depending on precise location. In short, this means that distance is not the only determining factor in terms of visual significance as many views are affected by local topography. The application site itself is conspicuous with turbine 1 being located close to the summit of a ridge and turbines 2, 3, 4 and 5 in a west to east linear formation located partially down slope on a south facing valley side. From the south, the site is viewed in the context of a valley formation, with the proposed turbines sitting more than three quarters of the way up and across from the south facing valley slope. The valley slope is steep and imposing giving an enclosed impression, hosting an intrinsic mix of woodland, farmland, farmsteads and quiet country lanes but electricity pylons march across the hillside and the A616 trunk road runs along the valley bottom. The landscape adds an element of local interest when viewed from the south. On the northern side of the site, the topography is much less pronounced and more open, with the land falling away more gently towards Penistone, Cubley and Oxspring. The land is mainly pasture, divided by dry stone walls and quiet country lanes. On a local level, as identified in the Barnsley MBC Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), the site is located within Penistone Upland Farmland. This landscape character is considered to have low capacity for change and high landscape sensitivity and the applicant considers the level of effect of the wind farm on this LCA to be moderate. It is considered the turbines would be generally visible across most of the area and that the local landscape character would be noticeably altered.
The valley ridgeline continues east becoming more urbanised in nature. The settlement of Stocksbridge populates a large proportion of this part of the valley, although the ridgeline is less developed. To the west of the site the valley corridor continues upslope and becomes more open and exposed where it merges into Thurlstone and Langsett Unenclosed Moorland (LCA). In theory the visibility of the turbines within the landscape extends up to 10km but, in reality, landscape features filter out this extent. Whilst the turbines would be intermittently visible from a distance, there are no significant concerns at these more distant views apart from impacts on the Peak Park which are covered in the relevant section of this report.
56 Local Impacts
There are localised pockets where the visibility of the wind farm would be particularly marked. A number of receptors are in the form of settlements and dwellings, with high sensitivity to change. The applicant has assessed the visual amenity of the proposed wind farm from residential areas. There are 11300 properties within 5km of the site and the applicant considers that 141 properties of these would have a significant adverse visual effect as would 16 of the 42 individual properties within 1km. However, views of the wind farm would vary; significant impacts are particularly limited to more close up locations.
It is considered to be mainly the north facing valley slope which lies to the south of the site, and areas immediately to the north of the site which would result in a significantly adverse visual impact from the wind farm.
A number of objections have been received from Penistone, which is located from just 1.1km from the site to the north; the proposal is screened by the undulating landform, built development and trees. It would be well screened from a large part of the settlement. The overall level of effect on Penistone is not considered to be significant, rising to major/moderate and significant on the southern boundary. The impact would be most notable and significant for the edge of Penistone (Cubley), where the landform rises up from Penistone towards to the site. A number of properties on Joan Royd Lane and along Mortimer Road (approximately 1km) would receive relatively close up views and the visual impact is considered to be significant. Views from this location are compounded by the layout of the wind farm which, on the most part, would be located on the other side of the ridge at a lower level. This would present a somewhat alien impression of the wind farm as the turbine blades would intermittently appear just above the ridge line with a large part of the turbine towers being screened by the ridge, resulting in an irregular and significant view of the wind farm.
Oxspring lies on the northern side of the wind farm at a distance of approximately 1.8km. A row of 19 dwellings are located on Fields End with direct, rear facing views of the wind farm. The applicant considers that there is a significant change to the visual amenity from these properties. These properties are 1.8km from the nearest turbine and there is an element of filtering by field boundary walls and hedgerows and a pylon line which crosses the landscape.
One of the closest residential receptors, the western edge of Stocksbridge sits within Sheffield. It forms part of a much larger settlement which extends from 1.1km to the east by almost 4km and comprises around 5800 residential properties. Views from the wider settlement vary and include general views of the urban settlement, a large steelworks located in the bottom of the valley and extensive views of the opposite, south facing hillside. This hillside extends east to west running parallel to Stocksbridge comprising agricultural land, a number of scattered farmsteads and the A616 which runs east to west half way up the valley side. Electricity pylons are also noticeable features of the valley side. Owing to the sloping valley sides and the built form, views from properties vary. Indeed, views of the wind farm would be intermittent with occasional glimpses or more obvious views of the wind farm depending on precise location. Overall, it is considered the overall effect on Stocksbridge as being moderate and not significant.
On the western edge of the settlement, which lies close to Underbank reservoir, the visual impact is considered significant. The applicant notes a significant visual impact from 69 properties. These dwellings would be roughly opposite and lower than the edge of the wind farm. Views from this area presents other built form such as a prominent collection of warehouse and industrial buildings in the valley bottom. There is also an element of screening by virtue of trees which are located next to the reservoir (particularly relevant for those properties on Smithy Moor Lane).
57 However, the full panorama of the wind farm would, by and large, be visible and the large scale of the turbines set against the relatively small scale and enclosure of the landscape would make the proposal appear prominent and significantly adverse from this location.
Green Moor lies approximately 2.5km to the east and on the same ridge as the site. It is not considered that the visual impacts on this settlement would be significant.
The visual impacts on other nearby receptors including Thurgoland, Wortley, Hoylandswaine Silkstone, Dodworth are not considered to be significant.
Visual Impact on Conservation Areas – Sitting approximately 1.1km to the south of the site within Sheffield lies the gritstone hamlet and Conservation Area (CA) of Midhopestones. It is also within an Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV) as adopted by Sheffield City Council. The hamlet is mainly clustered around the junction of Mortimer Road and Chapel Lane. Views from the lower reaches of the hamlet are screened by woodland which enshrouds the lower valley sides. However, views become progressively open and dramatic further upslope, culminating in extensive views east and west along the valley, with direct views of the opposite valley side and ridge where the application site lies.
The special characteristics of the hamlet are outlined and reinforced in the Midhopestones Conservation Area Appraisal (Sheffield City Council, 2007). PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) guides that the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of an CA should be a material consideration in proposals outside the CA which would affect it’s setting or views into or out of the area. In particular, the Area Appraisal outlines Midhopestones as having, inter alia, the following characteristics:
- The open rural character and the setting on terraces on sloping land within a sheltered valley above the River Porter, with extensive views eastwards and westwards along that valley.
The importance of views is further reiterated in the CA Appraisal. Many of the houses face north or west looking across the valley and in the general direction of the site. Views can extend for some 3 to 5km in either direction enhancing the sense of rurality. Furthermore, there are 10 listed buildings, one of which, the Church of St James, is graded as II*.
Sheffield City Council considers that the application represents a massive visual dis-amenity, conflicting with Policy GE28 of the Sheffield City Council Unitary Development Plan. Policy GE28 covers a multitude of issues regarding ‘wind energy’, including impact on the landscape and on CA’s. It is therefore considered that the concerns regarding the visual amenity are equally applicable to the CA, given that this is one of the closest settlements to the wind farm. Bradfield Parish Council considers that the turbines would have a visual impact on the CA.
When viewed from Midhopestones, it would be turbines 1 and 2 which would be most noticeable, with the remaining wind turbines traversing the valley side to the east. The ES concludes that 29 properties in the village would experience significant views of the wind farm, representing almost three quarters of properties in the village. It is accepted that there would be an element of filtering and screening by way of incidental planting, orientation of buildings and stone walls. However, the CA status further reinforces the importance of outward views from this particular location. Whilst electricity pylons have already had an adverse effect on the CA, the scale and colour of the turbines would represent a visual impact which would inevitably have an adverse impact on the CA.
58 A number of objectors have raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on Bolsterstone and Upper Midhope, both of which are adopted CA’s. Bolsterstone is approximately 3.5km from the site and the turbines themselves, whilst visible, would not present significant harm to the character of the CA. Upper Midhope (2.7km) is located in the Peak District National Park and whilst the wind farm would be visible, it does not significantly harm the characteristics of the CA. It is not considered that any of the CA’s within Barnsley would suffer from undue harm.
Landscape and Visual Impact conclusion
It is clear that the most significant concerns centre on the immediate environs of the site, mainly areas within close proximity. There are a number of sensitive receptors within these localities, namely the southern edge of Penistone (Cubley), Oxspring the edge of Stocksbridge and the hamlet of Midhopestones. However, generally within 2km of the site in any direction there would be intermittent but significant visual impacts. It is considered that the turbines would present a wholly new intrusion into the landscape and at a scale and proximity at which, for some, there is little scope for avoidance. Furthermore, the LCA reinforces the sensitivity of the landscape as high, and the landscape capacity as low (Penistone Upland). The impact on Midhopestones is further reinforced by the fact it is a CA, characterised by views east and west along the ridge. The turbines presence in these relatively intimate landscapes would be somewhat omnipresent, though generally seen on an intermittent basis due to localised screening. It is acknowledged that there is already an array of existing man-made structures which serves to soften and contextualize the impact to some degree, although the turbines are of a different magnitude. However, it is considered that, overall, these local landscape impacts are significantly adverse and the wind farm would become by far the most dominant feature of the landscape, impacting on a number of particularly sensitive receptors in the locality.
Impact on the Peak District National Park - The site lies outside the National Park (by approximately 2.5km) and the policy context is found in both PPS22 and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (amended by Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995). The Act affirms a duty to have regard to National Park purposes and any function in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park. National Parks are amongst those areas to be assigned the highest level of protection, with the main purposes to conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities by the public. PPS22 however, states that buffer zones should not be created around nationally designated areas that would prevent renewable energy projects, but that the potential impact on designated areas of such projects close to their boundaries is a material consideration in determining planning applications.
The Peak District National Park objects to the proposal on the following grounds:
1. Unacceptable visual impact and harm to the National Park landscape and its setting; 2. Cumulative effect when added to existing and approved wind farms; 3. Negative impact on recreational use of the National Park and wider rural economy.
The Peak Park considers that the turbines, by virtue of their height, scale, colour, close grouping and blade movement, completely dominate their immediate surroundings. The highly intrusive visual impact of the turbines would represent a major change to the appearance and valued open character of the highly sensitive landscape. They consider the proposal would cause significant harm to the valued openness of the upland landscape contrary to National and locally adopted policies seeking to protect the character of the landscape and openness of the Green Belt. They also consider that the turbines would be prominent over a wide area of moorland which is characterised by its remote ‘wilderness’ feeling.
59 The Peak Park considers the introduction of a wind farm would cause significant harm to the Parks special characteristics. In their objection, they refer to the Peak Park hinterland which comes under enormous pressure. Loss or erosion of these key features would have economic and social consequences to local businesses and communities. Overall, conservation of the Parks’ special landscape character is the overriding objective which they consider is not outweighed by the applicant’s supporting case for the turbines.
Conversely, the applicant considers that the development would only be seen from 6% of the Peak Park, and the extent of impact on the Park is therefore limited. They consider that the overall impact would be minor and not significant. Furthermore, the applicant considers that the area from which the development would be seen has relatively few footpaths and is less frequently visited than many areas of the Peak Park. They also contest that whilst the Peak Park does include extensive areas of moorland, views out of the park in the direction of the proposed wind farm are quite different, one which is predominantly settled and includes towns, villages, fields, woods and power lines and would be seen in context of a settled, modified landscape.
On a regional basis, The Peak Park has three areas (identified in their Landscape Character Assessment) which exhibit potential visibility of the wind farm according to the ZTV. The ‘Dark Peak’, ‘Dark Peak Yorkshire Fringe’ and the ‘Eastern Moors’ with viewing distances ranging from two to eighteen kilometers. These landscapes have different characteristics, with the moorland mainly being confined to the Dark Peak and Eastern Moors. The LCA’s highlight that inappropriate wind energy generation projects could lead to a reduction of historic landscape character, amenity value and tranquility.
A number of policies in the RSS recognise the importance of the Peak Park and its relationship with the fringes of the Southern Pennines. Policy SY1(C8) aims to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the Southern Pennine Fringe. Policy SY1(E5) aims, inter alia, to manage development in rural areas, particularly in the western area adjoining the Peak District National Park and in the Pennine fringe, to reflect environmental quality. ENV10 is to recognise and build on the distinctive landscape character of the Region, and help parts of the countryside remain as an important natural resource. Development in areas adjacent to National Parks must not prejudice the qualities of the designated area. Whilst this proposal is outside the Peak Park (and outside the East Midlands Region), a number of policies in the East Midland RSS support the case that the Peak Park is afforded the highest level of protection.
It is considered the impact on the Peak Park to be significant and the overriding impression the development gives is to noticeably broaden the physical perspective and therefore perception of turbines (existing and proposed) in the landscape. It would result in another visible cluster of turbines when viewed from the northeast of the Peak Park. Views from the Peak Park are characterised by wild and remote upland moorland and the Dark Peak LCA reinforces this is area particularly sensitive to change. The Dark Peak Pennine Fringe and the Eastern Moors also display key characteristics of the Peak Park, reinforcing the fact that National Parks are amongst those areas to be assigned the highest level of protection, with the main purposes to conserve and enhance their natural beauty. The submitted ZTV shows that Sheephouse Heights, along with other wind farm proposals, would be visible from an area on the north east of the Peak Park. The impact would be intrusive by virtue of the turbine heights and the close distance from the Peak Park. Given the sensitivity of the Peak Park landscape as outlined in LCA’s and regional planning policies, it is considered the wind farm would cause significant harm to its special characteristics.
The Peak Parks third point of objection (impact on tourism) is referred to in the ‘socio-economics’ section of this report.
Cumulative Impact - The basis of cumulative effects is whether or not a proposal would exceed the threshold of acceptability for the number of wind turbines in an area.
60 Sheephouse Heights is proposed approximately 4.5km south east of Royd Moor wind farm, 6km south east of Blackstone Edge and 6km south east of Hazlehead. All these wind farms are either consented (Royd Moor) or have extant permissions. Spicer Hill (2009/0572) is a recent application for 3 wind turbines up to a height of 95m, at a distance of 5km sitting in between Royd Moor and Blackstone Edge. This application is being processed.
Sheephouse Heights is appreciably separate to the cluster formed by Royd Moor, Blackstone Edge and Hazlehead and therefore significantly extends the impression of wind farms in the landscape within the Borough. However, it is considered that the local topography restricts the visibility to the immediate environs and more distant views. In particular, concerns are leveled at the cumulative impact when viewed from the Peak Park (covered in the relevant section of this report).
Listed buildings/structures and Archaeology - The site lies within 2 km of 53 Listed Buildings and 1km of 18 Listed Buildings. The nearest Listed Structure lies some 250m from the site and is a ‘take off’ stone just off Mortimer Road. This feature is part of the boundary wall and it is not considered that its setting would receive any great impact.
Of the Listed Buildings, all are classified as Grade II, apart from St James Church, Midhopestones which is Grade II*. This small church is largely 14th Century, characterised by its leaning walls and delicate appearance which contributes to its character and antiquity. The distance from the wind farm (approx 1.3km) means that there would be no direct impact on the setting of this building. Furthermore, with the church falling within Sheffield boundary, Sheffield City Council raises no objections regarding the potential effects on this building. English Heritage raise no objections in this respect.
There are 6 Registered Parks and Gardens from which it would theoretically be possible to view the wind farm. All are highly sensitive, but the fact that they are sited more than 5km (apart from a small part of Wortley Hall Park) means that the effects are considered to be minor.
The applicant states that there are no records of archaeological remains within or immediately adjacent to the site. South Yorkshire Archaeological Service has no objections to the proposal, subject to the addition of a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of pre- commencement archaeological works.
A detailed objection relates to the impact on the historic landscape. The site does not have any national or local statutory designation relating to its historical context. However, the objection reiterates that it is the historic context which adds greatly to the natural beauty of the area. It is considered that whilst there may well be historical characteristics associated with this landscape, this is no different to a host of landscapes up and down the country (i.e. all landscapes have an element of ‘history’). Furthermore, it would seem that the physical footprint of the wind farm, whilst having visual impacts on the immediate surroundings, would not prejudice the historic attributes of the landscape. It would, in any event, be a temporary permission (25 years). Overall, the aforementioned cultural heritage and archaeological analysis, coupled with the LVIA, is considered to be a more robust and reliable assessment of the historic landscape.
It is considered that policies PPG15 and PP16, ENV9 (RSS), and UDP policies BE2, BE3 are satisfied in respect of Listed Buildings, Structures, Registered Parks and Gardens and archaeology.
Residential Amenity - Visual Intrusion – It is a well held planning principle that there is ‘no right to a view’ from individual residential properties over land in someone else’s ownership. However, any development which dominates an outlook to an unreasonable degree in that it harms the amenity of residents could constitute an unacceptable impact.
61 By the same token, there is a distinct difference between a prominent view and one which is significantly dominating. A dominating view may involve a loss of outlook primarily involving individual views from properties, whilst the latter may be considered as a landscape and visual impact.
There are no hard and fast rules regarding the distance wind turbines can be located from residential properties and the extent to which an outlook becomes unreasonably dominated is an assessment which, to a large extent, is one made by professional judgment. However, the background text to Barnsley UDP Policy ES12 states ‘In the light of experience it seems unlikely that large scale wind turbines would be acceptable within 450 metres of the nearest dwelling and this may need to be increased subject to orientation, number of dwellings, and their relationship. This cannot be considered absolute and each case will have to be assessed separately’. Furthermore, ES12(b) states that “the impact on residential amenity with particular reference to noise, visual outlook, and shadow flicker and flashing from turbine blades” will be one of the factors considered in the assessment of wind farms.
It is particularly those properties within 1km which have the potential to be adversely impacted by reason of outlook. The two closest properties, Mossley House and Cranberry, are located within 300m of the nearest turbine. No objections have been received from these properties and they have been classed by the applicant as having a financial involvement in the proposed wind farm.
The closest non-involved properties lie approximately 300m from turbine 5 over a ridge to the north east. This collection of properties (known as Dyson Cote) falls within a cluster of 2 other properties with the orientation of habitable windows lying due north west/south east. Whilst views of the turbines from these windows would be oblique which would have a lesser impact than a direct view, it would be remiss to suggest that this would make the impact acceptable. The distance from turbine 5 means that views from the curtilage and areas of outdoor enjoyment would be harmed by the sheer size of the turbine and the continued movement and close proximity of the blade sweep. Due to the close nature and size of the turbine, there would be visual harm to the occupiers’ amenity.
Throstle Nest (dwelling) lies along the ridge line on Cranberry Road. It is located 400m from turbine 2 and approximately 720m from turbine 1. The principal elevation of the dwelling faces west along the ridge, with little in the way of screening, which would give an almost full view of turbine 1, and more oblique views of turbine 2. The nature of the turbines in respect of the continual movement of the blades would exacerbate their presence. It is for this reason that the visual impact is considered significant, and overbearing, with outlook harmed due to the sheer size of the turbines from this location. It is my opinion that it would be akin to living within the wind farm, rather than simply adjacent to it.
Further afield (700m +) and further down slope lies Tenter House, Tenter House Farm, Cloth Hall Farm, but by virtue of their distance, and the orientation of the dwellings, it is not considered residential amenity would be compromised by reason of outlook, although they would be presented with significant views.
A cluster of 2 dwellings lies due west of the site, close to the edge of Sheephouse Wood. The dwellings are arranged in an ‘L’ shape and set in a hollow. There is an element of planting which would filter views to some extent. However, a number of the properties face in a northeasterly direction in an almost direct line of sight from turbine 1 at a distance of approximately 500m. The turbine, owing to its size, would appear to dominate the skyline and the outlook from upper floor windows. However, the impact from the remaining turbines would be somewhat muted due to the distance from the dwellings and woodland screening.
62 Back Lane leads towards Oxspring and lies downslope and to the north of the site with Millbrook House lying adjacent at a distance of approximately 800m. Due to the orientation of the principal elevation, windows would face the site and, in particular, turbine 1. An element of screening is provided by boundary planting and this would provide some filtering of views from the dwelling. Overall though, the turbines would appear prominent and there would be some visual harm to the occupants’ amenity.
Further east along the ridge and downslope lies Salter Hill House, just off Back Lane. The gable end of the dwelling faces part of the site, with habitable windows looking west offering oblique views of turbines 1 and 2. The curtilage includes a garden area which leads into a small field. This lies immediately to the south of the dwelling and the size of the turbines, and relatively short distance (550m) means they would completely dominate views and harm, to some extent, the enjoyment of this garden area. There is little in the way of screening to filter the impact.
Down slope and to the south east of the site, just off Underbank Lane, lies Carr Head Farm which comprises three dwellings. Most of the buildings are set within a courtyard and are well screened by mature garden planting and other buildings. However, the eastern most property, whilst facing in a north to south direction, would have views of turbine 5 (in particular) from the garden area and conservatory. An element of boundary planting would serve to filter these effects. However, the enormity of turbine 5 would make it clearly visible from this location. The siting of pylons just in front of the proposed turbines would serve to temper this impact to some degree. In all, the location of the turbine 5 would result in a significant adverse visual impact, but not to an extent where residential amenity is severely compromised.
Dwellings at Underbank Hall are on the opposite side of Underbank Lane, ‘below’ the site. They are also situated in a courtyard with the northern, rear elevations of ‘Owls Nest’ and a neighboring property being most affected. The steep sloping nature of the landscape becomes apparent when viewed from the gardens of these properties and turbines 4 and 5 would be located on a level some 60-70m higher, to the north, at a distance of approximately 580m. Views would be obtainable from the upper floor windows on the rear elevation. The nature of the landscape and the size of the turbines would result in an adverse impact, but this would be tempered by nearby electricity pylons. Overall, the views of the wind farm from the rear of the property would result in a visual impact, but not to an extent where amenity would be severely compromised.
There are a number of other properties which would receive relatively close up views of the wind farm (within 1.5km). However, the impact is not considered to compromise residential amenity by reason of outlook, rather it would comprise a visual impact.
In conclusion, the main issue is the close nature of a number of properties coupled with the height and disposition of the turbines and continued movement of the turbine blades, which it is considered, for some, would impinge unreasonably on living conditions.
Noise – A number of objectors refer to the potential impact of noise on individual properties, especially those within close proximity of the site. PPS22 advises that there are two sources of noise; aerodynamic and mechanical. It also advises that noise emanating from wind farms is most likely at low wind speeds, when levels of background noise are generally lower.
In terms of low frequency noise, PPS22 advises that there is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health. On that basis and in the absence of any substantive information to the contrary, it is not considered low frequency noise would be an issue.
63 The Government report entitled ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU- R-97) provides the framework for assessing wind farms and noise levels, as advised by PPS22. However, recently (March/April 2009) an article was published in the Institute of Acoustics bulletin (IOA) by a number of authors who prepared the original ETSU-R-97 guidance. The recommendations in the article are intended to enhance the quality of wind farm noise assessment. Whilst the guidance is not statutory, it is considered a robust addition to the ETSU- R-97 guidance. Regulatory Services therefore considered the IOA bulletin and the ETSU-R-97 guidance when commenting on the application.
A number of properties lie within very close proximity of the proposed wind farm. The closest property (non-involved) lies at a distance of approximately 300m, with 22 properties lying within 710m. A few of these properties have a financial involvement in the application and therefore ETSU-R-97 advises on a higher noise limit for those properties.
A baseline noise survey was carried out at a number of locations and the predicted noise level of the wind farm was then included in order to ascertain whether, at different wind speeds, the wind farm would be compliant with ETSU-R-97. Separate noise limits apply for quiet day time and night time as the guidance prioritises the protection of outdoor amenity for residents during the day time, and the prevention of sleep disturbance at night. In all cases, the predicted noise from the wind farm is within the noise limits as set out in ETSU-R-97 and the IOA.
Proximity of Dwellings – Despite being within ETSU-R-97 and IOA noise limit guidelines it is clear that the margin between the predicted noise levels and the recommended noise limits is very close at a number of properties. PPG24 (noise) advocates that separation between noise sources and sensitive developments is preferable. In this case, the wind farm would not be able to operate in an unconstrained mode as, if it did, the noise limits would be breached. However, as mitigation and in order to adhere to ETSU-R-97 and the IOA (based on the use of the Nordex N90 wind turbine), each of the wind turbines would have to be operated in a variety of constrained power modes (i.e. the output would reduced) depending on the time of day. Even then, at a number of properties (depending on the wind speed and time of day), the predicted noise outputs could be within less than 3.0 dB of the noise limits. The Council’s Regulatory Services have assessed the application and the reports submitted on behalf of objectors. They consider that potential noise outputs are very close to the noise limits based on the guidance in ETSU-R-97 and have concerns that the tolerance in the ETSU-R-97 guidance (the margin for error) is only 3dB and the margin for error in the proposal (at some properties) is often less than 3dB. Furthermore, a number of objectors refer to this issue and to the use of ETSU-R-97, primarily because wind turbines tend to be larger than when the advice was first published. However, there is currently no better guidance than ETSU-R-97 and the recommendations set out in the IOA bulletin and PPS22 support its use.
Despite the lack of headroom between the predicted noise level and the noise limits, the proposed wind farm is within ETSU-R-97 limits and it is considered a refusal could not be justified on these grounds alone. However, there are concerns and if permission was granted it would require a carefully worded planning condition involving post decision monitoring from the nearest properties to ensure compliance with the noise limits and guidance.
Highway Safety - A number of objections relate to the potential impact on the highway network, and question whether the highway would be capable of accommodating large vehicles for the delivery of the turbine blades.
The applicant proposes 3 vehicular routes for deliveries:
Route 1 – Turbine Blades: - From M1 Junction 37, proceed West on the A628; - Left turn (south) onto A629; - Right turn (south) onto Bower Hill;
64 - Proceed along Roughbirchworth Lane and Back Lane; - Right turn (west) onto Cranberry road and to the site.
Route 2 – Other Components: - From M1 Junction 36, proceed west on A61 and A616; - Right turn (north) onto A629; - Left turn (south) onto Bower Hill; - Proceed along Roughbirchworth Lane and Back Lane; - Right turn (west) onto Cranberry road and to the site.
Route 3 – General Construction Traffic: - From M1 Junction 36, proceed west on A61 and A616; - Right turn (east) onto A628; - Proceed west onto Hartcliff Road; - Turn right (west) onto Hartcliff Hill Road; - Continue onto Mossley Road and to the site.
The turbine blades themselves (using route 1) would utilise a vehicle with a length of 45m and this would require a number of highway improvement works. Councillor Barnard raises significant concerns regarding the physical capability of the highway network to accommodate such large vehicles.
A total of 9,528 vehicular movements are anticipated throughout the 9-12 month construction period. It is envisaged that 5,528 of these would be the result of delivering equipment and materials to the site, with the remaining being trips generated by the movement of site staff in cars. There would also be fluctuations in traffic movements, with around 74 daily vehicular movements expected during the third month. Whilst this is clearly an increase in movements, especially on local roads, the applicant does not consider that the impacts are significant overall. Moreover, the applicant proposes to mitigate impacts through careful timing of deliveries, signage, notifying the general public of transport movements and a range of other measures which could be attached as a suitably worded condition.
The Council’s Highways and Engineering service initially expressed concerns about the amount of traffic required during the construction period, and the ability of the highway network to cope with the size/weight of vehicles in terms of geometric layout and structural integrity. As a result, the applicant submitted an Abnormal Load Survey and further information. This includes details of pre-application discussions about the proposed routes with the Council’s abnormal loads officer (Highways and Engineering). It is noted that some of the proposed improvement works would require a separate consent under The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. No objections are now raised from a highways perspective. Furthermore, the proposal involves abnormal vehicles using the strategic road network (major trunk roads) and, in this respect the Highways Agency have no concerns. They recommend the addition of a planning condition in order to manage HGV’s and abnormal loads on the strategic highway network should Members wish to approve the application.
Whilst there would be a large number of vehicular movements, overall, it is considered that due to the temporary nature of the vehicular movements, there are mitigation measures which could minimise potential impact. These include a traffic management plan and a requirement to compensate for any damage to the highway network caused by the development. Therefore it is considered the proposal adheres to policy T2 of the UDP.
A number of objections relate to the distance of the turbines from local roads, and the potential distraction to drivers using the A616. Firstly, PPS22 advises that drivers are faced with a number of varied and competing distractions, including advertising hoardings, which are deliberately designed to attract attention. It advises that wind turbines should not be treated any differently from other distractions a driver must face and should not be considered particularly hazardous.
65 There is no history of accidents on any existing roads adjacent to wind farms. Furthermore, the Highways Agency advises that there is no policy against the siting of wind farms alongside motorways and trunk roads. However, their stance advises that potential for visual distraction should be minimized by providing a clear and continuous view of the wind farm, rather than screening it from the highway. Views of the wind farm from the A616 would be intermittent. Indeed, long sections of the carriageway (adjacent to the wind farm) are screened by mature and dense deciduous woodland. The proposed wind farm is located on a much higher level than the A616, and when driving past the site it is likely that woodland will intermittently screen views. It would be when approaching from either side that the wind farm would be more openly visible. However, there is no reason why this wind farm would present a significant hazard to road users and the Highways Agency considers the proposal adheres to their policy guidance. They have no objections to the proposal.
In terms of distance from local roads, turbine 1 is approximately 130m from Mossley Road and turbine 5 is approximately 135m from Cranberry Lane. PPS22 advises a set back from roads and railways of at least fall over distance and, in this respect, the proposal is not in conflict.
Ecology, Biodiversity and Hydrology - The site has largely been used for farming purposes. PPS22 advises that the impact on the local ecology should be minimal and that there is little evidence that domesticated or wild animals are affected by wind farms. However, the ES considers potential impacts on bats, breeding birds, wintering birds and badgers. A number of breeding birds were identified during surveys. Due to the existing low populations it is considered that the impact on breeding bird populations is no worse than minor. However, the applicant proposes survey work should any works take place within the breeding bird season. There is considered to be a neutral impact on wintering bird populations.
The RSPB have assessed the submission and have no objections. They also consider that the proposal is sufficient distance from Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) for there to be any significant SPA related bird concerns.
Concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact on bats and reference has been made to a recent study which shows that wind turbines increase bat fatalities. The applicant recorded bat populations as being low and no activity was recorded within 50m of the proposed turbines locations. The construction of the wind farm would not involve the destruction of any potential bat roosts, and no mature trees would be removed. Overall, the impact on bat populations is considered by the applicant to be neutral. However, the ES concludes that there is evidence which shows that wind turbines do cause bat mortality. In the absence of any identified framework for quantifying risks to bats, the applicant proposes a mortality monitoring plan which could be used to inform future wind farm bat impact assessments. Natural England has assessed the application in respect of bats and welcomes the proposed post-construction monitoring. The Environment Agency also considers it necessary to include further bat monitoring as a planning condition. Overall, it is considered that the current level of bat activity, coupled with the mitigation and monitoring proposed is acceptable.
The applicant submitted a separate badger survey identifying that whilst no badger setts lie within the site area, that badger activity in the general area is high. As a result, the applicant proposes mitigation measures including a pre-construction survey, and additional measures if any badger setts are found. It is considered that the mitigation measures proposed and the lack of any active setts in the survey area means there would be no significant impact on the local badger population. Natural England consider the conclusions made by the applicant as being reasonable and do not object. South Yorkshire Badger Group do not object to the proposal but raise concerns about one of the setts, which was not formally identified by the applicant. This sett is located outside the site area, but they consider it should form part of the assessment as any potential road widening may impact on the sett. It is considered this aspect could be covered by planning condition requiring a pre-construction survey should permission be granted.
66
The survey also identified a number of habitats mainly consisting of arable, grassland (including acid grassland), scattered trees and shrubs, woodland, running water and scattered scrub. The site has no areas or features of potentially high ecological value such as mature trees, ponds or high quality hedgerows. The survey area did not include any Site’s of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the nearest is 800m to the western end of the survey area. In a local context, Hollin Woods and Spring Woods Natural Heritage Sites (NHS) are located approximately 1200m west of the nearest turbine location. The overall site area is 54 ha, and the construction of the wind farm would result in the loss of approximately 5 ha of agricultural land (short term), and the long term loss of approximately 1 ha of agricultural land. Overall, it is not considered that policy GS12 is significantly compromised.
Sheephouse Wood lies outside the site area, down slope to the south. It is mature woodland, largely consisting of Oak and Birch, and provides significant habitat for a wide range of nesting bird species, insects and mammals. However, the proposal would not impact directly on the woodland, and the potential impact on birds is considered to be low. The proposal sits within South Yorkshire Forest (allocated in the UDP). Whilst it is considered there are no direct impacts on the purposes or function of the area, South Yorkshire Forest was consulted on the proposal but did not offer any comments. UDP policy GS25 states that any development within the Forest Area must accord with policies contained within the UDP.
A number of watercourses issue within close proximity of proposed wind turbines and tracks, in the southern section of the site. It is anticipated that 3 new culverts would be required, and an existing culvert enlarged, in order to accommodate the access tracks. Policy ES5 of the UDP places a presumption against the culverting of watercourses unless the development could not be achieved in any other way. The applicant proposes a number of mitigation measures, including a pollution prevention plan, interceptor drains and ditches on the upslope side of the access tracks. The Environment Agency does not object to the proposal on the premise that all watercourses are protected by an appropriate buffer strip. The Council’s Drainage section does not object to the proposal, subject to a number of planning conditions requiring detailed drainage information. In light of the Environment Agency’s comments and in order to satisfy policy ES5 of the UDP, it is considered a condition should be attached requesting pollution prevention measures, drainage details and requiring a buffer zone between the proposed development and nearby watercourses, should permission be granted.
Natural England initially raised issue with the lack of habitat enhancement submitted with the application. Enhancement measures are also reiterated as a goal in PPS9. The applicant, in light of their initial survey which showed a general lack of hedgerow, has submitted details of proposed new hedgerows (1.3km in overall length). Whilst this was broadly welcomed by Natural England, they also consider that habitat creation needs to be based on an understanding of the local landscape character and a number of amendments should be submitted as part of the habitat enhancement plan. Moreover, the Environment Agency considers that mitigation hedge planting and maintenance should be included in the proposal. As a result, it is considered this could be attached as a planning condition should planning permission be granted.
In view of the aforementioned and the mitigation measures proposed, it is considered that the proposal, in respect of ecology and biodiversity, adheres to policies PPS22, PPS9, PPS7, ENV8 of the RSS and GS15, GS18 and ES12 of the UDP.
Impact on footpaths - A Public Right Of Way (PROW) runs through the site from Cranberry Road to the north, down slope in a southerly direction to the A616. A permanent access track would be located adjacent to the PROW, although divided by a dry stone wall. Turbine 2 would be located approximately 80m to the west of the PROW.
67 A number of objections relate to the impact on footpaths, Councillor John Wilson also considers there are serious safety issues for users of the PROW. Councillor Barnard is concerned about the possibility of blades breaking and considers that a safety radius of at least 1250m should be adopted. In response, PPS22 makes it clear that there is no statutory separation distance between a wind turbine and a PROW. However, it states that the fall over distance is often considered as an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the blades to not oversail a PROW. Furthermore, PPS22 highlights that wind turbines are a safe technology and there has been no example of injury to a member of the public. The Ramblers Association has not raised any objections to the proposal and the PROW officer does not object. In this respect, it is considered the proposal does not conflict with footpaths in the area.
Socio-economics - The submitted ES highlights that there would be construction jobs created and a number of other opportunities for local contractors. This is considered to be a minor temporary increase in employment and business opportunity.
The Peak Park objects on the basis that a wind farm would lead to adverse economic and social consequences for local businesses and communities. Furthermore, a few objections relate to the impact on the wider area and on tourism. It is considered that whilst there may be those people who would be dissuaded to visit the area because of the wind turbines, there may be people who would find they add an element of interest to the landscape and be persuaded to visit. However, the overall impact on tourism would be impossible to accurately quantify, and whilst the applicant has put forward evidence from a number of surveys which shows a positive public attitude concerning wind farm developments, there is no sound basis for reaching a judgment on the impacts on tourism and recreation in this particular area. Likewise, the Peak Park objects on these grounds, but again, there is a lack of hard evidence to suggest that the impact would lead to a significant negative impact on tourism. The submitted ES seems a reasonable précis of all the issues, and the conclusion reached, that the impact would be not significant is a reasoned conclusion. In that respect, it is not considered that the impact on tourism is significant and would justify a reason for refusal.
Other Issues - Equestrian Impact – A letter detailing a number of concerns has been received on behalf of the British Horse Society. In particular, they are concerned that horses proceeding along Cranberry Road would not have a full view of the turbines and will only be able to see the top of the blades. They also consider that a number of riders use the local road network and a 200m separation distance should have been applied. Turbine 5 is approximately 140m from Underbank Lane.
PPS22 advises that a 200m exclusion zone around bridle paths is desirable. It is worth noting that Underbank Lane is not a bridleway, but rather is a public highway. The proposal, therefore, adheres to the advice set out in PPS22 as turbine 5 is more than fall over distance from the public highway.
Whilst it is accepted that horses frequently use the surrounding road network and would have a close up and sometimes unexpected view of the wind farm from a number of locations, there is no evidence base or policy reasons to suggest that this proposal is unacceptable to horses. The proposal does not compromise PPS22 in this respect.
Television/Telecommunications/Air Safety – A number of objectors have raised concerns about the potential impact on TV reception. The proposal potentially affects signals received from the Emley Moor, Millhouse Green and Stocksbridge transmitters. The applicant commissioned a television impact assessment and concluded that there would be potential interference to properties receiving signals from these transmitters. According to the BBC assessment tool, the wind farm could affect up to 5460 homes with alternative off air service, and 800 homes with no alternative service. The potentially affected properties are located within the Stocksbridge and
68 Penistone area. However, the assessment should be treated with caution as there are a number of variables which make identifying exactly which properties would be affected a difficult process.
Firstly, digital TV signals are currently only provided by the Emley Moor mast. When the mandatory digital switchover happens (predicted 2011), the Emley Moor mast will have its TV signal strength boosted and so provide a useable signal to a larger area than it currently does. Furthermore, it is understood that digital TV greatly improves sound and picture quality, reducing the potential for adverse effects.
Secondly, Millhouse Green and Stocksbridge are fill-in transmitters which do not transmit digital signals. Whilst they are currently in use and transmit analogue signals, they will be switched off when the digital switchover occurs (predicted 2011). This means that residents which formerly relied on these transmitters will need to realign their aerials to receive a signal from Emley Moor anyway. Those areas which may struggle to receive a signal from the upgraded Emley Moor transmitter will likely have their local fill-in transmitter upgraded to transmit digital signals (Millhouse Green and/or Stocksbridge).
Finally, it is difficult to accurately predict which properties would be affected due to the position of the properties relative to the turbines, the characteristics of the viewers’ aerial installation and the specific aerial, cabling and TV installations.
Despite this uncertainty, it seems likely a number of properties would be affected by the proposal. Due to the aforementioned, it is difficult to quantify which properties would be affected and, in any event, the submitted survey could only ever be indicative. It would not be until the wind farm was operating that the extent of the impact could be properly assessed. As a result, it is considered that a condition could be applied if permission was granted, which requires an investigation by any person claiming interference with their TV reception, and appropriate mitigation measures to rectify the problem. In these circumstances, it is considered that the mitigation measures are acceptable and that the applicant has carried out a suitable assessment of the known impacts at this stage. Furthermore, the BBC reception centre has reported that the applicants’ assessment seems to have adequately considered the issues.
The application has not received any objections from the CAA, the MOD, or NATS. It is therefore considered that the impacts on air safety, radar and potential electromagnetic interference are satisfied, and the proposal complies with ES12 of the UDP.
Shadow Flicker – PPS22 advises that only properties within 130 degrees either side of north relative to the turbines can be affected in the UK. Furthermore, flicker effects have only been known to occur within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine and the effects reduce with distance. In this case, the turbine blade diameter is 90m giving a theoretical flicker effect distance of 900m. A total of 19 properties are located within the potentially affected threshold. The calculations submitted as part of the ES predict a worse case scenario whereby a) the sun is constantly shining during daylight hours b) the turbine rotor will always be facing the affected window c) the turbines are always in rotation and d) there will not be intervening structures and vegetation reducing the effect.
Assuming the above conditions prevail (which in reality is highly unlikely) there would be a flicker effect on each of the mentioned properties at varying intervals and at varying times of the year, specific details of which are included in the ES. As mitigation, the applicant proposes that a control system would be employed to calculate, in real time, whether shadow flicker may affect a property. This would be based on pre-programmed co-ordinates for the turbines and the properties and the intensity of the sunlight which would be measured by a device attached to the turbine tower. When it is predicted that a flicker effect would occur, the turbine would automatically shut down.
69 Considering the above, it is accepted the mitigation measures could be employed through a suitably worded planning condition should permission be granted. This would make the proposal acceptable in respect of shadow flicker, thus according with this aspect of policy ES12 of the UDP.
Electricity generation – A number of representations refer to the amount of electricity produced and challenge the electricity generation figures submitted with the application. They also refer to other sources of renewable energy which they consider to be more appropriate. It is clear that the wind does not blow all the time and, therefore, wind energy is an intermittent source of energy. The 2.5MW of output attributed to each turbine is the maximum amount of power providing ideal conditions. In reality, the turbines produce power for 75-80% of the time but not always at full capacity. Over the course of a year, the wind farm should produce around 30% of its maximum theoretical output. This is known as the capacity factor and the applicants electricity generation figures are produced on the basis of this calculation.
Furthermore, a number of objectors consider that in order to meet acceptable noise limits, the turbines would be required to operate in a constrained mode, thus reducing their output. PPS22 advises that Local Planning Authorities should consider capacity rather than output as a method of measurement. Furthermore, PPS1 (supplement) makes it clear that applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy. So, whilst it is apparent that the output of the wind farm may well be less than anticipated, the capacity remains at 12.5MW.
In terms of alternatives, national and regional policy makes a clear case for wind energy and whilst there are a number of other renewable energy sources, the Government promotes a diverse energy mix, reiterated through a host of Government papers. Wind farms form part of a wider renewable energy mix.
Ice – It is possible, under certain conditions, for ice to build up on wind turbine blades. Therefore, there is the risk that ice fragments could be thrown from the blades, or that ice could fall from the turbine when they are not rotating.
In the UK, suitable conditions for icing occur on average for less than 1 day per year (PPS22). Despite the low risk, an ice warning system, which would involve the turbines being fitted with vibration sensors which detect imbalance caused by ice build up can be employed. In the case of ice build up, or inclement weather conditions, the turbine would be shut down. The turbines could only be restarted manually after verification that ice is not present. It is considered these mitigation measures are acceptable, and address the concerns raised in this respect.
Farm Diversification – The proposal promotes a novel form of farm diversification. However, policy ED13 of the UDP advises that such schemes are subject to Green Belt policies and consideration of the impact on residential amenity, visual amenity, highway safety, and agricultural land and nature conservation interests. PPS7 also offers some support for such proposals in relation to the rural economy, but this must be weighed against other considerations as set out in PPS22 and PPG2.
Whilst the proposal would take place on agricultural land, the overall footprint of the scheme has been minimised in order that farming activities could continue hand in hand with the wind farms operation.
Alternative Sites – A few objectors cite the lack of consideration of alternative sites. The applicant states that the Sheephouse site was one of 13 sites considered in the North West Sheffield/South West Barnsley area. However, the submitted ES does not elaborate on the alternative sites considered. However, Circular 02/99 advises that the consideration of alternative sites is good practice, although it would appear there is no absolute requirement for alternatives to be studied in detail. PPS1 (supplement) also advises that applicants should not be required to demonstrate why a proposal must be sited in a particular location.
70
Human Rights – In principle the application might be said to affect nearby resident’s human rights under Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Those rights might be said to be infringed by some impacts. However, these human rights are qualified rights, and can be infringed for certain general public interest benefits listed in the articles concerned.
The report indicated that the noise concerns and issues of shadow flicker are within acceptable limits and it is considered that any interference with human rights are therefore proportionate and authorized under the convention.
Conclusion
Wind farms clearly convey local and wider landscape impacts and these must be assessed as to whether or not they are acceptable and secondly, issues must be weighed against the potential benefits which are demonstrated against regional and national policies on renewable energy.
The proposal complies with a number of national and regional policies aimed at promoting renewable energy and tacking climate change. The evidence that climate change is happening is, according to the Government, beyond doubt (PPS1). The Climate Change Act (2008) requires an 80% reduction in Carbon emissions by 2050 and the RSS appoints a target of 34MW installed grid-connected capacity by 2021 for Barnsley. Whether or not the 34MW target is achieved depends largely on whether extant wind farm permissions are implemented (Blackstone Edge and Hazlehead) and whether Spicer Hill wind farm application is granted permission (and built). There is also the likelihood that other renewable energy projects will come on stream prior to 2021. However, government targets are unrestrictive, highlighting that regional and local targets are a minimum and Local Authorities should make strides to exceed them wherever possible. The fact that this wind farm would account for a capacity of 12.5MW of renewable energy and would contribute towards Carbon reduction is a significant material consideration.
Inevitably, the wind farm would result in some significant impacts focused mainly on the immediate locality. It is accepted that renewable energy projects may not always result in local benefits, but that benefits to society and the wider economy as a whole are significant and should be reflected in the weight given to decisions. However, it is also necessary to consider other material considerations.
Whilst concerns have been raised regarding highways, ecology, shadow flicker, TV reception, the icing of blades and a number of other issues, these have all been suitably considered in the report. In this case, the main issues are considered to be landscape and visual effects and the effects on residential amenity.
The site lies on a south facing valley slope which is enclosed, and the contrast between the enormity of the proposed turbines when referenced against the immediate landscape character and scale of the locality is significant. When viewed from the immediate environs of the site, in particular the south and the facing valley slope which includes the edge of Stocksbridge and Midhopestones CA, the turbines would be incongruous and omnipresent. The CA status of Midhopestones further reinforces the importance of outward views across the ridge where the wind farm is proposed. In addition, when viewed from the north which includes Oxspring and Cubley, the differing land levels result in an alien and visually intrusive feature of unprecedented magnitude. In combination, these impacts are considered significant and on balance weigh against the proposal.
71 The Peak District National Park considers the introduction of a wind farm would cause significant harm to the Parks special characteristics. The special landscape character of the Park is an overriding feature which should not be unduly compromised. It is considered that the proposal would significantly impact on the openness of the upland landscape, harming the special characteristics of the Peak Park and the characteristics outlined in the Peak Park Landscape Character Assessment. The proposal would also serve to increase the panorama of wind farms visible from the Peak Park leading to adverse cumulative effects.
In terms of visual impact, PPS22 states:
“when located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development, which may impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given to the visual impact of projects, and developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources”
In weighing the benefits and the range of distance viewpoints where the wind farm would not appear unduly prominent, against the clear local impacts where the proposal would be significantly at odds with the landscape character, it is considered the balance of harm is not clearly outweighed by the wider benefits and the proposal conflicts with PPS22, PPG2 and GS7 and GS9 of the Barnsley UDP. Whilst the wind farm is proposed for 25 years, the harm is not made more acceptable by virtue of its long-term but temporary nature.
A number of dwellings lie in close proximity to the site. These are generally scattered within 1km of the site and impacts on these dwellings varies. However, it is considered the amenity of a number of occupiers of dwellings in close proximity of the site would be harmed by the proposal. The turbines would be of such a magnitude that they would overbear nearby properties, resulting, in my view, in an uneasy feeling to such an extent that the outlook would be harmed to an unreasonable degree. It is considered that the scale of the turbines is too great in relation to the distance from a number of residential properties. Some of these impacts are reflected in that the visual intrusion and impact on the local landscape character would be significant. This is contrary to UDP policy ES12.
Therefore, in conclusion, it is considered harm to the Green Belt, the local and Peak Park landscape and the harm to residential amenity is not outweighed by the wider benefits associated with the provision of renewable energy. It is, therefore, recommended the application be refused for the following reasons.
Reasons:
1. The site lies within the Green Belt in the Barnsley Unitary Development Plan and the proposal constitutes inappropriate development. The Council are of the opinion that the very special circumstances put forward do not outweigh visual harm by virtue of the proposed wind farms inappropriate scale and siting in relation to the immediate surrounding landscape character and as such the proposal conflicts with the provisions of PPS22, PPG2, Barnsley UDP policies ES12, GS7 and GS9 and the Barnsley Landscape Character Assessment.
72
2. The proposed wind turbines would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the nearby Peak District National Park. The height and scale of the turbines would represent a major change to the open character of the highly sensitive landscape, including the Dark Peak, Dark Peak Pennine Fringe and Eastern Moorland, conflicting with the statutory purposes of the National Park. The addition of this proposed wind farm would increase the panorama of wind farms visible from the Peak District National Park leading to adverse cumulative effects. The proposed development therefore conflicts with the Peak District National Park Landscape Character Assessment, the Barnsley Council Landscape Character Assessment, policies SY1(E5) and SY1(C8) of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy and Barnsley UDP policy ES12.
3. The Council consider that the turbines are located too close to residential properties. The proposed turbines, at a height of 125m, lying in close proximity to permanent dwellings would harm the amenity of their occupants by reason of the visual presence and dominant impact of the turbines on outlook from those properties. As a consequence they are likely to result in harm to residential amenity in terms of their oppressive and overbearing nature, contrary to Barnsley UDP policy ES12.
4. The proposed development significantly harms the characteristics of Miphopestones Conservation Area by virtue of the inappropriate scale and siting of the proposed wind farm in relation to the Conservation Area, particularly views out of the Conservation Area across the valley, thus conflicting with the Sheffield City Council adopted Midhopestones Conservation Area Appraisal.
73 74
SECTION A - APPROVALS
2009/0847 Mr Simon LeJeune Variation of condition 21 of approved application 2008/0171. Wind Farm, Whitley Road, Whitley Common, Barnsley
1 letter of objection. Objections also from Local Members.
Background
Planning application 2008/0171, for the erection of a 3 turbine wind farm with a height of 101 metres to blade tip including substation building, anemometer mast and ancillary infrastructure at land between Browns Edge Road and Whitley Road, (known as Blackstone Edge), Crow Edge, Barnsley, was granted on 26 May 2009 subject to 27 planning conditions. The current application seeks to amend condition 21 of this planning permission relating to operational noise levels.
Site Location and Description
The planning permission site of 22.8 hectares lies off Whitley Road between Whitley Common and The Whams, 330 metres from its junction with Brown’s Edge Road and 1km to the north east of Crow Edge. The site is approximately 700 metres to the north-west of the existing Royd Moor Wind Farm, due to be decommissioned in 2018.
The site is characteristic of, and is situated within upland farmland between the Peak District National Park 2km to the south and the settlement/urban fringe areas of Barnsley and Huddersfield. The major settlements of Penistone and Holmfirth lie to the south-east and north- west respectively.
The area is characterised by scattered farmsteads, villages and hamlets (Maythorn being the nearest), with long views to the urban areas. The nearest residential property is New Maythorn Farm some 600 metres from the nearest proposed turbine. The Trans Pennine Trail follows the National Park boundary 2km to the south before heading off towards Penistone while the Barnsley Boundary Walk comes within 800 metres of the site to the north.
The site is composed of improved grassland used for cattle grazing, with more extensive areas of semi-natural grassland grazed by sheep in the surrounding landscape. Blackwater Dyke, an ordinary watercourse which is a tributary to Ingbirchworth reservoir to the north east, issues just to the north of the site’s north eastern boundary.
75 Proposed Development
Condition 21 of planning permission 2008/0171 states that:
‘The noise level shall not exceed the following levels, measured as a 10 minute LA90 at the following properties:
Location Maximum Noise Level Permitted (L90 10 mins) Spicer House Night 43 Day 35 New Maythorn Farm Night 43 Day 35
(Where day-time is defined as 07.00-23.00 hours; within that, quiet day-time periods are defined as 18.00-2300 hours Mon-Fri, 13.00-23.00 Sat, and 07.00-23.00 hours Sun. Night-time is defined as 23.00-07.00 hours.)
Noise monitoring shall be undertaken immediately prior to commissioning and annually and the results submitted to the LPA. Any noise issues identified shall be resolved within 3 months of identification. All measurements shall be made by a competent person using a calibrated noise level meter of type II or better. Reason: To ensure that operational noise limits are met and continue to be met’.
The applicant advises that this condition would have significant restrictions on energy output and that the wording is not in accordance with the Department of Trade and Industry report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (Energy Technology Support Unit - ETSU-R- 97), which describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise. The Government advises in Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy that this report should be used by planning authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments.
The application therefore seeks to vary the condition to permit the noise levels predicted in the Environmental Statement submitted with planning application 2008/0171 and which the applicant claims are in accordance with the ETSU-R-97 report. The requested variation is as follows:
“The Rating Noise Levels from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators on the development hereby approved shall not at any time exceed the levels shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Rating Noise Levels will be derived from levels measured, and corrected if necessary for tonal quality, in accordance with procedures in the Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes attached to this decision (see Appendix 1.).
Table 1 – Maximum permitted noise levels 23:00 – 07:00 (dB LAf90, 10min)
Wind speed at 10m above ground level (m/s) Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
New Maythorn 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 45.8 47.7 49.6 51.5
Spicer House 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.2 45.0 46.8 48.6 ______
76
Table 2 – Maximum permitted noise levels all other times (dB LAf90, 10min)
Wind speed at 10m above ground level (m/s) Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
New Maythorn 37.6 39.3 41.1 42.8 44.5 46.2 48.0 49.7 51.4 53.2
Spicer House 35.5 37.1 38.8 40.5 42.1 43.8 45.5 47.1 48.8 50.4 ______
The noise limits specified shall also apply to all other dwellings which lawfully exist at the time of this consent. Noise limit values shall be taken from the nearest non-financially involved dwelling having pre-established background noise to the dwelling in question.
In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the LPA alleging noise nuisance due to the wind turbines on the development hereby approved, the wind farm operator shall measure the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the location of the complainant’s property (or, in the event that access is not possible, at the nearest publicly accessible location acceptable to the LPA) and the operator shall cooperate with the LPA and ensure that the development is compliant with the above defined limits for the site”.
Policy Context
Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22)
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) and the Companion Guide to PPS22 (PPS22CG), set out the Government’s policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents and when taking planning decisions.
The statement sets out key principles which planning bodies should adhere to in their approach to planning for renewable energy. It advises that renewable technologies may generate small increases in noise levels such as aerodynamic noise from wind turbines.
Barnsley Unitary Development Plan adopted 2000 (UDP)
The site is located within Green Belt and an Area of Borough Landscape Value (policies not saved). A Mineral Planning Permission area lies immediately to the east. A Nature Conservation Site (Whitley Edge) is indicated to the south west of the site, across Whitley Road. Relevant policies in respect of this application include:
Policy ES12 – outlines the factors (including the impact on residential amenity with respect to noise) which will be considered in respect of proposals for wind energy generation and that the Council will expect a detailed statement which has regard to the various issues.
Consultations
BMBC Regulatory Services – Are satisfied with the information and explanation provided by the applicant with respect to the noise prediction methodology and its robustness. No objection subject to some amendments to the proposed condition.
77
Dunford Parish Council – No comments received.
Representations
The proposal was advertised by way of a site notice and notices displayed in nearby settlements and the local press, and neighbour notification letters sent to over 50 addresses in the locality including Millhouse Green, Ingbirchworth, Holmfirth, Maythorn, and Crow Edge.
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident together with 3 letters of objection from Local Members raising a number of comments and concerns which are summarised as follows:
Question the need to change the wording of the original condition; Question the methodology in the applicant’s Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes attached to the proposed condition; State that due regard should be given to the problem of noise levels and infrasound in relation to health. Research suggests that homes should be either 1 mile or 1.5km away from a wind farm. Suggest that it is necessary to refuse wind farms which are situated less than 5km from habitation. Concern that 25 families live within 0.7 miles and that there are a growing number of cases of people suffering the same symptoms (sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, nausea, visual blurring etc.) given the clinical name, Wind Turbine Syndrome, by one doctor; and There is a need for an Environment Impact Study which must take into account the likely impact of the development on the health of residents living nearby.
Assessment
A number of objections have been received in respect of this application including, amongst other matters the suggestion that wind farms should be refused which are less than 5km from habitation due to noise levels. However, wind farm development at Blackstone Edge has already been granted. The focus of this application is a proposed amendment to Condition 21 of planning permission 2008/0171 relating to the control of noise levels.
It is considered that there are two main issues:
Is there any justification for considering a proposed amendment to Condition 21; and If so, is the amendment proposed by the applicant acceptable?
As stated by the applicant, the Department of Trade and Industry report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (Energy Technology Support Unit - ETSU-R-97), describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, and the Government advises in PPS22 that this should be used by planning authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments. The framework gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development.
It is evident that Condition 21 is far more restrictive in respect of the permitted noise levels than ETSU-R-97 allows and it is accepted that this would significantly reduce energy output. In such circumstances, it is considered that there is a reasonable justification for the consideration of an amendment to the condition.
78 In considering an amendment, it is important that any revised permitted noise levels remain within the ETSU-R-97 framework in order to ensure that ‘a reasonable degree of protection’ is maintained for potentially affected properties. The applicant’s proposal has been carefully assessed by Regulatory Services who, following clarification of the information provided by the applicant, have concluded that the prediction methodology employed is robust. In particular, it is understood that the noise predictions which comply with ETSU-R-97 over-predict the actual levels. It is considered therefore that the condition proposed by the applicant is acceptable in principle.
Whilst the applicant’s proposed condition and attached schedule of guidance notes appears to be complex and lengthy and has been questioned by an objector, it is based on a noise condition which has emerged as the product of challenge and knowledge and recent planning appeal cases (e.g. Appeal Ref: APP/R2928/A/08/2075105, Land to the South East of Kiln Pit Hill, Northumberland). However, minor amendments to the applicant’s suggested condition (see recommendation) and schedule of guidance notes (see Appendix 2) are proposed to improve precision and enforceability (amendments in italics).
Objections to the amendment have been received in respect of potential health issues in relation to noise from wind farms, specifically infrasound and aerodynamic modulation (AM) (or amplitude modulation) and it has been suggested that an Environmental Impact Study is required. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken and an Environmental Statement (ES) was submitted with the original planning application. The Environmental Statement considered the issue of noise and demonstrated that the development complies with ETSU. The current application does not modify in any way the proposed wind farm development; it simply requests an amendment to a noise condition to permit noise levels in accordance with ETSU. Furthermore it is considered in any event that the proposal to amend the condition if approved does not have any significant environmental effects and therefore no further EIA is required. However, it is nethertheless considered important to comment on potential health effects.
In respect of infrasound, the applicant points to research which has found that modern wind turbines are not sources of infrasound at levels which could be injurious to health. The Companion Guide to PPS 22 (PPS22CG) advises that noise levels from well designed turbines will not normally be significant and that noise levels are generally low and, under most operating conditions, it is likely the turbine noise would be completely masked by wind-generated background noise. More importantly, it also states that there is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from wind turbines (infrasound) is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health. This view is also shared in the latest guidance provided in an article in the March/April 2009 edition of the Institute of Acoustics which concludes that there is no robust evidence that low frequency noise (including infrasound) or ground borne vibration from wind farms generally has adverse effects on wind farm neighbours. A number of planning appeal decisions have accepted this view.
AM is a fluctuation in aerodynamic noise as a turbine blade passes and has been found to cause difficulties in getting to sleep, or returning to sleep once awake. The causes of the phenomenon are not fully understood. However, the noise limits derived following the procedure recommended by ETSU-R-97 take into account AM to a certain extent and thus affords some protection. A study undertaken for DEFRA and the DTI in 1997 examined 133 operational wind farms in the UK and found AM implicated in only 4 cases and possibly in another 8. Based on the findings, the Government does not consider there to be a compelling case for further work into AM but will continue to keep the issue under review. Again, a number of recent planning appeals have accepted that the risk of AM is low and acceptable.
It is notable that the proposed condition provides a method of control should any complaints in relation to noise be received. It is also understood that should AM occur, it can be dealt with through statutory nuisance powers.
79 In principle the application might be said to affect nearby resident's human rights under article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First protocol (Protection of Property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Those rights might be said to be infringed by noise issues. However, these human rights are qualified rights, and can be infringed for certain general public interest benefits listed in the articles concerned.
The report indicates that the noise concerns are within acceptable limits and it is considered that any interference with human rights are therefore proportionate and authorised under the convention.
In summary, it is accepted that ETSU-R-97 guidance is the most appropriate means of assessing noise from wind farms. Blackstone Edge Wind Farm can comply with a planning condition derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97 and a suitable form of wording is proposed which provides a method of control should any complaints in relation to noise be received. Risks in respect of health concerns appear to be at worst low and acceptable. It is considered that in respect of noise, PPS22 and Policy ES12 of the UDP are satisfied.
Recommendation
That, subject to the prior referral to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan and his non intervention, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and informatives:
1. The permission hereby granted shall only be implemented in conjunction and compliance with planning permission reference 2008/0171 including all conditions; except for condition 21 of that permission which is hereby removed and replaced by condition 2 of this permission which is set out below.
Reason: This planning permission is granted under the provisions of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The Rating Noise Levels from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators on the development hereby approved shall not at any time exceed the levels shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Rating Noise Levels shall be derived from levels measured, and corrected if necessary for tonal quality, in accordance with procedures in the Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes attached to this decision.
Table 1 – Maximum permitted noise levels 23:00 – 07:00 (dB LAf90, 10min)
Wind speed at 10m above ground level (m/s) Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
New Maythorn 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.0 45.8 47.7 49.6 51.5
Spicer House 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.2 45.0 46.8 48.6
80
Table 2 – Maximum permitted noise levels all other times (dB LAf90, 10min)
Wind speed at 10m above ground level (m/s) Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
New Maythorn 37.6 39.3 41.1 42.8 44.5 46.2 48.0 49.7 51.4 53.2
Spicer House 35.5 37.1 38.8 40.5 42.1 43.8 45.5 47.1 48.8 50.4
The noise limits specified shall also apply to all other dwellings which lawfully exist at the time of this consent. Noise limit values shall be taken from the nearest non-financially involved dwelling having pre-established background noise to the dwelling in question.
In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the LPA alleging noise nuisance due to the wind turbines on the development hereby approved, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the LPA to measure the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the location of, and external to, the complainant’s property (or, in the event that access is not possible, at the nearest publicly accessible location acceptable to the LPA) following the procedures described in the attached Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes. The results of the independent consultant’s assessment shall be provided to the LPA within 2 months of the date of notification of complaint unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA. The operator shall cooperate with the LPA to ensure that the development is compliant with the above defined limits for the site.
The wind farm operator shall continuously log wind speed and wind direction data and power generation data for each wind turbine and provide it to the LPA on its request and in accordance with the attached Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes within 28 days of receipt in writing of a request.
Reason: In order to ensure that the levels of turbine noise at residential property does not exceed acceptable limits, as considered in The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R- 97 and in order to monitor effectively wind speed and direction as conditions may affect noise.
Informatives/Notes to applicants
1. The development hereby permitted must be carried out in accordance with the conditions attached to this planning permission and any approved plans and details. Failure to implement the permission in accordance with the planning conditions and approved details may render the development unlawful and could lead to enforcement action and prosecution. If at any stage, it becomes necessary to vary any of the approved plans or details you should contact the LPA in advance of implementing any changes to ascertain whether the proposed changes require any further planning approval.
81
Appendix 1 (Applicant’s Proposal)
Schedule Of Guidance Notes Relating To Condition
The following paragraphs are based upon steps 2-6 specified in Section 2 of the Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation contained within page 102 and following pages of “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, ETSU-R-97” published by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry. It has been adapted in the light of experience of actual compliance measurements.
Note 1
Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic should be measured at the affected dwelling using a sound level meter of IEC 651 Type 1 quality (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). This should be fitted with a half inch diameter microphone and calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997. The microphone should be mounted on a tripod at 1.2 – 1.5m above ground level, fitted with a two layer windshield or suitable equivalent according to current best practice, and placed in the vicinity of, and external to, the dwelling. The intention is that, as far as possible, the measurements should be made in “free-field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 3.5m away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground.
The LA90,10min measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic average wind speed and with operational data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm.
The wind speed and wind direction and a note of all 10 minute periods when one or more of the turbines was not operating normally should be available to enable an analysis to take place.
The precise definition of “normal operation” should be agreed in writing with the local authority prior to commencement of the development on the basis of data available but should generally be taken to mean when the turbine power output is not significantly different from the reference power curve, which may be a noise optimised power curve if appropriate, using the nacelle anemometer.
In the interests of commercial confidentiality no information is required to be provided for individual turbines or on the nature of any abnormality or for any period during which noise monitoring is not taking place.
Note 2
The noise measurements should be made over a period of time sufficient to provide not less than 100 valid data points. Measurements should also be made over a sufficient period to provide valid data points throughout the range of wind speeds considered by the Local Planning Authority to be most critical. In determining the wind speeds most critical the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to those wind speeds which were most likely to have prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise. Valid data points are those that remain after the following data have been excluded:
All periods during rainfall; All periods during which the measurement position is not within 45 degrees of being downwind of any wind turbine; and All periods during which turbine operation was not normal.
82 A least squares, “best fit” curve of a maximum 4th order should be fitted to the data points.
Note 3
Where in the opinion of the LPA, the noise emission contains a tonal component; the following rating procedure should be used. This is based on the repeated application of a tonal assessment methodology. For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10min data have been obtained a tonal assessment is performed on noise emissions during 2-minutes of the 10-minute period. The 2- minute periods should be regularly spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are obtained.
For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility criterion of the tone level difference, DeltaLtm, is calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on page 104 and following pages of ETSU-R-97. The margin above audibility is plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. For samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, substitute a value of zero audibility.
A linear regression is then performed to establish the margin above audibility at the assessed wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average will suffice.
The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below. The rating level at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2, and the penalty for tonal noise. The rating level shall be determined for each integer wind speed. If the rating level lies at or below those values set out in Condition 21, then no further action is necessary.
Note 4
If the rating level is above the limit, a correction for the influence of background noise should be made. This may be achieved by repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise at the assess wind speed, L3. The wind farm noise at this speed, L1, is then calculated as follows where L2 is the measured level with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:
83
L1 = 10 log [10L2/10 - 10L3/10]
The rating level is re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any) to the wind farm noise. If the rating level lies at or below those values set out in Condition 21 then no further action is necessary. If the rating level exceeds the values set out in Condition 21 then the development fails to comply with Condition 21.
Appendix 2 (Recommendation)
Schedule Of Guidance Notes Relating To Condition
These notes are to be read with Condition 2 of planning permission 2009/0847. They further explain the condition and specify the methods to be deployed in the assessment of complaints about noise emissions from the wind farm.
Note 1
Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic shall be measured at the complainant’s property using a sound level meter of IEC 651 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1, standard (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using a fast time weighted response. This shall be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent relevant UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements).
The microphone shall be mounted on a tripod at 1.2 – 1.5m above ground level, fitted with a two layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved by the LPA, and placed in the vicinity of, and external to, the complainant’s dwelling. Measurements shall be made in “free-field” conditions, so that the microphone shall be placed at least 3.5m away from the building façade or any reflecting surface except the ground.
The LA90,10min measurements shall be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic average wind speed and with power generation data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm.
To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed and arithmetic mean wind direction data in 10-minute periods by direct measurement of 10m height wind speeds at a location within the permission site to be agreed by the LPA prior to commencement of the development.
Note 2
The noise measurements shall be made so as to provide not less than 100 valid data points as defined below. Such measurements shall provide valid data points for the range of wind speeds, wind directions, times of day and power generation requested by the LPA. In specifying such conditions the LPA shall have regard to those conditions which were most likely to have prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise.
Valid data points are those that remain after the following data have been excluded:
All periods during rainfall; All periods during which the measurement position is not within 45 degrees of being downwind of any wind turbine; and
84 All periods during which turbine operation was not normal.
A least squares, “best fit” curve of a maximum 4th order shall be fitted to the data points and define the rating level at each integer speed.
The precise definition of “normal operation” shall be agreed in writing with the local authority prior to commencement of the development on the basis of data available but shall generally be taken to mean when the turbine power output is not significantly different from the reference power curve, which may be a noise optimised power curve if appropriate, using the nacelle anemometer.
In the interests of commercial confidentiality no information regarding the turbine output is required to be provided for individual turbines or information on the nature of any abnormality or for any period during which noise monitoring is not taking place.
Note 3
Where in the opinion of the LPA noise emissions at the location or locations where assessment measurements are being undertaken contain a tonal component, the following rating procedure shall be used.
For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10min data have been obtained as provided for in Note 1 a tonal assessment is performed on noise emissions during 2-minutes of each 10-minute period. The 2-minute periods shall be regularly spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are obtained. Where clean data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2-minute period out of the affected overall 10-minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations from standard procedure shall be reported.
For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility criterion of the tone level difference, DeltaLtm, shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104 – 109 of ETSU-R-97. The margin above audibility is plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. For samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, substitute a value of zero audibility.
A linear regression shall then be performed to establish the margin above audibility for each integer wind speed assessed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average shall be used.
The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below. The rating level at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2, and the penalty for tonal noise. If the rating level lies at or below those values set out in Condition 2, then no further action is necessary.
85
Note 4
If the rating level is above the limit set out in the Condition 2, measurements of the influence of background noise shall be made to determine whether or not there is a breach of condition. This shall be achieved by repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise at the assess wind speed, L3. The wind farm noise at this speed, L1, is then calculated as follows where L2 is the measured level with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:
L1 = 10 log [10L2/10 - 10L3/10]
The rating level is re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any) to the derived wind farm noise L1. If the rating level lies at or below the values set out in the Condition 2 then no further action is necessary. If the rating level exceeds the values set out in Condition 2 then the development fails to comply with the Condition.
86 Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The permission hereby granted shall only be implemented in conjunction and compliance with planning permission reference 2008/0171; except for condition 21 of that permission which is hereby removed and replaced by condition 2 of this permission which is set out below. Reason: This planning permission is granted under the provisions of Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The Rating Noise Levels from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators on the development hereby approved shall not at any time exceed the levels shown in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Rating Noise Levels shall be derived from levels measured, and corrected if necessary for tonal quality, in accordance with procedures in the Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes attached to this decision.
The noise limits specified shall also apply to all other dwellings which lawfully exist at the time of this consent. Noise limit values shall be taken from the nearest non- financially involved dwelling having pre-established background noise to the dwelling in question.
In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the LPA alleging noise nuisance due to the wind turbines on the development hereby approved, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the LPA to measure the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the location of the complainant's property (or, in the event that access is not possible, at the nearest publicly accessible location acceptable to the LPA) following the procedures described in the attached Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes. The results of the independent consultant's assessment shall be provided to the LPA within 2 months of the date of notification of complaint unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA. The operator shall cooperate with the LPA to ensure that the development is compliant with the above defined limits for the site.
The wind farm operator shall continuously log wind speed and wind direction data and power generation data for each wind turbine and provide it to the LPA on its request and in accordance with the attached Schedule of Noise Guidance Notes within 28 days of receipt in writing of a request. Reason: In order to ensure that the levels of turbine noise at residential property does not exceed acceptable limits, as considered in The Assessment & Rating of Noise from ind Farms, ETSU-R- 97 and in order to monitor effectively wind speed and direction as conditions may affect noise.
87 88
2009/1009 Mr Eric Danforth Erection of an agricultural storage building (Resubmission) Farm, Bagger Wood Hill, Hood Green, Sheffield
5 letters of objection 2 Objections from Local Councillors.
Site Location and Description
The site is approximately 360m to the north of the village of Hood Green. The land representing Bagger Wood Farm slopes steeply away from the village and includes a former colliery and generally comprises of fields and woodland. A number of dwellings in Hood Green overlook the site at a distance of over 300m. The site lies within a large area of agricultural land and is accessed via a track which runs from Bagger Wood Hill approximately 400m to the west.
The site of the proposed agricultural building is on an existing thinly grassed clearing with no trees, hedges or significant vegetation. The site has been used for the parking of farm vehicles and is driven over regularly. Surrounding the site, there is a significant degree of tree screening which prevents any clear views of the proposal from public vantage points. The building proposed is approximately 100 metres to the east of some agricultural buildings presently in use. To the south of these on higher land is a large industrial style building used as a grain store.
The site proposed for the agricultural building is outside the area that was granted approval for a composting facility under application 2007/0904, which members may recall, but which is now subject to Judicial Review.
Proposed Development
Planning permission is sought for the erection of an agricultural storage building of dimensions 22.9 metres by 12.2 metres. The building is an agricultural steel framed building which would be used to store machinery and equipment in connection with the agricultural operation. A protected species survey has been submitted with the application.
Background
2009/0815 – Was a prior notification submitted under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, under which there is a legal requirement to give 28 days notice to the Local Planning Authority of the intent to carry out certain development on agricultural holdings over 5 hectares. This is referred to as a prior notification.
The Council therefore had 28 days to consider whether the development had a substantial impact, and must respond within that time period to either call an application in (in the form of a formal Planning Application) or allow the development to commence under the terms of the above order. In that instance the Council considered that there were outstanding issues which needed further justification and requested the submission of a formal application now of consideration.
03/1014 – Consent for a similar sized agricultural building to the one subject of this application was granted, but expired in 2008 without being implemented. Its location was approximately 30 metres to the south east of where this building is proposed. However that site forms part of the area for the composting facility, hence why a resubmission is needed to re site it.
89
Policy Context
National and Regional Policy Guidance
Planning Policy Guidance 2 (Green Belt) - Planning Policy Guidance 2 which gives guidance on Green Belt issues is of relevance. GS7 and GS9 of the UDP reflect this policy.
Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) – aims to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology by sustaining, and where possible improving biodiversity. Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and Humber
The RSS for Yorkshire and Humber was published in May 2008.
Policy YH9 states that Green Belt in the North, South, West Yorkshire has a valuable role in supporting urban renaissance, as well as conservation of the countryside. YH9 recognises that the general extent of the Green Belt should not be changed, but recognises there may be a localised need to reconsider its extent and use in certain locations.
Unitary Development Plan – Green Belt and also within a Nature Conservation Site.
Policy GS7 - provides that new development will not be permitted unless it maintains openness.
Policy GS8 - advises new buildings will not be permitted except in very special circumstances. This is unless for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, for cemeteries, or for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt.
Policy GS9 – Development within the Green Belt, or conspicuous from it, should not by reason of its siting, materials or design result in significant harm to the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
Policy GS18 – Any development which may adversely affect, directly or indirectly, a local nature reserve, a natural heritage site, ancient woodland, a regionally important geological site or other nature conservation sites identified on the proposals maps, will not be approved unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a case for the development which outweighs any harm caused.
Consultations
Natural England – No objection to the proposal.
Stainborough Parish Council – Raise concerns regarding the development and its potential conflict with the composting facility and that the building may be used to utilise an in vessel composting facility. Additional concerns relate to the impact of the building on the heritage site.
Highways DC – No objection
Representations
5 letters of objection have been received with the main points raised as follows:-
Visual impact of building both in terms of the landscape and its scale with a height in excess of 5 metres to the ridge. Increase in traffic and inadequacy of access
90 Impact on Heritage site Potential use of building to facilitate composting operation Conflict between the on going agricultural activities and the potential use for a composting facility.
2 Local Councillors also raised concerns on the same lines as above.
Assessment
Material Consideration
Principle of development Additional Justification Impact on Heritage site and biodiversity Residential Amenity Visual Amenity Highway Safety Conclusion
Principle of development - The site lies within an area allocated as green belt land where new buildings are usually considered unacceptable unless they are for agriculture, sport or leisure. In this instance the building is for the storage of agricultural machinery and equipment. In principle the building is considered acceptable providing it has acceptable sitting, design and materials.
Additional justification - It must be re iterated that the purpose of the building proposed is for agriculture. Supporting information states, the farmer has lost a substantial amount of tenanted land which is now encompassed as part of the Wentworth Castle parklands. The loss of this land has rendered the dairy/milk production side of the operation unviable, and the former dairy unit is now being used to develop bull calves into beef cattle.
The existing buildings to the west of the site are used for cattle lairage, and lie approximately 100 metres away from the proposed building. The lairage buildings shall accommodate more than 100 cattle and 200 ewes (for lambing) over the winter. There is an open area adjoining their eastern gable but this is required for accessibility as well as for storage of straw and silage. A further building situated to the south west of the application site is used for grain storage. The proposed siting of the Agricultural storage building is therefore the closest possible to the existing agricultural buildings in use.
Due to the rearing of beef cattle in the largest building on the site, the farmer has no where to store machinery which can not be left unsheltered, hence the need for a new building which shall be used solely for the storage of agricultural machinery, as per the recommended condition.
Impact on Heritage site and biodiversity - A new Species survey carried out on the 27th November 2009 in connection with this proposal. The Ecological survey concluded that the site for the proposed building is an area of used ground within an existing farm yard setting and is therefore driven over by farm vehicles and is of low ecological importance. There are therefore no ecological issues arising from the proposal to erect an agricultural building.
Natural England have been consulted on the proposal and consider that the survey has addressed all protected species issues at the site and have no objections to the scheme.
The site as a whole is therefore considered to have little Ecological value and the impact from the proposed agricultural building both to Ecology and the Heritage site is considered minimal. The proposal therefore complies with policy GS18 of the UDP.
91
Residential Amenity - The site itself is located a considerable distance to the north of the nearest residential properties which sit at a higher level to the site, within the main village of Hood Green. Due to the substantial distance and level differences there is not considered to be any detrimental impact as a result of the building.
Visual Amenity - The site of the proposed building is surrounded by woodland and is considerably screened from all viewpoints. The building would not be visible from any public vantage point and is not considered detrimental to visual amenity.
Highway Safety - The proposal has not met with any opposition from Highways. The access is presently used in connection with the agricultural operations of the land and the proposed storage building is not considered to create any significant traffic movements which would be prejudicial to highway safety.
Conclusion
The application has been submitted for an agricultural storage building and as such is judged in this context against the relevant policies taking into account the information submitted. The building is considered justified for the purpose intended, and is restricted by condition for the storage of agricultural machinery. It is therefore considered inline with PPG 2 and UDP policies GS7 and GS8.
The location of the building is very well screened by surrounding woodland therefore it is not considered to cause any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the landscape and complies with policy GS9. The site is a regularly disturbed clearing which lends little of a contribution to the Natural Heritage Site to which it lies and therefore there is not considered to be any detriment caused to the Ecology of the site or biodiversity lost. The proposal therefore complies with policy GS18 of the UDP.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications under drawing numbers 40/14 dwg 03, 40/14 dwg 02, 40/14dwg 01 Rev A, 40/14 dwg 04 as approved unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
3. The building hereby approved shall be used solely for agricultural purposes in connection with the farm holding. Reason: To ensure the building is used for its intended purpose Only and in the interests of the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
92
93
2009/1091 Mr Christopher Pearsall Removal of condition 9 (retention of footpath) of previously approved application 2008/1397 for conversion of church to dwelling Thurgoland Methodist Church, Cote Lane, Thurgoland, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S35 7AE
Thurgoland Parish Council has objected and included 56 pro-forma letters of objection signed by different local residents. 6 individual letters of objection have also been received from local residents
Background
Conversion of church into dwelling, including demolition of adjoining church hall approved 21.11.08 under application 2008/1397 Residential development of 4 townhouses (outline) refused 10.3.08 Residential development of two houses (outline) (part demolition/redevelopment and part conversion (resubmission) approved 2.7.08
Site Layout and Description
The application site consists of a stone Methodist Chapel in its own grounds which is currently undergoing the conversion approved under application 2008/1397. The site has a private footpath that runs around the northern side of the building and provides access between Cote Lane and Churchfields. A row of stone terrace properties exist to the south of the site with a detached dwelling to the north. The surroundings are predominantly residential.
Proposed Development
The application seeks planning permission for the removal of condition 9 on planning approval 2008/1397 which granted permission for the conversion of the church to a dwelling with the demolition of the adjoining church hall. Condition 9 stipulated the following:
“The public footpath shall be retained as shown on the approved plans for the lifetime of the development unless permission is granted for otherwise”.
Reason: In order to retain the existing footway.
The conversion granted under 2008/1397 respected the character of the building and the internal layout was orientated to retain the main church windows which are on the northern side, Unfortunately these are adjacent to the footpath and its retention would have an impact on the amenity of future occupiers and hence the application for it to be removed.
Policy Context
The site is designated as within a Housing Policy Area as shown within the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. As such Policy H8 would be of relevance. Policy BE6, relating to design, and T2, relating to highway safety, would also be of consideration
94 Consultations
Legal Section – Have stated that the evidence submitted would be sufficient evidence to show that there was never an intention to dedicate the way as a highway and that it is unlikely to be classed as a public footpath. However this does not mean that there might not be a good planning reason why the condition was imposed.
Thurgoland Parish Council – Have stated that they object to the application as:
“The removal of this footpath will also remove an important facility that the residents of Thurgoland have come to accept as a right over a good number of years. They have enjoyed unrestricted access at all times without let or hindrance for more than twenty years, and wish to continue doing so.”
The Parish Council has also included 56 standard letters but signed by individual residents objecting to the closure of the footpath.
Public Rights of Way – Considering local opinion they would object to the application.
Representations
There has been 6 individual letters of objection from neighbouring residents raising the following concerns:
Footpath is frequently used Footpath has been used for a number of years especially by the elderly and schoolchildren The footpath to be retained was a condition of sale of the land
Assessment
Material Consideration
Principle Status of footpath Amenity Value Visual Impact
Principle - The application seeks planning permission to remove condition 9 on planning approval 2008/1397 which granted planning permission for the conversion of a church to a dwelling. The overall scheme of conversion is not under consideration again but only that aspect that relates to condition 9 i.e. the retention of the footpath along the northern boundary of the site. This would only be acceptable if it is considered that the condition is not longer required or its planning merits cannot be justified as reasonable or appropriate to the approved scheme.
Status of Footpath - The existing footpath is not on the definitive map of public rights of way. The applicant has supplied evidence of an agreement between the trustees of Thurgoland Methodist Church and Barnsley Council with regards to the use of the footway. This agreement dates back to 1974 and sets out the terms of use of the footpath. It indicates that the footpath was never intended to be dedicated as a highway and. Other than for church purposes, was only meant to be limited to the use of neighbouring tenants. It also states that the footway should not be used on the 1st January each year and that the council would maintain a notice making it clear that the footway is not a public right of way.
95 The agreement has stayed in place until the applicant took purchase of the site in the last 2-3 years. The Council’s Legal Section have state that the evidence presented would be sufficient to show that there was never an intention to dedicate the way as a highway. As such it does not have the status of a definitive public right of way and, without the imposed condition, the applicant could take a legal route to have it closed off.
Condition 9 was imposed on the previous planning application in agreement with the applicant at that time, who had indicated the retention of the path on their submitted plan. Even though the path did not have the status of a public footpath it was clear it was a useful and used route from Churchfields to Cote Lane and therefore had a benefit to the community to be retained. However, in terms of the planning permission, it has to be considered whether the previous application would have been refused if that condition had not been imposed. Whilst it is acknowledged that the path provides a useful route for local residents it is still possible for people to use an alternative route from Churchfields onto Halifax Road to get to Cote Lane or the village centre. Given that the path does not have a status of a public right of way, and is not needed to facilitate the conversion of the church to a dwelling, it is considered that the previous application would not have been refused if the condition had not been imposed. In view of this the removal of this condition is not considered unreasonable or contrary to planning legislation.
Amenity Value - It is clear from the objections that have been received that the path is a valued and well used route by local residents including the elderly and local children. However, it is not considered that this amounts to a significant material planning reason to justify refusal of this application.
Whilst it is clear that, despite the agreement between the trustees and the Council, the path has been used by the general public, its status is not as a definitive footpath. Nevertheless, there is the option for residents to challenge the status of the path under the Highways Act 1980. This states that if a path has been enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of at least 20 years then the way can be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway. However, it would be up to local residents to provide sufficient evidence to prove this and then this would need to be taken through the legal system to deal with rather than the planning system. As such this option cannot be considered in the determination of this planning application.
Visual Impact - Although this proposal may ultimately result in the applicant choosing not to block up the access to the footpath it is not considered that this would result in a significant detriment to the visual amenity of the area as the access to Cote Lane is a already gated and the access to Churchfields consists of a small gap in a wall.
Conclusion
The granting of planning permission for this application does not mean the granting of removal of the footpath or its blocking up. The granting of planning permission would be on the grounds that the previous condition requiring the retention of the footpath for the conversion of the church to a dwelling is not required. As such the applicant, under the terms of the planning permission, would not be required to retain the footpath but it would be their decision as to whether they wanted to retain the footpath or not subject to any challenges under the Highways Act 1980 from local residents.
Recommendation
Approve
96
97
2009/1093 Ms Jane Williams Change of use from residential to residential family care centre and erection of single storey rear extension 30 Gawber Road, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S75 2AF
Six letters of representation have been received and a petition of 8 signatures.
Site Location and Description
The property is a two storey mid terrace dwelling fronting Gawber Road. It has previously had its roof space converted into additional accommodation and now supports a pitched roof dormer on the front elevation. The property has a rear garden which abuts Prince Arthur Street and includes a hard standing capable of accommodating two cars.
The applicant owns the adjoining property (no.32), which operates as a family centre. The centre caters for up to three families at any one time and they benefit from having their health, welfare and safety promoted and protected. Typically a family will stay at the centre for 12 weeks before returning home. The centre is staffed 24 hours a day with three staff currently employed and one member of staff staying overnight. Beyond no. 32 is a residential dwelling and No. 28 is also a house.
Proposed Development
The applicant wishes to provide additional accommodation and therefore proposes to convert no.30 into a similar facility to their existing premises at no. 32. However, it has come to light that there is no record of planning permission to use no. 32 and as a residential family care centre and an application for retrospective permission is also on the agenda (ref: 2009/1381). This proposal will provide a three bedroom facility; internal openings will be made between the two properties at ground and first floor level although these will be locked and only used by staff. A rear single storey pitched roof extension is proposed to be added to allow an additional lounge and shower room and the existing hard standing at the rear would be utilised to provide two off-street parking spaces. Accompanying the application is copy of the Ofsted report by Lynne Busby in relation to the inspection of the no. 32 Gawber Road on the 3rd March 2009. The report identifies that the overall quality of the site is ‘good’ and that the organisation itself is ‘outstanding’. The applicant wishes to operate no.30 on a like for like basis and expand upon the existing successes.
Policy Context
The site is allocated within a housing policy area within the adopted UDP, the following polices are considered to be material to the determination of the application.
H5B – Planning permission will be granted for residential care and supported living schemes in residential areas provided that:
A) Satisfactory parking and manoeuvring space is available. B) Adequate amenity space is provided. C) The amenity of neighbouring properties and the wider locality is not adversely affected, and D) Proposals for the conversion of properties or extensions to existing homes do not adversely affect the appearance or character of the building, harm the character of the area or constitute overdevelopment.
H8E – Proposals to extend dwellings should:
98 A) Be of scale and design which harmonises with existing building B) Not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties C) Maintain the character of the street scene, and D) Not interfere with the highways safety.
SPG4 ‘House Extensions’ – Provides specific design guidance on domestic extensions.
Consultations
Highways - No objections. Traffic associated with residents and carers will not be significant and there it is unlikely that there will be a high demand for parking space.
South Yorkshire Police - No objections, identify that the building should comply with the requirements of secure by design.
Representations
Neighbouring properties have been consulted in writing, six letters of representation have been received the reasons for which can be summarised as follows:
The proposals will jeopardise the social and economic wellbeing of the area, there is already a children’s home and the existing facility at no.32, in addition there are also numerous bedsits within the locality, and other establishments which cater for vulnerable persons, the cumulative effect of these establishments is downgrading the area. Residents are aware of criminal activity within the area, the development will add to this. On street parking is a local problem with the visitors to the hospital and workers within the town centre using surrounding streets. The development will further burden this. There will be extra noise and disturbance owing to 6 families being located within joined properties. The existing premises at 32 attracts a significant number of visitors (Midwives/GP’s/Social workers etc..) which burdens on street car parking. The authority does not have adequate planning polices to address/assess the type of development proposed. The development will encourage similar proposals which will become increasingly difficult for the authority to refuse.
Assessment
Principle of development - Residential care homes fall within Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions), Circular 03/2005 provides a guide to the 1987 Use Classes Order, as amended. Paragraph 63 offers guidance on the uses contained in Class C2 (residential institutions), it identifies that the characteristics which set a C2 Use apart from a C3 (Dwellinghouse) Use is that the residents and staff do not form a single household. In terms of the relevance of land use planning, it has been established within numerous appeal decisions that such ‘residential institutions’ are compatible/suited to existing residential areas, and as such no objections are made in principle to the development proposal subject to adherence to UDP polices H5B and H8E.
Residential Amenity - It is considered that residents of the facility will be afforded with an appropriate level of amenity, the property is served with a large rear garden and there are several sitting rooms within the premises which will provide a typical home environment for the future occupants.
99 Representations have been received raising concerns that the development will encourage anti- social behaviour within the locality and also increase crime levels. UDP policy H5B acknowledges that the amenity enjoyed by existing residents within a locality should not be compromised. Anti social behaviour is not inherent to the character of a children’s/family home, and to all intents it is considered that the characteristics are much the same to that of a regular dwellinghouse. The residents who live in the facility do so as a family unit, whereby they have access to their own private bedroom but share a communal lounge, kitchen and bathroom. It is also of note that the property would be staffed and a high level of supervision provided throughout the day therefore should any anti social activities arise they are likely to be quickly controlled. As such it is not considered that the proposal would be detrimental to residential amenity.
With reference to the noise and disturbance it would be difficult to sustain arguments/claims made within the representations that the facility will result in additional noise above that which could be associated a residential dwelling. Each family will include a young baby and a member of staff will remain overnight. The Ofsted report demonstrates that the centre is well run but in the event that issue were to arise there would be governed by other legislation (Police, Regulatory Services). It is also worth noting that objections have not been received from the residents immediately adjacent to the existing centre.
It is therefore considered that the development adheres to the provisions of policy H5B in that the amenity of existing neighbouring properties and the wider locality will not be adversely affected or impacted upon as a result of the proposals.
Visual Amenity- The proposal is for the addition of a modest extension to the rear of the property which is intended to accommodate an addition lounge as well as a shower room. The extension is intended to be constructed from materials to match the host dwelling with red brick for the outer walls, concrete tiles for the roof and white UPVC for the windows and doors. The extension projects by 3.6m across the width of the property and incorporates a pitched roof. Its appearance is very similar to that of the single storey extension to the rear of no.32 albeit that it is of smaller scale.
Prince Arthur Street runs along the rear and consequently the appearance of the property within the street scene also has to be assessed. Given that over 15m of the rear garden will be retained it is not considered that the extension will have a domineering appearance/presence within the street scene and as such the design is considered to be acceptable. Therefore, to conclude, the design, scale and siting meets with the provisions and guidance of UDP policy H8E as well as the provisions of SPG 4 in that it is of an appropriate form and scale which will successfully harmonise with the host property.
Highway Safety- The site is located with good access to the town centre and is within a short walking distance of local services and both Gawber Road and Summer Lane are served with frequent bus services. Concerns have been raised within the submitted representations that the development will be a further burden to the current on street parking problems. When assessing the impact on highway safety, the application cannot be refused on basis of the existing parking problems in the locality. It would therefore be necessary to demonstrate that the proposed use would significantly increase demand for parking over and above that associated with the current use.
In this instance the existing property is a large house with two parking spaces available at the rear, which would be primarily used by staff, although some of these live locally and walk to work. The applicant points out that almost none of the families housed at their adjacent property have owned a car. As such it is not considered that the change of use would significantly increase parking problems and this is confirmed in the consultation response from Highways. Consequently, it is not considered that the development will adversely affect highway safety.
100
Conclusion
It is considered the proposal is compatible with a residential area and is unlikely to result in loss of amenity for adjacent residents or exacerbate parking problems in the locality. It is therefore recommended the planning permission is granted subject to conditions, including a condition limiting the use.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The premises shall be used as a residential family care centre and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason: The site consists of a terraced property adjacent to dwellings with limited parking provision and the Local Planning Authority considered it is proper and reasonable to limit the use in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety.
3 The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
4 All on-site vehicular areas shall be hard surfaced and drained in an approved manner prior to the development being brought into use. Reason: To prevent mud/debris being deposited on the public highway to the detriment of highway safety.
101 102
2009/1381 Ms Jane Williams Change of use from residential to a residential family care centre. (Retrospective) 32 Gawber Road, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S75 2AF
One letter of representation has been received.
Site Location and Description
The applicant property is a two storey mid terrace fronting Gawber Road. The property has had its roof space converted into additional accommodation and now supports a flat roof dormer on its front elevation. The property has a rear garden which abuts Prince Arthur Street and on the rear elevation there is a single storey pitched roof extension.
Proposed Development
The premises operates as a family centre providing assistance for parents who are in need of support. The centre caters for up to three families at any one time and they benefit from having their health, welfare and safety promoted and protected. Typically a family will stay at the centre for 12 weeks before returning home. The centre is staffed 24 hours a day with three staff currently employed and one member of staff staying overnight. Beyond no. 32 is a residential dwelling and No. 28 is also a house.
The application has been made retrospectively as it was recently brought to the Authority’s attention when the applicant applied for planning permission for a change of use of the adjoining property (no.30). There is no planning record no.32 to be changed from a residential dwelling to a residential family care centre, this application therefore seeks to rectify this. The applicant states that the premises have been occupied by Twenty Four Seven since 2004 and at that time building regulations approval was granted for internal alterations. The premises were also extended with planning permission in 2006 in connection with its use as a family centre. Accompanying the application is copy of the latest Ofsted report by Lynne Busby completed on the 3rd March 2009. The report identifies that the overall quality of the site is ‘good’ and that the organisation itself is ‘outstanding’
It is of note that no complaints have been received by the Planning Service regarding the use of the premises.
Policy Context
The site is allocated within a housing policy area within the adopted UDP, the following polices are considered to be material to the determination of the application.
H5B – Planning permission will be granted for residential care and supported living schemes in residential areas provided that:
E) Satisfactory parking and manoeuvring space is available. F) Adequate amenity space is provided. G) The amenity of neighbouring properties and the wider locality is not adversely affected, and H) Proposals for the conversion of properties or extensions to existing homes do not adversely affect the appearance or character of the building, harm the character of the area or constitute overdevelopment.
103
Consultations
Highways:- No objections. Traffic associated with residents and carers will not be significant and it is unlikely that there will be a high demand for parking.
South Yorkshire Police:- No objections, identify that the building should comply with the requirements of secure by design.
Representations
Neighbouring properties have been consulted in writing, one letter of representation has been received, the reasons for which can be summarised as follows:
The amount of parking available to local residents is already impacted by the indiscriminate parking of both professional and private visitors to the premises as well as its close proximity to Barnsley District General Hospital. There is a proliferation of these types of development within the immediate area with other private children’s homes and a NHS day centre.
Assessment
Principle of development - The applicant states that the property has operated as a residential care home since 2004. The continued use of the premises therefore cannot be established under an application for a lawful development certificate. In determining this retrospective planning application full regard must be given to the characteristics of the development and consideration should be given as to whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action. The application also gives an opportunity to consider whether conditions need to be imposed to control the development.
Residential care homes fall within Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions), Circular 03/2005 provides a guide to the 1987 Use Classes Order, as amended. Paragraph 63 offers guidance on the uses contained in Class C2 (residential institutions), it identifies that the characteristics which set a C2 Use apart from a C3 (Dwellinghouse) Use is that the residents and staff do not form a single household. In terms of the relevance of land use planning, it has been established within numerous appeal decisions that such ‘residential institutions’ are compatible/suited to existing residential areas and as such no objections are made in principle to the development proposal. Therefore, the main planning considerations are the impact of the facility on residential amenity, the character of the local environment and the impact on highway safety.
Having regard to the provision of policy H5B, there are no objections to the continued use of the premises to provide residential care. The building maintains a domestic appearance and cannot be distinguished in anyway from adjacent residential properties. As such it is not considered that it has a material effect which is in anyway detrimental to the character of the locality. In any case, the day to day operations of the site are monitored and controlled by other legislation and in this instance the accompanying Ofsted inspection report identifies that the site is well managed. In addition the Authority is not aware of any complaints made against the premises.
Highway Safety- The site is located with good access to the town centre and is within a short walking distance of local services and both Gawber Road and Summer Lane are served with frequent bus services. Concerns have been raised within the submitted representations that the development is a further burden to the current on street parking problems. When assessing the impact on highway safety, it is necessary to establish whether the use has significantly increased demand for parking over and above that associated with the previous use as a dwelling.
104
The property currently has a single parking space available at the rear, which is primarily used by staff, although some of these live locally and walk to work. The applicant points out that almost none of the families housed at their adjacent property have owned a car. As such it is not considered that the change of use has increased demand for parking over and above the previous use as a large dwelling.
Conclusion
Having full regard to development plan policies, representations and the operating characteristics of the premises, it is considered that the use is compatible with the residential area and it is recommended that permission is granted subject to a condition limiting its use.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The premises shall be used as a residential family care centre and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason: The site consists of a terraced property adjacent to dwellings with limited parking provision and the Local Planning Authority considered it is proper and reasonable to limit the use in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety.
105 106
2009/1121 Mr Richard Pinson Erection of a deer unit building. Little Doubting Farm, Hartcliff Hill Road, Cubley, Sheffield
There have been no letters of representation to this application.
Introduction
Members will be aware that this application went before the Planning Board in November of this year and was deferred pending the outcome of the appeal on the previous application at this site for an egg production unit building and deer unit building (Application Reference 2009/0032). This appeal is being dealt with by written representations. Both sides have sent their statements to the Planning Inspectorate and we are currently awaiting the Inspectorate setting a date for a site visit which is now likely not to be until the new year. A decision will usually be made on the outcome of the appeal within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of the site visit. Due to the appeal being outstanding and unlikely to be determined by for at least a couple of months the agent has written in to request that the application be taken back before the Planning Board. The reason for this request relates to the welfare of the farmed deer on the site. The agent has stated the following:
“The Planning Board refused to support the approval recommendation for the proposed deer housing at Little Doubting Farm. Your report clearly indicated (para 2) that the deer housing has no link with the egg production unit currently at Appeal. I understand the Board decided to await this Appeal for their own unexplained reasons.
“I am requesting that, as no decision notice can be issued; that your report be returned to the Board at the December meeting and also that I will speak at the Board.
You may be aware of the code of recommendation for the welfare of farmed deer which is made under section 3(1) of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1968 and approved by Parliament.
The code is backed up by the law of the land. To cause any unnecessary pain or distress to any farm animal is an offence under the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1968 and approved by Parliament.
The deer housing is an essential shelter for the deer particularly the calves and yearlings in winter and the Board decision potentially causes legal problems for all concerned. My client is effectively being prevented from caring for his animals in a proper and appropriate planning context by the blocking of his building.
The situation is frankly intolerable for my client who has paid appropriate planning fees and incurred costs during this process.”
It is considered that the welfare of the animals is an important consideration especially with the colder weather that will be experienced over the winter months. It is also considered a fair request for the agent to be allowed to address the Members so that all points can be considered. As such the application is being put back to the Board to allow the Members to further consider the proposals.
107 Background
Members may recall that an application for an egg production unit building and a deer unit building at this site went before the Board in July of this year. The application was refused by Members over concerns on grounds of drainage and highway safety. That application is now the subject of an appeal awaiting determination by the Planning Inspectorate.
This current application seeks approval for a deer unit building only. All aspects previously relating to the egg production unit have been removed from this application and as such are not under consideration with this scheme. The previous planning applications at Little Doubting farm are as follows:
2007/0586 - Erection of free-range egg production unit, measuring 67 m x 18m with ancillary hardstandings and access (Revised Submission) refused 5th June 2007. Dismissed at appeal on 8th September 2008. 2007/0558 – Change of use of land for siting of temporary dwelling (resubmission) refused June 2007 2006/1863 – Erection of free-range egg production unit, measuring 100m x 18m, with ancillary hardstandings and access withdrawn 8.1.07 2006/1878 – Change of use of land for siting of temporary dwelling withdrawn 8.1.07 2006/1878 – Change of use of site for erection of temporary dwelling currently undetermined 04/1926 - Alterations to existing buildings to form stables and ancillary uses and creation of fenced riding arena approved 16.11.04 04/1337 – Refurbishment of existing farm buildings to form stables, formation of riding arena and fencing refused 3.8.04 03/0549 - Alteration and extension to existing dwelling to form new dwelling refused 3.6.03 02/0755 - Rebuilding of derelict dwelling refused 10.9.02
Site Layout and Description
The site consists of an existing open agricultural holding located in predominantly rural surroundings. The agent has stated that the applicant has already placed a number of deer on the land. Access is taken off Hartcliffe Hill Road. The proposed building would be sited on a southward sloping field in close association to existing outbuildings that make up part of Little Doubting Farm and adjacent to an existing wooded plantation. Approximately 100 metres to the north-east of the site is a small cluster of residential properties.
Proposed Development
The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a steel framed agricultural building to house deer during the winter and when producing their offspring. At other times the building would be used to store feed, hay and straw for the animals. At present the deer herd is approximately 100.
The proposed building would measure 18m x 9m rising to a height of 5m. The building would have a lower stone plinth with dark brown stained weather boarding cladding making up the rest of the external walling material. The scheme also proposes the planting of trees on an earth bund to the north of the proposed building.
Policy Context
The site is designated as within the Green Belt. Policies GS8 andGS9would therefore be of relevance. Policy BE6, relating to design, and Policy T2, relating to highway safety, would also be of consideration.
108
SPG13 provides detailed guidance on Agricultural buildings.
Consultations
Highways DC – No objections subject to conditions
Drainage Section – No objections.
Animal Welfare Officer – Has indicated that the deer farm would be visited as part of a regular routine programmed to ensure the needs of the animals are met.
Regulatory Services – Subject to the imposition of conditions no objections would be raised
Yorkshire Water – No objections raised
Environment Agency – No comments received
Langsett Parish Council – No objections to the deer unit building.
Representations
No letters of representation have been received
Assessment
Material Consideration
Principle of development Design and layout Residential Amenity Drainage Highway Safety
Principle of development - The site is within the Green Belt as designated within the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. Policy GS8 states that new development will only be permitted in connection with certain uses. The proposed deer unit would be used in connection for the breeding of deer which, like cattle, are bred for their meat. As such the use would be considered an agricultural use for livestock which requires a large amount of land and therefore would most likely only be facilitated within the open countryside. In principle land use planning terms therefore the proposal would be considered in accordance with Policy GS8 and PPG:2 Green Belts.
Design and Layout - Policy GS9 states that development should not harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt. The proposed deer unit would have a lower layer of stone to provide a connection with the existing stone buildings that make up part of Little Doubting Farm. The main materials would be dark brown timber boarding which would blend in with the backdrop of woodland. Although the building would measure 18 metres in length and 9 metres in width it would only rise to a height of 5 metres. It would also be at a lower level to, and nearly 80 metres from, Hartcliffe Hill Road which is the nearest public vantage point. It is also proposed to have a landscaped bund on the northern boundary of the site which would help screen views from the road as well as from housing to the north. The proposed building is typical of agricultural buildings in the locality and as such is considered acceptable for this location.
109 Residential Amenity - The structure would be positioned approximately 100 metres from the nearest dwelling. It is considered that with this separation distance, the alignment of the unit and the proposed tree screening, the unit would not result in a loss of outlook to neighbouring amenities.
In terms of noise and odours the Council’s Regulatory Services Section has recommended conditions to minimise the impact on near residents. Furthermore it is considered that, due to the distance from neighbouring properties and the prevailing winds, that neither noise of odours would represent a significant detriment to neighbouring amenities.
Drainage - In terms of drainage the applicant has recognized that to allow roof water to spill directly to the ground could lead to water logging around the building. As such it is proposed to collect rainfall on the building in water butts and then utilize it for agricultural purposes such as cleaning and water for the animals.
In terms of comparison with the previous application at this site, for the deer unit and egg production unit, there would be a significant reduction in surface water run-off from the structures proposed. The roof area that would be created by this application for the deer unit, would only be approximately 25% of the roof areas that would be created in the scheme currently with the Planning Inspectorate. The impact on drainage issues is therefore significantly lessened.
The Council’s Drainage Section and Yorkshire Water have both been consulted on the scheme and raised no objections. The Environment Agency were also consulted but have raised no comments but it should be noted on the previous scheme for the site, which included both the deer building and a large egg production unit building, the Environment Agency had raised no objections. As this proposal is for a much reduced scheme it is not considered that it would be of detriment to the drainage of the area.
Highway Safety - The application proposes to use the existing access that serves Little Doubting Farm. However, it is now proposed to widen the access to allow easier manoeuvrability for vehicles entering and existing the site. It is also proposed to surface the first part of the access which would also ease vehicular movements associated with the site. Considering the use of the building, as a deer unit, it is not considered that it would generate significant traffic movements and the applicant has indicated that no vehicle with a gross laden weight of 8 tonnes or larger than 4 wheels will be needed to serve the scheme. In comparison to the scheme currently with the Planning Inspectorate the level of traffic generated will be significantly less as the proposal only relates to one animal operation, deer, rather than two, deer and chickens. The Council’s Highways Section have raised no objection and as such it is not considered that the proposal would result in a significant detriment to highway safety.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
110
2 The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved, including the amendment to the access as shown on the plan titled "Access to Little Doubting Farm" received on 26th October 2009, unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
3 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscaping works, including details of the species, positions and planted heights of proposed trees and shrubs; together with details of the position and condition of any existing trees and hedgerows to be retained. The approved hard landscaping details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the building(s). Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
4 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which die within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
5 The parking/manoeuvring facilities, indicated on the submitted plan, as amended by the plan titled 'Access to Little Doubting Farm' received on the 26th October 2009, shall be provided prior to the development being brought into use, and shall be retained for that sole purpose at all times. Reason: In the interests of road safety
6 Construction or remediation work comprising the use of plant, machinery or equipment, or deliveries of materials shall only take place between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1400 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents and in accordance with UDP Policy ES1, Pollution
7 Prior to commencement of the development, details of the surfacing of the access road and entrance onto Hartcliffe Hill Road shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The scheme shall then proceed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety
8 There shall be no external storage of manure on the site at any time. Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality from odour
111
112
2009/1262 Mr Charles Booth Erection of a two storey extension to existing Mill building and change of use for commercial use Corn Mill, Bullhouse Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Penistone, Sheffield
No letters of representation have been received
Background
The site has a long history of planning applications, however the following applications are of relevance:
2002/0899 – Erection of extensions to mill to provide three storey office accommodation – Approved with conditions. This approval has not been implemented and expired in September 2007.
2007/1709 – Change of use from mill to offices and alterations to front elevation – Approved with conditions
Description
The site is an isolated complex set in open countryside to the west of the village of Millhouse Green. To the south trees screen the site from a distance. To the north the land rises gradually to a small group of houses on Catshaw Lane. Access is gained to the site from Lee Lane to the east. A public footpath runs through the site. The site contains a mixture of old and new buildings including the original stone mill which it is now proposed to extend. The former corn mill is home to several industrial/retail and offices uses.
Proposed Development
The proposed development is for the erection of a two storey extension to the existing mill and change of use for commercial/office use. The extension is to provide a further 330 square metres of office space and is of a contemporary aluminium clad design, of a comparable two storey height to existing buildings.
Policy Context
Unitary Development Plan – Green Belt
National Planning Policy Guidance in PPG 2 ‘Green Belts’ - sets out the types of development that may be acceptable within Green Belt locations. These include agricultural buildings and buildings such as small stables which are appropriate within rural areas. Other development is inappropriate and carries a general presumption against unless it can be justified by very special circumstances.
Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Sustainable Development within Rural Areas’ makes clear;- The Government’s objectives for rural areas that are relevant to this Planning Policy Statement (PPS) are:
To raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas with sustainable economic growth and diversification.
To promote more sustainable patterns of development, discouraging the development of ‘greenfield’ land, and, where such land must be used, ensuring it is not used wastefully.
113
Promoting the development of the English regions by improving their economic performance so that all are able to reach their full potential by developing competitive, diverse and thriving rural enterprise that provides a range of jobs and underpins strong economies.
To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors where farming achieves high environmental standards, minimising impact on natural resources, and manages valued landscapes and biodiversity; contributes both directly and indirectly to rural economic diversity; is itself competitive and profitable; and provides high quality products that the public wants.
The policies contained within the UDP reflect national guidance.
Policy GS7 - precludes all development within the Green Belt, unless it maintains the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
Policy GS8 - indicates that unless the buildings are for a use that is appropriate to a rural area the construction of new buildings [e.g. dwellings] will not be permitted ‘except in very special circumstances’. It is for the applicant to demonstrate what very special circumstances apply.
Policy GS9 - indicates that development within the Green Belt should not by reason of siting, materials or design result in visual harm to the Green Belt.
Policy ED10 – the expansion of existing firms will normally be permitted subject to satisfactory standards of design, the amenity of neighbouring uses, and adequate car parking, loading and vehicle manoeuvring facilities.
Policy BE6 - the council will seek to achieve good design standards for all types of development. Proposals for development will be assessed using the following design criteria: a) The quality of layout, and suitability of scale of the development b) The use, quality, design and landscape treatment of open land within the site and the area around buildings c) The standard of detailed design and facing materials of proposed buildings d) The suitability of the whole development for its proposed context and its relationship with adjoining land uses. Designs which the council considers unsatisfactory in terms of any of these criteria will be rejected.
ED13 – development which leads to the diversification of the rural economy will be permitted subject to green belt policies, and consideration of the impact on residential and visual amenity, highway safety, agricultural land and nature conservation interests.
Consultations
Barnsley Development Agency - BDA officers have considered the proposals and on the basis that the principle of office use at Bullhouse Mill was generally established under planning permission 2007/1709, we note that approval of this detailed application would result in good quality office space, likely to prove attractive to companies seeking an out of town location.
Environment Agency – No objections
Penistone Town Council - No response received
114 Highways DC – The proposal is poorly sited on sustainable transport grounds. The car parking provision exceeds the standards in SPD32. However no objections subject to conditions.
Design – No objections
Drainage – No objection subject to conditions
Representations
None
Assessment
Material Consideration
Principle of development Visual Amenity Highway safety
Principle of development - As there are no allowances in Green Belt policy for the extension of an existing office building within the Green Belt, the development is inappropriate in terms of policy and must be justified by very special circumstances. In order to determine whether the development warrants an exception to normal policy, the degree of harm, to the openness and character of the Green Belt is an important factor to consider. The applicant has indicated that the very special circumstances are that ‘the conversion and extension of the original attractive mill building will provide valuable workspace in the area, thus generating job opportunities. The proposed extension does not have an adverse effect, nor does it harm the openness of this developed area of the Green Belt.’ Although they have not been implemented, the principle of the development has already been established with the previous planning permissions, including the erection of a three storey extension to the building in 2002 and the change of use of the building to an office use in 2007. The extension of this building, on a long established mixed use site, will not harm the openness of the Green Belt as it is to be constructed between two existing buildings and will appear as part of the original modern buildings. Due to extensive tree screening along the boundaries and due to the topography of the surrounding land, the building can not be seen from surrounding public view points, the extension will sit well within its context and will not harm the openness of the Green Belt. The minimal visual impact and the creation of much needed office space and jobs on this long established mixed use site justifies the very special circumstances needed in order to warrant approval of the application.
Visual Amenity
It is considered the main issue is whether the proposal will have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the Green Belt. The proposed extension is situated between existing buildings and fills in a gap between these. Whilst the extension is large, it is not out of character with the remainder of the buildings on site. The extension is to be constructed of matching materials and is of a similar construction and colour to agricultural buildings within the Green Belt. The site is well screened from the surrounding area and whilst the alterations have a modern contemporary design, it is not considered that they will be out of keeping or visually intrusive. It is not considered that there will be any significant impact upon the openness of the Green Belt, in accord with Policy GS9.
115 Highway safety - Whilst the site is poorly located on sustainable transport grounds, it is not considered that this is a sufficient reason for refusal bearing in mind the previous approval in 2002, the other businesses on the site and as the principle of the development is already established. There will not be a significant increase in traffic and there is adequate car parking.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any variation. (Plans received 8 October 2009) Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
3 No development shall take place until:
(a) Full foul and surface water drainage details, including a scheme for surface water run-off limitation and a programme of works for implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
(b) Porosity tests are carried out in accordance with BRE 365, to demonstrate that the subsoil is suitable for soakaways;
(c) Calculations based on the results of these porosity tests to prove that adequate land area is available for the construction of the soakaways;
Thereafter no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the approved scheme has been fully implemented. The scheme shall be retained throughout the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the area.
4 The foul drainage from the proposed development shall be discharged to a septic tank and soakaway system which meet the requirements of British Standard BS 6297:1983 (septic tank) and the Building Research Establishment Digest Standard 365 (soakaway system) and which complies with the following:
a) there is no connection to any watercourse or land drainage system and no part of the soakaway system is situated within 10m of any ditch or watercourse
b) porosity tests are carried out in accordance with BRE 365 to demonstrate that suitable subsoil and adequate land area is available for the soakaway. Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the area
116
117
2009/1287 Keepmoat Homes Residential development of 100 no. 2 & 3 bedroomed dwellings (Resubmission of application no: 2009/0657) Land at Leslie, Raymond & Reginald Road, Kendray, Barnsley
No letters of objection have been received.
Site Location and Description
This currently vacant site is located within Kendray. The site encompasses land at Leslie Road, Raymond Road and Reginald Road. To the east of the site, positioned on a raised embankment, is a railway line. To the south is an area of urban greenspace (Leslie Road Play Area) and to the west and north are two storey semi detached dwellings. The site area totals 2.08 hectares. There are several low quality trees along the eastern boundary of the site, none of these are to be retained within the development.
Background and Site History
The redevelopment of this site is part of an area wide neighbourhood regeneration programme which aims to improve the general environment within the Kendray Estate, including its housing stock. The demolition and rebuild proposed in this application originate from an area masterplan entitled ‘The Blueprint’, which was formed in full consultation with the residents of Kendray.
The site subject to the application was originally developed, by the Local Authority, for housing in the 1950’s. This was demolished in 2007 due to a desire to address long standing issues with the quality of the dwellings in the area and reduce the number of un-sellable and un-letable empty properties.
In August 2009 permission was granted on the site for a mixed tenure residential development comprising 98 dwellings (BMBC Ref: 2009/0657). Identification of services within the boundaries of the site, following the grant of planning permission, made it impossible for the approved layout to be built out and as a consequence a revised layout was drawn up. The changes to the layout required were considered to be significant and therefore could not be dealt with as a minor amendments. As a consequence the developer was advised to submit a fresh planning application. The changes to the layout include:
The incorporation of the Leslie Road carriageway into the layout The removal of link roads between Reginald Road and Leslie Road The addition of two dwellings.
Proposed Development
Accordingly the applicant, Keepmoat Homes, seeks full planning permission to erect 100 no. two and two and a half storey dwellings comprising of 3 no. detached dwellings, 25 pairs of semi detached dwellings and 47 no. other units arranged in rows of terraces. Approximately 35% (35) of the units would be for social rent and 65% (65) for market sale. The development would provide a mix of 2 & 3 bed accommodation.
All of the units would front onto either new or existing roads, save for plot 100 where the dwelling would overlook the Leslie Road Play Area. The density of housing on the site would be 48 units per hectare. Car parking provision would be at approx 1.7 spaces per unit.
118 A Noise and Vibration Report, a Japanese Knotweed Survey, an Arboricultural Survey, a Geoenvironmental Appraisal, a Flood Risk Assessment and full foul and surface water drainage details have been submitted to support the application.
Policy Context
National Planning Policy
PPS3 (Housing) PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development)
Local Planning Policy
Barnsley Unitary Development Plan
The site falls within a Housing Policy Area therefore the following policy is relevant:
Policy H8A states that new residential development should be of a scale, layout, height and design which maintains and creates an acceptable standard of residential amenity with adjoining residents.
Also of consideration are:
Policy H9 (Housing Renewal) states that the Council seeks to improve the quality of existing housing stock through renewal and regeneration schemes. Policy BE6 (Design Standards) Indicates that all new development should be well designed. Policy T2 & T2a (Development and the Highway Network) states that the traffic generated from the development should be able to be accommodated on the highway without significant detriment to highway safety and that all new roads should be constructed to adoptable standards. Policy H6 (Open Space Provision) states that all developments which comprise or include the provision of twenty or more new dwelling units shall incorporate a minimum 15% of the site area as open space, or the developer shall make a financial contribution towards securing provision and maintenance of green space off site.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
SPG2: The Design and Layout of New Housing SPG20 : Open Space on New Housing Developments SPG28: Developing Contaminated Land
Consultations
Drainage: No objections subject to conditions Coal Authority: No objections Environment Agency: No objections Highways DC: No objections (verbal comments) Kendray Initiative: No comments Network Rail: No objections Regulatory Services: No objections subject to conditions South Yorkshire Police: No objections Yorkshire Water: No objections subject to conditions
119 Representations
A site notice was erected along Leslie Road and the occupiers of the dwellings surrounding the site were consulted on the application by letter however no letters of representation have been received.
Assessment Principle of development – The principle of residential development on this site was established by the grant of planning permission for 98 no. dwellings in August 2009 (BMBC Ref: 2009/0657). Additionally, the development will result in a well designed, housing renewal scheme, on a well located brownfield site which will help to improve the quality and amount of affordable rented housing in the Borough in accordance with the advice contained PPS3 and Barnsley Unitary Development Plan Policy H9.
Design and Layout - The proposed layout shows a relatively high density development of modestly proportioned dwellings positioned fronting onto the highway. The dwellings would be constructed from either brick (Types: Ibstock Autumn Antique or Ibstock Minster Rainworth) or stone (Type: Costhorpe Buff Black Old Weathered Rumbled). Some of the units would incorporate an ivory render panel detailing. The roofs would be finished with Russell Roof tiles in either Grampian Slate Grey or Pennine Cottage Red. The windows and doors would be white UPVC.
In total eight different house types and designs are proposed as part of the scheme. They would be a mixture of two and two and a half storeys. Whilst the designs proposed are relatively modern, particularly those which incorporate rooms in the roofspace, the design and proportions of the dwellings are not dissimilar to dwellings which surround the site and those proposed or erected on other local regeneration sites.
Although the car parking areas, which are proposed predominantly to the front of the dwellings or in small car parking courts, would be prominent in the streetscene they would be softened by intermittent areas of landscaping and as such are acceptable.
Overall the design of the dwellings and the layout of the site are considered acceptable in this instance. The development will create attractive street scenes, which have a high level of natural surveillance and as such there is no objection to the development.
Residential Amenity - 21m and 12m privacy distances, detailed in SPG2, are met within the scheme to minimize any overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing effects from the proposed development on existing or future occupiers.
All units would have access to off street parking and appropriately sized private rear gardens for the size of the house they would serve. Access to the gardens being down the sides of the dwellings or via ‘ginnels’ allowing for incurtilage bin and bike storage for every new household.
In general it is considered that the scheme would provide and maintain an acceptable level of residential amenity for new and existing dwellings and as such there is no objection to the scheme on this ground.
Greenspace – The site is located in part of the Borough which contains areas of urban green space which are in need of improvement. These include:
GS856 The Elmhirst School, Ardsley Road, Worsbrough Dale; GS7 Ardsley Recreation Ground; GS1011 Mitchell and Darfield Miners Welfare Ground; GS778 Cypress Road Open Space
120
In accordance with Policy H6, a financial contribution of £125, 820 is therefore sought from the developer to fund the necessary improvements. This contribution will be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement. A draft Section 106 has been prepared by the applicant and will be completed following the grant of planning permission.
Flood Risk and Drainage - A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), prepared by Encia Environmental Limited, has been submitted to support the planning application. The FRA concludes that as the site does not fall within a flood risk area and that improved site drainage will result in lower levels of run off, there will be a reduced risk of flooding as a result of the development proposed. The Environment Agency consider the content of the FRA to be satisfactory.
Highway Safety – Highways have raised no objections to the proposed development. Whilst car parking provision, at 1.7 spaces per dwelling, is slightly higher than required by SPD32, it is felt that this would help address the problem of on street parking which is identified in the masterplan as prevalent in the area.
Other issues – The Noise and Vibration Report produced by Blue Tree Acoustics details that the development will be affected by noise from railway traffic on the elevated railway line and recommends a set of noise control measures. Whilst the recommended internal noise control measures, detailed in paragraphs 5.1 – 5.6 are acceptable to the Local Planning Authority, the recommended external noise control measure, which consists a 2.8m high acoustic fence to be erected along the eastern boundary of the site, was not. It was considered that the height of the fence would be oppressive when viewed from the rear windows of the affected properties and following some discussion with the developers, it has been agreed that the height of the fence should be reduced to 2.4m.
Japanese Knotweed has been identified as present on the site. Due to its invasive growth and uncontrollable reproduction, which limits the ability of other plants to flourish, it is desirable to eradicate it from the site. The Japanese Knotweed Survey, produced by LK Pollution Response Limited and dated 25th August 2009, recommends in Section 5.4, that the area affected by the Knotweed should be excavated and sent for off site disposal. A condition is recommended stating that development should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 5.4 of the report.
Conclusion
This development, if approved, will represent a significant amount of investment into the Boroughs housing stock and will deliver additional affordable housing in Kendray to meet demand. The tenure mix proposed would help ensure that the estate is occupied by a variety of households thus ensuring the long term sustainability of the estate.
Taking into account the above, and the fact that the development is acceptable in terms of its design, its impact on highway safety and its relationship with neighboring residents and therefore complies with the relevant national and local planning policies it is considered appropriate to grant planning permission for the development, subject to imposition of appropriate conditions.
Recommendation
Approve subject to conditions & completion of a S106 Agreement
121
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plans and specifications (Drawing No's : QS309-01-01 Rev. H; QD309- 665-01; QD309-665-02; QD309-665-04; QD309-665-03; QD309-763-01; QD309- 763-03; QD309-771-01; QD309-771-02; QD309-771-04; QD309-771-03; QD309- 836-01; QD309-8936-02; QD309-844SE-01; QD309-1011-01; QD309-765DQS-02; QD309-765DQS-02; QD309-765DQS-01; QD309-765DQS-02; QD309-988DQS-02; QD309-988DQS-03; DQ309-988DQS-01; QD-309-90-01 Rev. C; QD309-65-01 Rev. A; Qd309-66-01 Rev. B) unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any minor variation. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as amendments have been submitted during the course of processing the application and in accordance with Barnsley UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
3 The development hereby permitted shall not begin until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the provision of or enhancement to off-site public open space in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policy H6. The provision or enhancement of the off site open space shall be provided prior to completion of the development in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity to ensure adequate provision of public open space to meet local needs in accordance with Policy H6 of the Unitary Development Plan.
4 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the dwellings which would otherwise be permitted by Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority, and no garages or other outbuildings shall be erected. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential property and in accordance with Barnsley UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
5 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no building or structure shall be placed or erected within 3 metres, measured horizontally from the outside edge of the pipe or culvert, of any sewer or culverted watercourse. Reason: To prevent damage to the existing sewer or watercourse and to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times.
122
6 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscaping works, including details of the species, positions and planted heights of proposed trees and shrubs; together with details of the position and condition of any existing trees and hedgerows to be retained. The approved hard landscaping details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
7 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwellings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which die within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
8 No development shall take place until:
(a) Full foul and surface water drainage details, including a scheme for surface water run-off limitation and a programme of works for implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
(b) Porosity tests are carried out in accordance with BRE 365, to demonstrate that the subsoil is suitable for soakaways;
(c) Calculations based on the results of these porosity tests to prove that adequate land area is available for the construction of the soakaways;
Thereafter no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the approved scheme has been fully implemented. The scheme shall be retained throughout the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the area
9 Within 28 days of works commencing on-site, a condition survey (including structural integrity) of the highways to be used by construction traffic shall be carried out in association with the Local Planning Authority. The methodology of the survey shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall assess the existing state of the highway. Within 28 days of completion of the development a second condition survey shall be carried out and shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, which shall identify defects attributable to the traffic ensuing from the development. Any necessary remedial works shall be completed at the developers expense in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
10 The parking/manoeuvring facilities, indicated on the submitted plan, shall be surfaced in a solid bound material (i.e. not loose chippings) and made available for the manoeuvring and parking of motor vehicles prior to the development being brought into use, and shall be retained for that sole purpose at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
123
11 Pedestrian intervisibility splays, having the dimensions 2m x 2m, shall be safeguarded at the drive entrance/exit such that there is no obstruction to visibility at a height exceeding 1m. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
12 Development shall commence in accordance with the recommendations contained in section 5.4 of the Japanese Knotweed Survey (Produced by LK Pollution Response Limited, Dated 25th August 2009) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
13 Development shall commence in accordance with the recommendations contained in section 5.0 - 5.6 of the Noise and Vibration Report (Produced by Blue Tree Acoustics, Dated 25th August 2009) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
14 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: " The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors " Means of access for construction traffic " Loading and unloading of plant and materials " Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development " The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate " Wheel washing facilities " Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction " Measures to control noise levels during construction " A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works Reason: In the interests of highway safety, residential amenity and visual amenity.
15 Construction or remediation work comprising the use of plant, machinery or equipment, or deliveries of materials shall only take place between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1400 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
124
125
2009/1352 Miss Beverley Jaques Change of use from open land to form part of residential curtilage. Land adjacent to 84 Rose Grove, Wombwell, Barnsley, South Yorkshire. S73 8NB
There have been no letters of objection from local residents.
Background
In August 2008 planning permission was granted for the demolition of outbuildings and the erection of a two storey side extension to dwelling at 84 Rose Grove. On commencement of works it was apparent that the foundations to the extension, side steps, and a pathway to the side encroach into an area of open space adjacent to the dwelling. The applicant has been in negotiations with the Council’s Property and Procurement Section with regards to the purchase of a narrow strip of land to allow the encroachment to be included as part of their residential curtilage. As this would also involve a change of use of the land then this planning application has also been submitted.
Site Layout and Description
The application site consists of a narrow strip of land ranging in width from 0.8m to 1.4m adjacent to the side boundary fence of 84 Rose Grove. This narrow strip of land forms part of a larger area of open space. It is mainly grassed over although the applicant’s outbuilding previously projected out into this area until it was demolished recently to facilitate the erection of the two storey side extension. To the north of the site are a row of trees and the larger area of open space which also borders the western side of the property. Elsewhere the surroundings are predominantly residential.
Proposed Development
The application seeks planning permission to change a narrow strip of land, ranging in width from 0.8m to 1.4m and spanning a length of approximately 32.5m, from open space to form part of the residential curtilage of 84 Rose Grove. The strip of land lies directly adjacent to the dwelling’s northern side boundary.
Policy Context
The application site is designated as Urban Greenspace. As such Policy GS34 would be of importance which states that these areas should remain open and undeveloped. It also states that any proposals for development will be assessed for their effect on the present and potential function of the area.
Consultations
None.
Representations
Neighbouring properties were notified of the application by letter and a site notice was posted. No letters of representation have been received.
126 Assessment
Material Consideration
Principle of development Visual impact Residential amenity
Principle of development - Policy GS34 states that areas designated as Urban Greenspace should remain open and undeveloped. Areas of Urban Greenspace act as areas for recreation, amenity value, nature conservation, and as a link between adjacent areas. In principle the encroachment of residential curtilage into these areas would not normally be considered acceptable. However, Policy GS34 then goes on to state that proposals that are likely to have a ‘significant adverse effect’ on the function of the area will not normally be approved. Considering the small area of the application site the main issue would therefore be whether the scheme would have a ‘significant adverse effect’ on the Urban Greenspace.
Apart from the steps to the side extension the application does not propose any built development within the area of encroachment. It also has to be noted that the applicant’s previous outbuilding already protruded into the open space and this is acknowledged in the development plan as the Urban Greenspace boundary is drawn around this outbuilding. In terms of the impact on the amenity and recreational value of the open space the narrow strip of land represents a very small proportion, less than 1% of the overall open space. It would also result in a level boundary between the applicant’s curtilage and the open space that currently exists with the protrusion of the outbuilding. The application site does not infringe on any formal playing facilities and being so narrow and so close to 84 Rose Grove, it would not significantly impinge on residents’ enjoyment of the open area.
The application site area is currently grassed over and the proposal would not infringe on the health and amenity value of the trees to the north of the site. There are no plants, bushes, or other forms of significant vegetation and as such there will be little impact on wildlife. The application also does not infringe on the paths that run through the open space and as such links between areas will be adequately maintained.
In view of the above, whilst the principle of encroachment into Urban Greenspace would not normally be considered appropriate in principle, it is considered that, due to the minor scale and nature of the encroachment, that there would not be a ‘significant adverse effect’ on the function of the space and as such the scheme would be acceptable.
Visual Impact - The proposal will necessitate the movement of the boundary fence to a new position. However, considering the movement will only be a short distance, and would be very minor in comparison with the overall size of the open space, it would not be seen as a significant change to the outlook of the open space. It would also provide more of a natural straight boundary between the two areas than previously existed with the outbuilding projecting out. No additional built development would be seen over the height of the boundary fence and as such it is not considered that the proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality.
Residential amenity - The proposal involves land which is a sufficient distance away from neighbouring properties for local residents not to be affected. The proposal involves only a very small part of the open space and as such would not significantly impact on local resident’s enjoyment of this area.
127
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 No change of use shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the use hereby permitted is commenced. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property and in accordance with U.D.P. Policy BE6, Design Standards.
128 129
2009/1356 CTS Property Developments Ltd Erection of five townhouses. Melville Street, Wombwell, Barnsley, S73 8FL
No letters of representation have been received. The application has been referred to Board at the request of a Member.
Site Location and Description
The proposed housing will be on a rectangular shaped site which extends to approximately 0.07 hectares. It is located to the east of Melville Street, on the fringe of Wombwell town centre. It consists of a cleared and overgrown piece of land which borders commercial properties to the north and south, highway to the west, and residential dwellings to the east.
The site slopes gently downward from its highest point along its south western boundary to its lowest point in the north. Within the site are the remains of previous buildings, these will be cleared as part of the redevelopment. Along the eastern boundary of the site are a mixture of boundary treatments including wooden fence panels and stone walls.
Access to the site is directly off Melville Street. Melville Street, it should be noted, has been split into two sections, each section forming a cul de sac which is terminated by a turning head. This arrangement, I have been advised, was put in place to prevent cars “rat running” in the area. The development of this site will not affect this highway arrangement.
Site History
An application was approved in early 2009 (BMBC Ref: 2008/1828) for a development comprising eight studio flats and two bedsits in 2 no. three storey blocks linked by external staircases. Three parking spaces were provided to serve the development. This permission is still extant but has not been implemented.
Proposed Development
The applicant seeks full planning permission to erect a terrace of 5 no. 2/3 bedroomed dwellings on the site arranged in a terrace. The properties would be 2.5 storeys in height, incorporating living accommodation in the roof. Private gardens would be provided to the rear of the site and these would be accessed via a gated back access path.
Parking space would be provided to the front of the dwellings in a shared parking court at a ratio of 1 no. space per dwelling. This parking court would be accessed via the lower portion of Melville Street which connects with High Street. It should be noted that the car parking area will also provide 2 off street parking spaces for no. 65 High Street.
Policy Context
National Planning Policy
PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) PPS3 (Housing)
130 Barnsley Unitary Development Plan
The site lies within an area of land which is designated as a Fringe Commercial Area and as such Policy WW20 would be of consideration. Policy WW20 states that fringe commercial areas are suitable for a mixture of uses including commercial, industrial, leisure and retail uses.
Also relevant, taking into account the type of development proposed, are the following:
Policy H8D (Infill Residential Development) which states that applications for infill development will be acceptable where they do not harm the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers; Policy BE6 (Design Standards) states that all new development should be a good standard of design Policy T2 (Development and the Highway Network) states that new development will only be accepted where the traffic generated can be accommodated on the existing highway network without significant detriment to highway safety.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
SPG3: Infill Residential Development SPG32: Parking Standards and Travel Plans
Consultations
Highways DC: No objections subject to conditions Drainage: No objections subject to conditions Yorkshire Water: No objections subject to conditions
Representations
A site notice was erected and dwellings surrounding the site were consulted on the application however no letters of representation were received.
Assessment
Principle of development - The principle of residential development on this site was established by the grant of planning permission in early 2009. In addition this is a small brownfield site, close to existing services and the public transport network and as such its redevelopment for housing complies with the guidance contained in PPS3.
Residential Amenity - The dwellings most likely to be affected by this development are no’s 2 – 14 (evens) Orchard Street as these dwellings and their rear garden areas border the eastern boundary of the site. The concern is that any development on the site would overlook the rear elevations of, and be overbearing when viewed from, no’s 2 – 14 (evens) Orchard Street, particularly as the rear elevations of these dwellings are located less than 10m from the site boundary.
To address this, however, the developer has organised the site and the internal layout of the new dwellings so that the impact of the development on no’s 2 – 14 (evens) Orchard Street is acceptable. In the first instance, the rear elevations of the new dwellings will contain no habitable room windows at first floor level. The windows proposed are small in dimension, will serve landings and bathrooms only and will be obscure glazed. This, it is considered, will mitigate against any loss of privacy for the occupiers of the dwellings along Orchard Street.
131 In addition the rear elevations of the new dwellings will be sited between 15m – 17m from the rear elevations of no’s 2 – 14 (evens) Orchard Street to ensure that the new dwellings would not appear overbearing. Whilst the 21m standard is generally applied in situations where principle elevations face each other across private gardens, in this case the rear elevations of the new dwellings contain no habitable room windows a smaller intervening distance is deemed acceptable in this instance.
Whilst I note that a third bedroom will be provided in the roof of the dwellings, the velux windows proposed on the rear roof slope are small and as such will not result in any loss of privacy for the occupiers of nos 2 – 14 (evens) Orchard Street. Views from the ground floor rear elevation lounge windows will be screened by the presence of a 1.8m high boundary fence and as such are not a concern.
Each dwelling will benefit from an acceptable amount of private area of amenity space allowing for in-curtilage bin and cycle storage. Each dwelling will also have access to an off street parking space.
Taking everything into account it is considered that the layout of the site complies with the guidance contained in SPG3 and as such provides and maintains an appropriate level of amenity for new and existing occupiers.
Design and Layout - The applicant seeks permission to erect a row of five almost identical townhouses on the site. The design and scale of the dwellings, in terms of the detailing of the fenestration, their height and proportions is similar to existing terraced properties along Melville Street and their siting respects existing building lines. Consequently it is not considered that the new dwellings would appear incongruous. The materials proposed, which include stone and brick for the walls and grey interlocking tiles for the roof, seem appropriate and will ensure that the development will contribute to the character of the area.
Whilst the parking area will be prominent within the street scene, being located to the front of the new dwellings, street parking is prevalent in the area and as such is not objected to. The parking area will in any case be overlooked, ensuring that it is relatively secure and its appearance softened by areas of planting.
Highway Safety - The site abuts the town centre zone where, in accordance with SPG32, there is a reduced provision of off street parking. Consequently Highways raise no objection to the number of parking spaces proposed which equate to 1 space per dwelling. In addition the turning area and proposed location of the site access are considered to be acceptable.
Conclusion - It is considered that the design of the development proposed is more sympathetic to the character of the area than that which was approved previously (BMBC Ref: 2008/1828). In addition the development will ensure that a site which has been vacant for a long period of time is bought back into good use. In addition the development will not harm the amenity of the occupiers of the surrounding residential properties or adversely affect highway safety in accordance with local and national planning guidance and therefore should be approved.
132 Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications as approved (Amended Drawings: Project No. PJC001 Dwg No: 001 Rev. -; Dwg No: 002 rev. A; Dwg No: 003 Rev. A, Dwg No. 004 Rev. A) unless prior written consent has been given by the Local Planning Authority to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with Barnsley UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
3 No development shall take place until full details of the proposed external materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with Barnsley UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
4 No development shall take place until:
(a) Full foul and surface water drainage details, including a scheme for surface water run-off limitation and a programme of works for implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
(b) Porosity tests are carried out in accordance with BRE 365, to demonstrate that the subsoil is suitable for soakaways;
(c) Calculations based on the results of these porosity tests to prove that adequate land area is available for the construction of the soakaways;
Thereafter no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the approved scheme has been fully implemented. The scheme shall be retained throughout the life of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure proper drainage of the area
5 The parking/manoeuvring facilities, indicated on the submitted plan, shall be surfaced in a solid bound material (i.e. not loose chippings) and made available for the manoeuvring and parking of motor vehicles prior to the development being brought into use, and shall be retained for that sole purpose at all times. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
133
6 Nothing shall be permitted to be planted or erected within a strip of land 2.4m deep measured from the adjacent channel of Melville Street which exceeds 1.05m in height above the level of the adjoining channel. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
7 Pedestrian intervisibility splays, having the dimensions 2m x 2m, shall be safeguarded at the drive entrance/exit such that there is no obstruction to visibility at a height exceeding 1m above the nearside channel level of the adjacent highway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
8 Development shall not commence until details of all areas for the parking of all employees' vehicles, the storage of building materials and plant have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and such areas shall be retained for the entire construction period. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
9 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscaping works, including details of the species, positions and planted heights of proposed trees and shrubs. The approved hard landscaping details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
10 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwellings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
11 Construction or remediation work comprising the use of plant, machinery or equipment, or deliveries of materials shall only take place between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0900 to 1400 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
12 The window on the rear (eastern) elevation of the building at first floor level, serving the landings and bathrooms of the new dwellings, shall at all times be fitted with obscure glass and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and in accordance with Barnsley UDP Policy H8D, Infill Residential Development.
13 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property and in accordance with Barnsley UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
134 135
2009/1368 Barnsley MBC Demolition of existing schools, St Michaels Catholic and Church of England High School, St Dominics Catholic Primary School and Edward Sheerien High School. Erection of a new catholic and church of England Advanced Learning Centre (Outline) St Michael's Catholic & C.Of.E School, Carlton Road, Barnsley St Dominic's Primary School, Carlton Road, Barnsley Edward Sheerian High School, Carlton Road, Barnsley
Two letters of objection
Site Location
The site is located is located on the north east outskirts of Barnsley between Athersley and Carlton.
Site Description
The application site contains a number of school buildings, playing fields and hard games courts. There are four existing schools located close together off Carlton Road. The Edward Sheerien secondary and St Dominic’s primary schools, which share access with St Michaels, are located to the north and north east. Holly Cross primary school is on an adjacent site.
The application site has a boundary to open countryside to the south east, industry to the north east and there is housing to the west and northwest.
St Michael’s school comprises three blocks. The main block has been extended in the past and as a result has poor circulation including narrow steep ramps. The existing access is poor, there are no separate pedestrian areas and parking provision is substandard. There are currently deficiencies in the provision of social areas for pupils, staff areas, drama and technology facilities, fire escapes and storage areas. The existing playing field are also below Sport England standards.
Building Schools for the Future Programme (BSF)
The ALC proposals are part of a wider national programme of secondary school improvements. The aim of BSF is to ensure that secondary education has facilities of 21st Century standard. Each new ALC will provide facilities and teaching to help pupils attain a wide range of qualifications and skills; provide advice and support for children; and offer specialist education.
The Council has embraced Government Policy under the BSF initiative and are proposing the replacement of traditional secondary schools with new ALC’s in various locations throughout the Borough. At present there are too many surplus places and many of the existing school buildings need replacing.
Barnsley is proposing to create 9 new ALC’s, with state of the art facilities, to replace 13 secondary schools. Evidence suggests that the quality of the existing school buildings affects educational attainment and these three existing schools have been identified as buildings that need to be replaced with an up to date fit for purpose building.
136 Proposed Development
This is an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. These proposals are to develop a unique all-through (ages 3-16) Catholic and Church of England school incorporating pupils from St Dominic’s and Holly Cross primary schools. Pupils from Edward Sherrien School will go to the new ALC at Carlton. The curriculum will be designed within a Christian context. Care and guidance are integrated into core values and a community interface to work with families and other agencies is envisaged. It is necessary to obtain outline planning permission prior to funding being made available for the project.
An illustrative plan has been provided, which shows the area of the site where it is likely that the building will be located, and approximate location of car parking and playing fields. Amongst other things the location in relation to pedestrian routes, the topography of the site and ground investigations have dictated where it will be located.
The proposal is for a new ALC of 9,535 m2 gross floor area with a pupil capacity of 1,100 on a site of 10.8 hectares. The building will be a mixture of two and three storey blocks. To meet the education requirement a school building of 9,535m2 and a minimum site area of 85,525m2 is needed. The existing buildings cover some 5,063m2 in a mixture of single and two storey blocks.
The maximum height of the building will be in the range of 8-10 metres (approximately 26-33 feet). The length of the main crescent-shaped school building will be in the range 115-125 metres (approximately 375-410 feet) and its depth will be between 45-55 metres (approximately 147-180 feet)
Although the new dual faith ALC will accept pupils from throughout the urban area of Barnsley the majority of pupils will come from within a mile radius. The replacement of the existing building on the same site will help to ensure that existing social and community links are not lost. One of the major considerations for using the existing site is that St Michaels has operated on this existing site since the 1950’s, and it has an established relationship with the local community. It is well placed in terms of its catchment and there are no other suitable sites outside of the Greenbelt. The new ALC will be providing community facilities therefore its existing relationship with the community will be strengthened.
The existing site is well served by public transport as a number of bus routes serving pupil areas pass close to the site. The application includes detailed proposals to improve the existing access on to Carlton Road. A draft Travel Plan is submitted. The existing school currently has 703 students on roll. The proposed capacity of 1,100 pupils (including 93 sixth form pupils) is below the current pupil numbers at the site if the Edward Sheerien and St Dominics Schools are included. Therefore the proposals will result in reduced traffic generation. The proposed scheme will be designed in accordance with the key principles of sustainable development, which includes using less energy, using renewable energy, reduced surface water run-off, rainwater harvesting, waste management, enhanced building insulation and reduced need for cooling.
The ALC is to be completed by September 2012. Demolition of the existing schools and construction of the new ALC will be phased to minimise disruption to the education of existing pupils. The new School will be constructed prior to demolition of the existing. Furthermore, pupils from Edward Sheerien and St Dominic’s Primary will go to the new ALC at Carlton, which will be completed before works start on the St Michaels site.
The site contains a number of existing trees and other landscape features. Efforts will be made to retain the existing trees and hedges but substantial planting will also be proposed as part of a landscaping scheme. Particular care will be taken to ensure no damage is caused to the amenity of the nature conservation site to the south.
137 Extensive consultation has been carried out including meetings with various stakeholders including parents and governors.
Relevant Planning History
2007/0038
Outline planning permission was obtained in March 2007 for demolition of the existing school and erection of a new advanced learning centre at St Michael’s. This permission included approval of the siting of the building and the access arrangements. The permission is still extant and a material planning consideration. The building was to be located roughly on the footprint of the Edward Sheerien School, the existing access was to be reused and car parking was shown located at the rear of Blakeley Close. On this earlier approval St Dominic’s School was retained.
Policy Context
The School complex (including St Michaels, Edward Sheerien and St Dominic’s) is allocated as an existing Community Facility on the Barnsley Unitary Development Plan. Therefore policies BA35 and CF1 are relevant. These policies indicate that amongst other things community facilities should be located where they meet community needs, are convenient and accessible and are compatible with adjoining uses.
The land immediately surrounding the site has various designations. These are a nature conservation site to the south east, an employment policy area to the north east and housing policy areas to the other boundaries.
The site is included within the adopted Education Sites Development Plan Document (DPD), which will form part of Barnsley’s Local Development Framework.
Consultations
Highways
No objections subject to conditions.
Sport England
The playing fields that would be lost as a result of the development are to be replaced by playing fields of an equivalent or better quality in a sustainable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements. On this basis no objections are raised.
SYPTE
The submitted plans show access via the existing access but SYPTE recommend that separate entrances be created for buses and cars, reference is made to the use of Blakeley Close for car access. This would not be acceptable in planning terms given the disruption this would cause to residents on this cul-de-sac. If separate access points were to be created they need to be shown as access is being applied for at this outline stage.
Natural England
No objections subject to conditions.
Trees
138 There are a number of trees on the site that could be retained. Further survey information should be requested for submission at the reserved matters stage.
SY Archaeological Service
A report has been submitted and any matters arising can be covered by the imposition of a condition.
Drainage
Further drainage information was submitted and the Environment Agency and the Council’s drainage expert are happy with these details subject to conditions e.g. to ensure a 30% reduction in run off rates for surface water as proposed in the applicants Flood Risk Assessment
Representations
Two letters received which include:
Already problems caused by the volume of traffic on Carlton Road at the beginning and end of the school day. Evening activities prolong these problems. Cars park outside neighbouring houses preventing access. The new larger school will make these problems worse.
Blakeley Close is a small cul-de-sac and already has access to a community centre, to be demolished. No access should be allowed via Blakeley Close to the new school.
Assessment
Principle of development - The site is designated as an existing community facility in the Barnsley Unitary Development Plan and the adopted Education Sites DPD identifies St Michaels Catholic and Church of England High School as one of six new ALC’s that will be developed on existing secondary school sites where they serve the people who use them and there would not be any benefit in moving to a new site. Furthermore, outline planning permission has previously been given for a similar development. Therefore, there is no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site as proposed.
Residential Amenity - This is an outline planning application with only access applied for and as such the siting of the building and other ancillary structures is yet to be decided. There are houses next to the site but the potential impact of the development on the occupiers of these dwellings can be mitigated by careful consideration of layout, landscaping and design. The site is large and there is no reason to assume that harmful impacts would occur.
Another matter that needs to be made clear to future applicants is that no access is to be proposed off Blakeley Close. There is an existing access to a community centre off this cul-de-sac but its use for the school should be prevented by condition in the interests of the residential amenity of residents.
Visual Amenity - This is an outline application and the design of the building and layout of the site will be reserved matters. Whilst, the full implications for visual amenity can not be assessed, it is likely that the redevelopment would be a significant improvement on the existing St Michael’s school, which has been extended in an uncoordinated manner in the past. The main visual feature as seen from Carlton Road is a domed rotunda located at the entrance to the site. The new design could incorporate a similar feature to provide some historical continuity and make the final scheme distinctive and relevant to the area. The existing Edward Sheerien and St Dominic’s building will be demolished and there is an opportunity to rationalise the layout/design to give a coherent development in keeping with the area and the ethos of Building Schools for the Future.
139
There are a number of trees on site and these should be retained wherever possible and augmented with further planting. There is an opportunity to improve the boundary treatments with a comprehensive landscape scheme. The landscaping of the boundaries with residential properties will help to minimise the visual impact of the school when viewed from living rooms and gardens. The southern boundary with the open land will be another area where boundary treatment will need to be given careful consideration.
Highway Safety - Whilst, there will be more pupils at the new ALC compared with the existing 703 pupils at St Michael’s overall here will be a reduction in the number of pupil’s. This is because Edward Sheerien and St Dominic’s are to be demolished.
The proposal is to utilize the existing access into the site from Carlton Road. There will be improvements including parent’s drop off and on site bus drop-off points. There are good public transport connections and sustainable travel will be embedded in a Travel Plan to be submitted at reserved matters stage.
Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 Application for approval of the matters reserved in Condition No. 2 shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, and the development, hereby permitted, shall be begun before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced unless and until approval of the following reserved matters has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority:-
(a) the layout of the proposed development. (b) scale of building(s) (c) the design and external appearance of the proposed development. (d) landscaping Reason: In order to allow the Local Planning Authority to assess the details of the reserved matters with regard to the development plan and other material considerations.
4 All on site vehicular areas shall be hard surfaced and drained in an approved manner prior to the development being brought into use. Reason: To prevent mud/debris from being deposited on the public highway to the detriment of road safety.
5 The parking/manoeuvring facilities, indicated on the submitted plan, shall be provided prior to the development being brought into use, and shall be retained for that sole purpose at all times. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
140
6 Prior to any works commencing on site, a condition survey of the highways to be used by demolition/construction traffic shall be carried out in association with the Local Planning Authority. The methodology of the survey shall be approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall assess the existing state of the highway. On completion of the development, a second condition survey shall be carried out and shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, which shall identify any defects attributable to the traffic ensuing from the development. Any necessary remedial works shall be completed at the developers' expense in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority Reason: In the interests of road safety.
7 Vehicular and pedestrian gradients within the site shall not exceed 1 in 12 . Reason: In the interests of road safety
8 Development shall not commence until details for the means of access for demolition/construction traffic have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and such an access shall be retained for the entire construction period. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
9 Development shall not commence until details of the phasing of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to ensue a safe and adequate highway network. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
10 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction method statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:-
" The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; " Loading and unloading of plant and materials; " Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; " The erection and maintenance of security hoarding; " Wheel washing facilities or other measures to prevent mud/debris being deposited on the public highway. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
11 Within 6 months of the development being brought into use, a detailed Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include proposals for implementation and monitoring Reason: In the interests of sustainable transport.
12 There shall be no vehicular access/egress into/out of the proposed Advanced Learning Centre on Blakeley Close. Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the occupiers of properties on Blakeley Close.
141
13 Prior to the commencement of development or other operations being undertaken on site in connection with the development a detailed tree survey in accordance with BS5837 (Trees in Relation to Construction 2005: Recommendations) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority which is to include all the existing trees on and adjacent to the site that may be affected by any development and the following details;
a) A plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5m above ground level, exceeding 75mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the crown spread of each retained tree. b) Details of the species, stem diameter (measured in accordance with paragraph (a) above) and the approximate height, and an assessment of the general state of health and structural condition of each retained tree and of each tree which is on land adjacent to the site and to which paragraphs (f) and (g) below apply. c) Height in metres of the crown clearance above adjacent ground level (to inform on ground clearance , crown stem ratio and shading); d) Estimated remaining contribution in years (e.g. less than 10, 10-20, 20-40, more than 40) e) R or A to C category grading (see table 1) to be recorded and indicated on the tree survey plan f) Details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site and preliminary management recommendations, including further investigation of suspected defeats that require more detailed assessment and potential wildlife habitat; g) Details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and the position of any proposed excavation, within the crown spread of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site, or within a distance from any retained tree or any tree on land adjacent to the site equivalent to half the height of that tree. h) Details of theٛ specification and proposed fencing and of any other measures to be taken for the protection of any retained tree from damage before or during the course of development. In this condition 'retained tree' means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the plan referred to in paragraph (a) above. Reason: To ensure the continued well being of the trees in the interests of the amenity of the locality.
14 Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans before development commences revised details of the number and layout of parking spaces to be provided on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and therafter retained as such. Reason: In order to comply with the maximum parking standards set out in SPD 32 Parking, Transport Assessments and Travel Plans.
15 Detailed plans shall accompany the reserved matters submission indicating existing ground levels, finished floor levels of all buildings and associated structures, road levels and any proposed alterations to ground levels. Thereafter the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the impact arising from need for any changes in level to be assessed and in accordance with UDP Policy BE6, Design Standards.
142
16 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no hedges or trees on the site (except those shown to be removed on the approved plan), or their branches or roots, shall be lopped, topped, felled, or severed. If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such a size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard existing trees/hedges, in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and in accordance with UDP Policies GS22, Woodland, Hedgerows and Trees and GS22A.
17 No development shall commence until it has been shown that the foul and surface water flows entering the public sewerage system will be restricted to those of the existing/previous use of the site. Details of any necessary flow attenuation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent overloading of the receiving waste treatment works and consequent pollution of the aquatic environment.
18 The site shall be developed with separate systems for foul and surface water on and off-site. Reason: In the interests of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.
19 No development shall commence until details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development can be properly drained.
20 There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of approved surface water drainage works and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to the completion of the approved foul water drainage works, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.
21. No development shall commence until details of the phasing of the development, including the provision of the sports facilities have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure satisfactory quantity, quality and accessibility of compensatory provision which secures a continuity of use.
22. Prior to the building being occupied, a Community Use Agreement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Agreement shall include details of the pricing policy, hours of use, access by non- school users, management responsibilities and a mechanism for review. Thereafter, the approved Agreement shall be fully implemented before the development is brought into use. Reason: To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facilities and ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport.
143
23. Detailed plans shall accompany the reserved matters submission indicating: a) a detailed assessment of ground conditions (including drainage topography) to identify constraints which could affect pitch quality and quantity. b) Based of the results of the assessment, a detailed scheme to ensure that an acceptable quantity and quality of playing pitches will be provided. The playing fields and pitches shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with strategies and methodologies set out in guidance note ‘Natural Turf for Sport’ (Sport England March 2000).
All sports pitches shall be constructed in accordance with Sports England/NGB Technical Design Guidance Notes to include ‘Access for Disabled People’ unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that site surveys are undertaken for the replacement playing fields that demonstrate any ground condition constraints can be mitigated to ensure the provision of an adequate quantity and quality of playing fields and pitches.
24. No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation which has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and if required by the findings the developers has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with the scheme. The development thereafter shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the archaeological significance of the site is investigated.
144
145
2009/1454 Peel South East Ltd Improved access and service road, car park and associated works at retail park. (Resubmission) The Peel Centre Retail Park, Harborough Hill Road, Barnsley South Yorkshire, S71 1JE
6 letters and an objection from a Member
Site Location
The application site includes an existing access off Harborough Hill Road to the Fire Place Centre on land at the south/rear of the Halford’s/Bathroom Centre retail unit on the Peel Centre Retail Park (which includes units such as Curry’s, Focus DIY and Pizza Hut). The Peel Centre is accessed off a traffic signalled junction off Harborough Hill Road and service vehicles currently use this access and the existing Dryden Road, which passes between Halfords and Focus DIY.
Site Description
This is a mixed used area, where there is a concentration of large retail units including those on the Peel Centre, ASDA, PC World, Comet and Wickes. The site is close to the junction of the A635 and A61, where there is a gyratory system with traffic lights at the entrance to the Peel Centre immediately to the north of the site.
The site includes part of Halfords/Bathroom Centre car park, which due to the sloping nature of the road is in an elevated position behind a stone retaining wall. Eleven parking spaces would be lost and the existing Fire Place Centre unit would be removed as a result. The site also includes part of the forecourt of Enterprise Car Hire. To the north of Enterprise Car Hire there is a row of houses.
Proposed Development
The proposal is to form a new separated service vehicle access and a new access to Enterprise Car Hire, thereby making the section of Dryden Road between Halfords and Focus DIY and the existing Enterprise Car Hire access redundant.
The new access will be used by traffic generated by Peel Centre service vehicles, Enterprise Car Hire and the Christmas park and ride. In addition a retail store with extant planning permission could be built on the former Roger Woods site behind Enterprise Car Hire.
This is a revised proposal to one that was refused on highway grounds in April and is now the subject of a planning appeal via Public Inquiry (2008/1834). The revision is primarily to delete an exit acceleration lane that was proposed on the appeal application. This change has been made because it is considered safer for a lorry to stop at a give way line in order to wait for a gap in traffic on Harborough Hill Road rather than attempt to merge with traffic using mirrors. A deceleration lane is still proposed for lorries turning into the new service access from Harborough Hill Road. This new application is submitted following discussions between highway consultants to find a compromise solution following the adjournment of the Public Inquiry.
The plans show the area occupied by the existing service access on Dryden Road partly used as a turning head, the remainder is shown landscaped. A new access is shown to Enterprise Car Hire and provision is to be made for access to land with extant planning permission for a new retail unit (former Roger Wood site).
146 Replacement car parking provision is proposed within the Peel Centre between the existing Focus DIY and Halfords units. The proposed deceleration lane is over land currently used for parking next to the Halfords/Bathroom Store unit. The retaining wall on Harborough Hill Road will be a realigned and re-constructed on a like for like basis, adjacent to the Halfords/Bathroom Centre unit. Due to level changes there will be retaining walls along the length of the new service road.
Policy Context
UDP Policy BA39/8 allocates most of the site as an ‘other shopping/commercial area’ for large scale comparison shopping. The Roger Wood Cars site is allocated as being an Employment Policy Area, however, it is only the service access that is on the employment land.
Planning History
2007/0973
Planning permission for two infill retail units on Dryden Road between Halfords and Focus DIY was refused at PRB for highway reasons. There was a similar separate service access proposed but no deceleration and acceleration lanes were shown for the previous access.
2008/1834
A planning application just for the new access to Harborough Hill Road (excluding the retail units) was refused under delegated powers on highways grounds in April 2009. This decision is the subject of a planning appeal that was heard at a Public Inquiry, scheduled for one day. At the Public Inquiry the Highway case was presented by a consultant instructed by the Council. The Public Inquiry was adjourned after one day and it was decided that two more days would be needed. The appellants suggested that an amended scheme could be submitted in an attempt to overcome the Council’s objections presented on the first day. Various alternatives were submitted for comment and the Council’s Highways witness agreed that option 4 would overcome the Council’s objection subject to some minor changes. The views of the Council’s Highway witness are a material planning consideration and this application has been submitted (showing option 4) to try to resolve the highways issues in order to avoid the need for the Public Inquiry to be reconvened. If the matter can be agreed it would also mean the risk of costs being awarded against the Council should the appeal succeed would be eliminated.
Consultations
Highways
The Council’s own highway witness at the Public Inquiry has confirmed his acceptance that the revised scheme is appropriate in highway terms and this view is supported by Highways Development Control.
Representations
Six local residents have made the following points:
The new acceleration lane is going to join the carriageway only a few yards from an adjacent house, causing more fumes, difficulties entering and leaving the adjacent drive and that lorries stall due to the steep incline on Harborough Hill Road will be closer to houses.
The traffic will increase on Harborough Hill Road as traffic will only be able to use
147 Harborough Hills. Currently they can exit to the town at the Gyratory. The new access will also serve the Enterprise Car Hire and Park Ride. There will be less opportunity for the adjacent occupier to leave the drive to his property.
This occupier, other residents and visitors currently use the Enterprise Car Hire forecourt to wait for a gap in the traffic and park, the proposals will prevent this.
This is a high risk area for cancer and increasing traffic will exacerbate this problem.
The applicants should be asked to make provision for access to local residents houses and visitor parking in their plans.
A local Elected Member has concerns about:
The impact on highway safety on Harborough Hill Road
The location of the access close to a traffic light controlled exit and entry.
The existing arrangement is safer.
Increased air pollution as lorries pull away from the junction.
No recognition of the steep gradient on Harborough Hill Road.
Insufficient replacement parking
The scheme is not an improvement on that refused by members.
Assessment
Principle of development - The proposal is for a new vehicular access in the vicinity of an existing one and I do not consider that the proposal raises any policy issues.
Residential Amenity - Whilst local residents may be affected by more traffic in comparison to the existing level of traffic on Harborough Hill Road, in my opinion it is not considered that this would be significant.
Visual Amenity - The main issue would be the realignment of the stone retaining wall on Harborough Hill Road, new retaining walls needed to construct the access and the turning area. The realigned retaining wall is to be a like for like replacement so it will not be a significant change. The other new retaining walls are not in a prominent location and the turning area will be surrounded by landscaping.
Highway Safety - The applicants claim that the current service access arrangements within the Peel Centre retail park causes potential conflicts with pedestrians. It is stated that the new separate service access will be an improvement on the existing arrangements and would also enable the closure of the access to the ‘Enterprise Car Hire’ unit and to the Fireplace Centre.
After refusal of planning permission for a similar proposal the Council employed a highway consultant to be their expert highways witness at the resultant Public Inquiry. He has stated that the revised access excluding the acceleration lane is now generally acceptable and his views are a material planning consideration in the determination of this planning application. It is, therefore, recommended that permission be granted.
148 Recommendation
Grant subject to:-
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In order to comply with the provision of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 Before the proposed service access is brought into use, the realigned retaining wall on Harborough Hill Road shall be completed. The retaining wall shall be faced in natural stone to match that used on the retained section of the existing wall. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
3 Before the proposed service access is brought into use the existing access to Enterprise Car Hire shall be permanently closed to all vehicles with a physical barrier the details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
4 Before the proposed service access is brought into use the replacement parking facilities shown on the approved plans shall be provided, surfaced and drained. The replacement parking shall thereafter be retained for customer parking to the Peel Centre. Reason: In the interests of Highway safety.
5 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscaping works, including details of the species, positions and planted heights of proposed trees and shrubs. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
6 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which die within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with other of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.
149 150 SECTION B - REFUSALS
2009/0904 Mr Bobby Kalar Erection of first floor extension, erection of two storey extension and creation of car parking area to nursing home. Holly Tree Lodge, Sceptone Grove, Shafton, Barnsley
This application has been referred to Board at the request of Members. 8 no. letters of representation have been received.
Site Location and Description
The site is sandwiched between Sceptone Grove and Hawthorne Street, Shafton. It is occupied by a large building which functions as a residential care home for people with dementia. The building is a mixture of one and two storeys, the two storey element faces towards Hawthorne Street and the single storey element faces towards Sceptone Grove. The dominant external wall material is red brick. The roof is covered with interlocking pantiles in grey.
To the north of the site is an area of private amenity space, which is used by the residents of the home. To south of the site are two storey residential dwellings. To the west are a doctor’s surgery and a small service yard. Whilst not in control of the applicant the service yard is used by owners of the care home as a bin storage area and emergency ambulance bay. To the east of the site is an area of open space that contains 22 no. mature trees including Ash, Beech, Norway Maple, Oak and White beam. This area of land is separated from Hawthorne Street by a 2m high (approx) stone wall, behind which is a mature Hawthorne and Maple field hedge.
Levels vary across this area of open space, they are highest in the west and slope downwards by approx 3m to where it connects with Hawthorne Street. The open space is in the ownership of the care home. Several dwellings overlook this space, these are no's 8 and 12 Litton Walk and 16 and 18 Bedale Walk.
The site is currently accessed off Sceptone Grove although there is pedestrian access to the site from Hawthorne Street. There is currently no off street parking provision for residents and employees of and visitors to, the care home.
Site History
An application to erect a new entrance lobby on the eastern elevation of the building was approved in early 2009 (BMBC Ref: 2009/0230). The application also included proposals to replace the existing timber clad two storey bay windows. A further application (BMBC Ref: 2009/0231) was submitted to create a car park on the area of open space however this was withdrawn following concerns about the impact of the car park on the owners of the adjoining residential dwellings, in particular no's 8 and 12 Litton Walk and 16 and 18 Bedale Walk and the loss of a significant numbers of mature trees on the site.
The applicant was advised to scale down the car park to limit its effect on the local residents and on the trees. They were also advised to contact the Councils Tree Officer to discuss the tree issue, in particular the protection of retained trees, prior to any resubmission.
151 Proposed Development
The applicant now seeks planning permission to erect a two storey extension on to the western elevation of the care home and a first floor extension over the existing single storey wing. The extensions, taken together, will create 17 new nursing bedrooms and a number of new communal areas including bathrooms, day areas, treatment rooms, toilets and stores. The external walls of the extensions will be finished with render and the roof with grey concrete interlocking tiles.
The applicant also seeks permission to create a vehicular access to the site from Hawthorne Street and a 15 no. space car park in the area of open space. Access to the care home from the car park will be via an access ramp.
Planning Policy
Barnsley Unitary Development Plan
The site falls within a housing policy area and the proposal is for a community facility which provides residential accommodation for people with special needs, therefore the following policies are relevant:
Policy CF1 (Community Facilities) states that the Council will support proposals which consist the creation of improvement of existing community facilities. Policy H5 (Housing for Special Needs) indicates that scheme which provide housing for people with special needs, such as the elderly, will be supported providing the scheme does not harm the amenities of local residents or the street scene. Policy ED10 (Growth of Existing Firms) states that proposals to extend existing businesses will be supported where they are well designed and of an appropriate scale.
Also of consideration are:
Policy BE6 (Design Standards) all new development should be well designed. Policy GS22 & GS22a (Woodland, Trees and Hedgerows) which seek to retain and protect all significant trees and hedgerows on development sites; Policy T2 (Development and the Highway Network) which states that all new development should be able to be accommodated in the highway network without significant detriment to highway safety.
Consultations
Drainage: No objections Tree Officer: Refuse on the grounds of loss of protected trees and lack of information on tree protection. Parish Council: No comments Highways DC: No objections Yorkshire Water: No objections
Representations
A site notice was erected and dwellings surrounding the site were consulted on the application by letter. In response 8 representations were received highlighting the following issues:
Noise and disturbance from increased activity associated with the car park would affect quality of life of the occupiers of dwellings which surround the site; Car parking area will attract criminal activity;
152 Loss of the areas only green space; Loss of habitat for bats, squirrels and hedgehogs; Creation of car park would result in additional traffic along Holly Farm to the detriment of highway safety; Loss of trees on the site is unacceptable and will significantly harm the Hawthorne Street streetscene; Loss of privacy which will result from the loss of trees; Loss of stone wall will harm the Hawthorne Street streetscene; Gradient of the car park will result in increased run off onto the highway, resulting in an increased risk of flooding.
Principle – The Council, in accordance with UDP Policies CF1 and H5, supports the creation and improvement of community facilities, particularly those which provide residential accommodation and support for groups of people in society who have special needs. In addition, UDP Policy ED10 encourages the growth and expansion of existing businesses within Barnsley to ensure that jobs are retained and to provide opportunities for new jobs to be created.
Residential Amenity – It is believed that the proposed car parking area will adversely affect the quality of life of the occupiers of no's 8 and 12 Litton Walk and no’s 16 and 18 Bedale Walk as these dwellings are located very close to, and will overlook, the car park site. There were initial concerns that the occupiers of these properties would be affected by noise and disturbance from vehicular traffic in particular the running of engines, the banging of cars doors and the glare from headlights, particularly at night.
The applicant has however attempted to mitigate the above detailed harmful effects for the benefit of the occupiers of those dwellings. In particular, they propose to erect a 2m high wooden close boarded acoustic fence along the northern and southern boundaries of the car park and plant a dense hedge behind it. Taken together, these mitigation measures, will help screen the car park from view of these properties and also contain any noise generated by the cars. In addition, the applicant proposes to reduce ground levels within the car parking area by approx 1. 1.5m, so that ground levels merge with those along Hawthorne Street. This, it is considered, will help shield no’s 8 -12 Litton Walk and no’s 16 – 18 Bedale Walk from the glare of headlights. Taking the above into account therefore it is considered that the car parking area, with mitigation measures, will have an acceptable impact on the occupiers of the dwellings along Litton Walk and Bedale Walk.
It should be noted that at present employees of, and visitors to, the care home park along Sceptone Grove and that this on-street parking occurs to the detriment of the amenities of the residents who live along it. For example, cars park in front of habitable room windows, affecting the outlook from the dwellings. In addition they take space up within 'resident only' parking areas which is unacceptable as it leaves residents with nowhere to park. The creation of the off road parking area will therefore benefit the amenities of the occupiers of dwellings along Sceptone Grove.
Visual Amenity - Whilst there is no objection to the design and scale of the proposed first floor extension as it is believed that the extension will improve the appearance of the main part of the building, there are concerns about the scale and siting of the proposed two storey extension and its effect on the Sceptone Grove streetscene.
153 Sceptone Grove, is characterised by buildings of a modest scale, which are set back from the highway by areas of landscaping. The area could be described as open and green. The proposed two storey extension, being sited less than 0.5m from the footway along Sceptone Grove, disregards the existing building line and as a consequence will result in the extension being overly prominent and intrusive, contrary to the advice contained in UDP Policy BE6. It should be noted that the applicant was given the option to reduce the scale of the extension, however the applicant refused to amend the scheme. It is considered reasonable therefore to cite the above as a reason for refusal.
Trees - Given the topography of the site, a large area of land will need to be excavated in order to create the car parking area. The excavations works would, it is considered, affect an unacceptable portion of the rooting areas of approximately 15 no. trees within the site and resulting in their direct removal. A large proportion of the hedgerow would also be removed to create the access. Although the submitted plans detail that the remaining 6 no. trees would be retained on the site, the Tree Officer is of the opinion that the works proposed would significantly impact upon their health and stability, resulting in a need for their removal. Despite requests for further information on this matter, nothing has been provided by the application to convince the Tree Officer otherwise.
The loss of all the trees on the site is considered totally unacceptable. They are a feature of significant amenity value and add to the character of the area. It was considered necessary to make an emergency Tree Preservation Order on the group of trees and hedgerow which fall within the boundaries of the site to protect the trees from any deliberate damage and destruction. The TPO (Ref: 49/2009) was served on the 22nd October 2009.
The applicant was advised that although the loss of some of the trees on the site would be acceptable, the loss of all the trees on the site was not. The applicant was given a timescale to produce an acceptable scheme for the car park area which would explain in detail how any retained trees would be protected during construction and excavation works. As this information has not been forthcoming, it is considered appropriate to draw this issue to a close and based upon the information provided thus far, it is considered reasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of the loss of a significant number of protected trees and hedgerow, contrary to UDP Policies GS22 and GS22a.
Highways - Highways DC raise no objections to the proposal, they consider the provision of off street parking space will reduce the incidence of on street parking along Sceptone Grove, therefore improving highway safety in the area.
Residents of Holly Farm are concerned that the additional traffic along Hawthorne Street, which will result from the creation of the car park, will adversely affect highway safety along this road. Highways however do not consider that the traffic generated by the care home will be significant and consider that Hawthorne Street has the capacity to absorb any additional traffic generated.
Conclusion
The proposed development is contrary to UDP Policies BE6, GS22 and GS22a in that it will have an unacceptable impact on the street scene and result in the loss of a large number of mature trees and as a consequence it is considered reasonable to refuse the application on that basis.
154 Recommendation
Refuse
1 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed two storey extension would, due to its scale and siting less than 0.5m from the footway, be an overly prominent, intrusive feature in the Sceptone Grove street scene to the detriment of the character of the area, contrary to Barnsley UDP Policy BE6.
2 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the loss of a significant number of trees, which are subject to Tree Preservation Order 49/2009, as a result of the proposed car park, would be harmful to the visual amenities of the area, contrary to Barnsley UDP Policy GS22.
3 Despite requests for additional information the applicant has not submitted sufficient details to enable an adequate assessment to be made of the effect of the proposed car parking area on the trees which are shown to be retained on the site.
155
156 BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING APPEALS
1st November – 30th November 2009
APPEALS RECEIVED
The following appeals have been received during this month
Reference Details Method of appeal Committee/Delegated
2009/0232 Erection of 172 dwellings Written Representation Commitee and associated works and 08/05/2009 re-sited access (outline) Former SR Gent Factory, Dodworth Road, Barnsley
2009/0779 Erection of 272 dwellings Written Representation Committee with ancillary services and 21/10/2009 facilities (outline) Former SR Gent Factory, Dodworth Road, Barnsley
2009/0837 Erection of 1 No detached Written Representation Delegated bungalow with garage 21/08/2009 (outline) Land adjacent 14 Pennine Edge, Crow Edge, Sheffield
2009/0973 Erection of extension to Written Representation Delegated existing garage to form 08/09/2009 triple garage with play room above (resubmission) 5 Woodbourne Gardens, Tankersley, Barnsley
APPEALS WITHDRAWN
There have been no appeals withdrawn during this month
157
APPEALS DECIDED
Reference Details Method of appeal Decision Committee/ Delegated
2008/1727 Agricultural and ecological Public Inquiry Dismissed Committee improvements of land by land 30/11/2010 raising with inert recycling Materials and soils (resubmission) Land at Burntwood Road, Grimethorpe, Barnsley
2009/0214 Erection of one detached Written Dismissed Delegated dwelling (resubmission) Representation 10/11/2009 Land adjacent 26 Millmount Road, Hoyland, Barnsley
2009/0307 Pruning of Yew tree within Written Allowed Delegated Tree Preservation Order Representation 04/11/2009 7/2006 Mayfield, Barnsley Road, Dodworth, Barnsley
2009/0372 Erection of two storey side Written Dismissed Delegated extension to dwelling Representation 27/11/09 48 Raven Royd, Athersley North, Barnsley
2009/0822 Erection of a two storey side Written Dismissed Delegated extension to dwelling Representation 25/11/09 19 Hemingfield Road, Hemingfield, Barnsley
2009/0984 Erection of 1.6 m high front Written Dismissed Delegated boundary wall with pillars and Representation 06/11/09 gates 12 East View, Cudworth, Barnsley
Appeals allowed total is 16.67% for the month of November 2009 Appeals decided since August 2008 = 74 Total number of Appeals allowed since August, 2008 = 12 Cumulative from 1st August 2008 – 30th November = 16.22%
158