ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD

PLANNING AND REGENERATION SERVICE REPORT TO COMMITTEE 9TH OCTOBER 2008

Item 1 Ref. RB2007/1661

Appeal Decision: Appeal Dismissed.

Appeal against a refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of a three storey building to form 9 No. apartments and associated parking on land at Moorgate Grove, Moorgate.

Recommendation:-

That the decision to dismiss the appeal be noted.

Background

In August 2007 a planning application (RB2007/1661) was submitted to demolish the existing house and erect a three storey building to form 9 residential apartments. The scheme involved the felling of a number of mature trees and the provision of a substantial front parking area. Members will recall the application being refused in October 2007 at Planning Board. The reasons for refusal were as follows:

01 The Council considers that the proposed development, by reason of its scale, mass and siting forward of the established neighbouring building line, is out of character in the street scene, detracting from the visual appearance of the area, and would conflict with the visual amenities of the locality and is contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy ENV3.1 'Development and the Environment.' 02 The Council also considers that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site as the car parking area and the main three storey block and the two storey block to the rear of the site, covers more than 50% of the site area. This is out of character with the surrounding dwellings which are characterised by low density units with substantial rear gardens area and is contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy ENV3.1 'Development and the Environment.' 03 The Council further considers that the proposed vehicular access into the site, and front car parking area would result in a loss of mature trees which are considered to provide a high level of amenity to the surroundings and their loss is considered to be contrary to Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and ENV3 ‘Borough Landscapes’. 04 In addition the Council considers that the proposal, if implemented, would generate additional vehicular traffic along Moorgate Grove, which is of restricted width and lacking in separate pedestrian provision, to the detriment of pedestrian safety, particularly children walking to and from the schools in the vicinity and would be contrary to UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 05 The Council further considers that the proposal, if implemented, could encourage the submission of further applications of a similar nature at other sites along Moorgate Grove. Such applications would become progressively more difficult to resist and would exacerbate the pedestrian safety problem referred to above.

I have now been informed that a subsequent appeal against the refusal has been dismissed.

The main issues on which the appeal was decided by the Inspector were as follows: • Whether the appeal project would harm the appearance of the street scene. • Whether the proposal would add to danger for pedestrians on Moorgate Grove.

In terms of whether the appeal would harm the appearance of the street scene the Inspector noted that the proposed building would be much more obvious in the street scene than the existing house is. Whilst the Inspector conceded that there are a “mix of forms and styles of development on Moorgate Grove, with dwellings randomly spread about their curtilages”, he was of the opinion that what is proposed would be at odds with the nearby housing development on this road. In particular, “the magnitude of development proposed including the combination of footprint, height and proximity to the road” was the main issue in the Inspector leading to his conclusions. Whilst the Inspector agreed with the appellant that the trees on the appeal site could be felled without the Council’s approval, he was of the opinion that “changes to the local scene in the foreseeable future arising from events beyond planning control are likely to be slow and not amount to very much – in contrast to the major change that the appeal project comprises”.

On highway safety issues the Inspector noted that the proposed apartments could generate significant levels of vehicular traffic. Whilst the Inspector agreed with the appellant that vehicle speeds will tend to be low, the Inspector was of the opinion that this is not a road where a significant increase in traffic generation of the sort that would arise from the appeal project ought to be allowed. The Inspector concluded that the proposal was potentially dangerous on highway safety grounds due to the mix of pedestrians, no footway, and a narrow carriageway with potentially large vehicles having to reverse to make use of the limited passing opportunities.

On other issues the Inspector agreed with the Council that the appeal site is in a sustainable location but was of the opinion that this by itself does not justify this project which would both harm the street scene and compromise pedestrian safety.

Overall and having regard to all other matters raised, the Inspector concluded that the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of impact on the street scene and on highway safety issues.

Item 2 (Ref.RB2006/2066)

Application for Lawful Development Certificate re Existing Use of Premises for Processing and Recycling of Scrap Metal at Hillbrook Works, Ulley Lane, Aston, For Sims Group U.K. Ltd.

Recommendation:-

That a Certificate of Lawfulness be granted for the following reason:-

It is considered that the applicants have shown on the balance of probability that the use of the site as a metal recycling facility, has been carried out at the currentth level of activity (40,000 tonnes per year) for a period of ten years before the 27 October 2006.

First Schedule:-

1. Use of the land and buildings within the red edge on the attached plan for the processing of 40,000 tonnes of scrap material per year, including the sorting, grading and processing of ferrous and non-ferrous metal scrap including manual sorting of scrap, use of mechanical plant, hot cutting and bulking up, the storage of end of life fridges (for treatment elsewhere) and processing end of life vehicles and WEE wastes (electrical equipment). 2. The use of the land hatched purple on the attached plan for the purposes of the storage and processing of ferrous materials, non ferrous materials, End of Life Vehicles, and Waste Electrical Equipment at a height not exceeding 12m. 3. The use of the land, shown Green on the attached plan for the storage and processing End of Life Vehicles, tyres end of life residues, ferrous and non ferrous material and waste electrical equipment at a height not exceeding 3.5m. 4. Use of the land shown blue on the attached plan for the storage and processing of ferrous and non ferrous materials, waste electrical equipment, and tyres at a height not exceeding 5m. 5. The use of the land cross hatched red on the attached plan for the use of storage and processing of batteries, waste electrical equipment, ferrous and non ferrous materials at a height not exceeding 3.5m. 6. Operating hours of: (i) 07:30 hrs to 17:00 hrs Monday to Friday. (ii) 07:30 hrs to 11:30 hrs on Saturdays.

Second Schedule:-

Land at Hillbrook Works, Ulley Lane, Aston (edged red on attached plan).

Background

The site has a long established use as a scrap yard, and has been the subject of a number of applications in the past.

Planning permission to continue the use of the site for vehicle dismantling, repair and reconditioning, the production of scrap metal and motor spares and spares trading was granted in 1952. At that time it was declared that the land had been used as such since 1934 (RHD/663).

Permission was subsequently granted for the development of workshops and garages in 1953 (RH1953/1031)

In 1984 permission was granted for the change of use of a ground floor room of a dwelling at the entrance to the site to allow for the expansion of the site offices (RB1983/1638).

A Lawful Development Certificate for existing use of land as a metal recycling facility was refused in January 2006 (RB2005/0332) for the following reason:-

“It is considered that insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate, on the balance of probability, a continuous use of the site as a metal recycling facility (for sorting, grading and processing of ferrous, non ferrous metals, batteries, refrigeration units, waste electrical equipment and end of life vehicles) at the current level of activity for the ten years prior to the submission of the current application on 21 February 2005. As such the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that the use as described above is lawful.”

Two current planning applications are also considered on this agenda.

1. RB2006/1307 application for planning permission for the erection of 6 floodlighting columns 2. RB2004/ 824 Erection of building for car dismantling and two security lights.

All applications have been held in abeyance pending the submission of further details and clarification relating to the extent and level of operations at the site. All applications have been held in abeyance pending the submission of further details and clarification relating to the extent and level of operations at the site.

An application for a Lawful Development Certificate requires the applicant to demonstrate, on the balance of probability (not beyond all reasonable doubt), that the use defined has been carried out at the levels defined for a continuous period of at least 10 years prior to the date of the submission of the application (in this instance 27 October 2006). Annex 8 of Circular 10/97 ‘Enforcing Planning Control’ relates to Lawful Development Certificates and states that the onus of proof is firmly on the applicant. Paragraph 8.15 states in part: “the Court has held (see F W Gabbitas v SSE and Newham LBC [1985] JPL 630) that the applicant's own evidence does not need to be corroborated by "independent" evidence in order to be accepted.” It also states that, “If the LPA has no firm evidence of its own or from others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicants version of events less than probable, there is no good reason to refuse the application”.

The LPA should proceed on the basis that neither the identity of the applicant (except to the extent that he or she may or may not be able personally to confirm the accuracy of any claim being made about the history of a parcel of land), nor the planning merits of the operation, use or activity, are relevant to the consideration of the purely legal issues which are involved in determining an application.

Paragraph 8.12 also states in part: “the fact that an LDC may be refused because the onus of proof is not discharged by the applicant does not preclude the submission of a further application if better evidence is subsequently available.”

Site Description

The site of application is an irregular shaped piece of land measuring approximately 2 hectares, in a valley bottom approximately 600m to the north of Aston. With the exception of three nearby houses the surrounding area is countryside.

Evidence in Support of Development:-

The application is for a Lawful Development Certificate to regularise the use of the land which was originally a car dismantler’s and scrap yard to its present use which is mainly scrap metal recycling. The requirement for this has been brought about by the need for a new waste management license (Controlled by the Environment Agency) which includes a prerequisite that a valid planning permission is in place for the operations contained in the license. The granting of the Lawful Development Certificate would have the same effect as granting a planning permission.

The principal activities at the site have been listed as the sorting, grading and processing of ferrous and non-ferrous metal scrap which involves manual sorting of scrap, use of mechanical plant, hot cutting and bulking up, as well as the storage of end of life fridges (for treatment elsewhere) and processing end of life vehicles and WEE wastes (electrical equipment). The applicant wishes to demonstrate that the site has been used for the processingth of 40 000 tonnes of materials a year for a period of ten years before the 27 October 2006.

Evidence submitted in support comprises the planning history for the site, the Waste Disposal Licence, sworn affidavits from employees, letters from suppliers, and scrap metal returns submitted to the Environment Agency between 1993 and April 2005.

Sworn affidavits, from two employees who have worked at the site for 29 and 30 years respectively, indicate that the site has operated as a waste metal recycling site throughout their periods of employment and the site has received ferrous and none ferrous metals, white goods (domestic appliances) and end of life vehicles for dismantling. The hours of operation have been 07-30 to 17-00 hrs Monday to Friday and 7-30 to 11-30 hrs on Saturdays.

Two letters have been received from suppliers of metals who have done so for 10 and 40 years respectively. Materials supplied have been: Demolition scrap, cuttings, turnings, light iron, and non-ferrous metals.

With regard to returns to the Environment Agency:-

The capacity on the site, in accordance with the site licence is 37 290 tonnes. The submitted returns show the quantities and types of materials brought into and removed from the site in each year over the relevant period and are as follows:-

1993: 34,000 tonnes. 1994: 350 tonnes/week, 1,950 tonnes storage. 1995: No returns. 1996: No returns. 1997: No returns. 1998 to 1999 Three quarterly returns: (i) 11,969 tonnes in 12,546 tonnes out, (ii) 9,790 tonnes in 9,460 tonnes out, (iii) 11,068 tonnes in 11,185 tonnes out. 1999 to 2000: One return for the period 04/1999 to 06/1999, 10,550 tonnes in and 11,151 tonnes out. 2000 to 2001: 54,277 tonnes in and 56,944 tonnes out. 2001 to 2002: 56,281 tonnes in and 57,358 tonnes out. 2002 to 2003: 60,171 tonnes in and 60,929 tonnes out. 2003 to 2004: 60,919 tonnes in and 61,239 tonnes out. 2004 to 2005: 60,068 tonnes in and 59,053 tonnes out.

The site of application has been reduced at officer request to exclude an area of land in the southern corner of the site which has not been used for the recycling of materials at any time and measures approximately 0.27 hectares. In addition further supporting information was requested and submitted which indicates the location and storage heights of the various materials on the site.

Publicity and comments received:

The application was advertised in the press and on site, and neighbouring residents notified, in relation to the initial submission and the additional information. The notification states that only comments on the lawfulness of the use are applicable and that comments on the principle of the development cannot be considered. Ten representations were received in relation to the first consultation, and five requests to speak at the meeting. A further seven were received in reply to the second consultation including one right to speak at the meeting. Much of the correspondence relates to issues of the principle of the development rather than the lawfulness and is not therefore relevant in the consideration of the application for a Lawful Development Certificate.

Relevant comments can be summarised as follows:-

(i) Original operation was small scale and has expanded beyond capacity of site, though no figures or specific dates have been supplied, other than to point out that the use was much less intense thirty to 50 years ago, and that the use has intensified since Simms metals took over. It is also contended that the number and size of vehicles have increased over time, resulting in congestion, highway danger, noise and scrap metal being dropped in the highway.

Consultations

Transportation Unit:-

No evidence available to prove or disprove the claim.

Appraisal

The applicants are seeking to show on the balance of probability that the site has been used continuously for the sorting, grading and processing of ferrous and non- ferrous scrap metal involving manual sorting of scrap, use of mechanical plant, hot cutting and bulking up, along with the storage of end of life fridges (for treatment elsewhere) and processing end of life vehicles and WEE wastes (electrical equipment) for a period of 10 years before October 27 2006.

The site history and submitted affidavits indicate that the site has been used for at least 10 years for waste management including ferrous, non-ferrous scrap processing, along with end of life vehicle dismantling and storage of end of life domestic appliances, batteries and tyres.

The main issue is the level at which the site has operated unbroken for a period of ten years, prior to the submission of the application. On the basis of the Waste Management License returns, it is considered that the use of the site, at the level of 40,000 tonnes per year, is on the balance of probability established.

The evidence submitted indicates no returns for the financial year endings in 1995, 1996 and 1997, a gap of three years, though figures from Sims accounts indicate a turnover of 39,410 tonnes for 1995. Additionally there is a return of 34,000 tonnes in 1993. The applicants have indicated that no records can be found for these years, and that the Environment Agency have no saved record. They also point out that the Environment Agency has powers to take enforcement action for none submission of records, but that that no action has been taken.

There are also three quarterly return for the year 1998 totalling 36,225 tonnes in and 33,917 tonnes out over a nine month period. This would equate to 48,266 tonnes and 45,223 tonnes out respectively over a twelve month period.

Projected figures for 1999 and 2000 on the basis of the quarterly returns available are 43,196 tonnes and 54,277 tonnes respectively. Returns for the remaining years show figures in excess of the 40,000 tonnes.

The evidence shows that with the exception of two years, 1996 and 1997, the site processed materials over a period of 10 years (between 1996 and 2005) at or above the levels referred to in the application. Additionally Sims metals accounts indicate that 39,410 tonnes of material were processed in 1995

Conclusions

On the basis of the information submitted it is considered that it has been shown on the balance of probability, i.e. it is more probable than not, that the site has been operating at a level with quantities of materials of at least 40,000 tonnes per year during the relevant 10 year period October 1996 to October 2006.

Item 3 Ref. RB2008/0620

Demolition of existing building and erection of a three storey building comprising of 12 No. apartments, 8 No. two storey dwellinghouses with rooms in the roofspace and associated dormer windows, 2 No. two storey dwellinghouses and associated bin and cycle store on land at the Davy Lamp Public House, Laudsdale Road, East Herringthorpe for Pacific Homes.

Recommendation: - Granted Conditionally

A. That the Council resolves to enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the purpose of ensuring:-

(i) Provision of 2 no. affordable units; the affordable units to be provided by the Developer on site will be 2 no. two bed townhouses identified as plots 1 and 2 (type A) on the plans (7.5% of the proposed total of 20 units) to be made available for affordable housing as Shared Ownership accommodation.

B. That consequent upon the satisfactory conclusion of such an agreement, planning permission be granted for the proposed development subject to the following conditions:-

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

The Local Planning Authority has decided to grant planning permission:

1. Having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan and the advice set out in government guidance, all as set out below, and all relevant material planning considerations:

UDP Policies: HG1 ‘Existing Housing Areas’ HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites’ HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’

National policies:-

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPG13: ‘Transport’

2. For the following reasons:

The principle of residential development is considered to be acceptable on this brownfield site. In density terms the proposal is considered to represent an efficient scheme in terms of land use whilst having a regard to the characteristics of the surrounding area.

In terms of the scale of the proposal, the development is considered to mitigate the overall impact by the use of stepped rooflines and excavated ground levels into the site. The overall building height is considered to be in keeping with the scale of the surrounding properties along Laudsdale Road. The apartment block, now located on the lowest part of the site, is considered to complement the street scene and mitigate the potentially dominating impact of this three storey development. The stepped rooflines are considered to reduce the dominance of the development and the dual- frontage is considered to create a focal point to the site and enhance the scheme.

In terms of visual appearance it is considered that the scheme represents a modern development that has a range of different unit types that would assist in the overall regeneration of the surrounding area.

It is considered that the overall amenity provision within the site is acceptable and the development is not considered to significantly increase levels of potential overlooking.

The development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on highway safety and is considered to be sited in a sustainable location.

3. The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to grant planning permission. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s Report and the application case file and associated documents.

Conditions 01 [PC21*] When the proposed access has been brought into use, the existing access marked X on the Attached copy plan shall be permanently closed and the footway reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 02 [PC24] Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be properly drained and constructed in concrete, tarmacadam, block paving or other such material as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained in a sound condition. 03 [PC29] Before the development is commenced road sections, constructional and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 04 [PC94] Not later than 7 days after the completion of the sale or lease of each dwelling, the developer shall procure from the SYPTE a Travel Master Pass and Journey Planner for the South Zone, valid for one year on behalf of each household who shall be the first occupants of such a dwelling and the developer shall give details of the application and the date upon which it was made to the Council. 05 Secure cycle parking facilities shall be provided for the proposed apartments in accordance with the Council’s Cycle Parking guidelines. 06 [PC52] No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 07 [PC37] No tree or hedge shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any tree or hedge be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning works approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). If any tree or hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree or hedge shall be planted in the immediate area and that tree or hedge shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 08 [PC40] No work or storage on the site shall commence until all the trees/hedges to be retained have been protected by the erection of a strong durable 2.3 metre high barrier fence in accordance with B.S.5837: 2005 Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction. This shall be positioned in accordance with (details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority). The protective fencing shall be properly maintained and shall not be removed without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the development is completed. There shall be no alterations in ground levels, fires, use of plant, storage, mixing or stockpiling of materials within the fenced areas. 09 [PC38C] Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary:-

- The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. - The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. - Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. - Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. - The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. - A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. - A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works. - The programme for implementation. - Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme.

The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme and in accordance with the appropriate standards and codes of practice within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 10 [PC38D] Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced within the next planting season. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. 11 [PC44*] 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 first occupied. 12 The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. 13 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 Planning Authority. 14 Unless approved otherwise 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. 15 A bin store for the apartments shall be provided before the occupation of the first dwelling with the siting and design to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 16 [PC97] The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Drawing numbers – Amended Plans, Self Architects 3603-01C, 02B, 03B, 04B, 05B, 06A, 09B, 10B, 11A, 12C, 13C, received 9 September 2008) 17 [WC31*] Except in case of emergency, no operations shall take place on site other than between the hours of 0800 – 1800 Monday to Friday and between 0900 – 1300 on Saturdays. There shall be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency and a schedule of essential work shall be provided. 18 Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2, Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) none of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be enlarged or altered externally unless planning permission has first been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons:- 01 [PR21] In the interests of road safety. 02 [PR24B] To ensure that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 03 [PR29] No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval. 04 [PR94] In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 05 In order to encourage sustainable modes of transport. 06 [PR52] To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 07 [PR37] In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 08 [PR40] To ensure the trees/shrubs are protected during the construction of the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 09 [PR38C] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 10 [PR38D] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 11 [PR44] In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 12 In the interests of satisfactory drainage. 13 In order to provide a suitable drainage scheme. 14 In the interests of satisfactory drainage. 15 In the interests of the amenities of the future occupiers of the dwellings. 16 [PR97] To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved/amended plans. 17 In the interests of amenity to nearby residential properties. 18 To enable the Local Planning Authority to control any subsequent development of the site.

Background

There is no recent planning history on this site. Members will recall that the application was deferred on 7 August 2008 in order to revise the design of the scheme with the apartments to be located at the base of the site.

UDP Allocation and Policies

The site is allocated for residential in the adopted UDP.

Policies HG1 ‘Existing Housing Areas’, HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites’, HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ are relevant in the determination of this application.

In addition the advice contained within national planning policy PPS1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, PPS3 ‘Housing’ and PPG13 ‘Transport’ is also material.

Site Description

The site lies within the East Herringthorpe Estate, approximately 350 metres south- east of the Mushroom Roundabout. The site area is approximately 0.25 hectares with a topography that slopes up steeply from west to east. The site is currently occupied by the Davy Lamp public house, a 1960s two storey brick-built construction. The building lies towards the centre of the site with a hard-surfaced parking area to the west and east of the pub. The pub has been vacant for a number of months and is currently boarded up. There is an area of overgrown grassland in the far west and north of the site and there are a number of low hedges and shrubs proving a northern boundary to the site.

The west, south and east of the site is predominantly residential providing a mix of flats and semi-detached houses with a disused allotment garden on the north east boundary of the site and the East Herringthorpe Sports and Social Club lies directly to the south of the site. The majority of the housing in this area is of council and Housing Association tenure and is predominantly two and 3 stories in height.

Proposals

Full application, originally for the erection of 21 residential units (then amended to incorporate a total of 20 units). The design and layout of the scheme has since been amended and can be summarised as follows:-

• The apartment block has been re-located to the west of the site where ground levels are lower. • The design of the apartments has changed and now incorporates a dual- frontage to the south and west-elevations. The entrance to the block is now on the northern elevation. • The number of type C houses (with rooms in the roof space and dormer windows) has been increased by 3 units. • The two block unit to the north of the site has been omitted and replaced by the parking area. • The car park has been increased from 7 to 8 spaces. • The eastern parking area on the previous proposals has now been replaced by a block of two storey houses. • The scheme retains an amenity area of approximately 350 square metres for the apartments.

The design and access statement submitted in support of the application could be summarised as follows:-

• Development of this site for housing will contribute to the regeneration of the area and will broaden the type and tenure of housing available. • Much of the surrounding properties are of a low residential density. A higher density residential development will create a ‘critical mass’ which will encourage the long-term sustainability of the area. • The layouts of the buildings have been designed wherever possible to have south facing lounges to maximise the benefit of natural light. • The buildings step with the topography of the site, incorporating a range of 2, 2.5 and 3 storeys buildings.

Publicity

All relevant neighbours were re-notified of the amendments by letter on 12 September 2008. In addition site notices have been erected and the application has been publicised in the local press. No representations have been received.

Consultations

Transportation Unit – no objections subject to conditions. Drainage – no comments. Environmental Health – no objections. Tree Officer – no comments. Yorkshire Water – no objections. HMR – concerns with design and layouts of original proposal. The amended scheme takes account of these comments. Police – concerns with lack of overlooking to car park. This has been addressed in the amendments.

Appraisal

The adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan identifies the site as being within a residential area and as the land is currently occupied with a disused pub with a surrounding garden area and car park. The site is therefore considered brownfield with the principle of residential development being acceptable in this location.

In terms of the density levels, the dwellings to the south and east of the site comprise of post-war semi-detached properties with generally low densities. However, it is considered that these properties do not reflect modern design standards and are inefficient in land use terms. To the west of the site there are a number of higher density apartments in the region of 60 to 100 dwellings per hectare. In terms of this scheme, a total of 20 units on this site equates to a density of approximately 80 units per hectare. Whilst density levels of the proposed scheme are generally higher than those found in the wider East Herringthorpe estate, there are areas of higher density housing levels in the near vicinity of the site including the development under construction at lady Oak Road (RB2007/0616). The proposal is not considered to conflict with the advice given in PPS3 Housing which indicates that schemes should have regard to the characteristics of the surrounding area and that schemes should be efficient in terms of land use. Therefore having regard to the mix of units in this scheme, it is considered that the proposed higher density levels are considered justifiable.

In terms of the layout of the proposal, whilst the overall amenity area available for the apartments has been reduced in order to accommodate the revised car parking area, it is still considered that the apartments have a good quality usable amenity area that is in the order of 350 square metres. The remaining dwellings have an outlook of 10 metres or greater, as recommended in the SPG with the exception of units 1 and 2 which are approximately 7 metres in length. However, both plots are sited within a narrow strip of land which is not considered adequate to provide a satisfactory amenity area for the development scheme. In addition both plots 1 and 2 have wide rear garden areas in excess of 8 metres. Bearing in mind that there is a considerable degree of existing boundary screening in this part of the site much of which is to be retained, on balance the provision of front and side amenity areas compensates for the shorter rear garden areas. The plots all have on-site parking available and the proposals are not considered to significantly overlook any of the surrounding plots and therefore are not considered to restrict the future development potential of the rear areas. It is therefore considered that the overall siting of the proposals would be in keeping with the character of the locality and would therefore be in accordance with Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to remove permitted development rights to extend the properties in order to safeguard the length of the proposed garden areas and ensure that there is a satisfactory amenity area for the plots.

Turning to the scale of the development, whilst the apartment block is three storey in height, the impact of this development on the street scene is considered to be absorbed by excavating ground floor levels into the site. In addition by using stepped rooflines, the overall net roof height and subsequent massing effect would be reduced across the east to west axis across the site. The surrounding residential areas have a mix of two and three storey developments present and the site is detached from nearby residential properties. These factors are considered sufficient to reduce any direct impact on the existing properties in terms of potential overshadowing and the proposal is considered to reflect the guidance set out in ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’.

Moving to issues of design and appearance the dual-frontage apartment block is considered to create a focal point to the site and enhance the scheme. Whilst the entrance to the apartments is not from Laudsdale Road, it is considered that the front Juliet balconies combined with the window design gives a good overall appearance to the main frontage along Laudsdale Road. The car parking area, front and rear amenity areas are considered to have a satisfactory level of surveillance from the units and the dual frontage apartments are considered to increase the security of the development. The overall visual appearance of the proposal is considered to be of a good standard that will contribute to the regeneration of the surrounding area.

In terms of the transport implications, the amended proposal seeks to take vehicular access for the apartments directly off Lady Oak Road with an off-road parking provision of 8 spaces for the proposed apartments. Although this would result in less than 1 space per apartment, the Transportation Unit consider that the level of parking for a development of this nature is acceptable and it is not considered that there would be any significant increase in on-street parking as a result. Laudsdale Road has a frequent bus service and there are a number of local facilities that increase the sustainability of the site.

In summary the amended proposal is considered to have a satisfactory appearance on the street scene with a layout that is both reflective of the character of the surroundings and achieves the efficient use of land that PPS3 requires. The design of the proposals is contemporary and is considered to improve the visual appearance of the existing neglected site. The scale and height of the proposed dwellings and the siting of the apartments in the western area of the site is considered to satisfactorily relate to the heights of the properties in the locality.

The amended application is recommended for approval subject to the safeguard of the above conditions and completion of the S.106 agreement.

Item 4 File Ref. RB2008/EN04

Courtesy consultation from Sheffield City Council for the redevelopment of land to provide a mixed-use development comprising employment and business facilities, residential accommodation, hotels, commercial office floorspace, food and drink facilities, community and civic facilities, leisure uses, retail floorspace, and ancillary commercial and non-commercial uses, car parking, public and private open space and landscaping, highways, access and engineering works at land Meadowhall Way, Weedon Street, and Carbrook Street, Sheffield for British Land Company plc

Recommendation:

That Sheffield City Council be thanked for the opportunity to comment on this application and be informed that the Council does not wish to object to the above proposal providing that:

1) the amount of initial office floorspace built is restricted to 65,000 sq.m and that no further office floorspace resulting in an increase beyond this figure is built until a re-assessment is undertaken of the ability of Rotherham town centre to accommodate new office floorspace.

2) It has been assessed that traffic levels on roads within Rotherham Metropolitan Borough would not be significantly increased as a result of the development

3) It has been assessed that the risk of flooding within Rotherham Metropolitan Borough would not be increased as a result of the development

4) The proposed improvements to M1 Junction 34(N) include the A6109 Meadowbank Road arm.

Background

Rotherham MBC has been consulted on the above planning application submitted to Sheffield City Council. This is a “courtesy” consultation as required due to the close proximity of Rotherham Borough to the application site which is across the boundary in Sheffield. RMBC must provide SCC with comments on the application and the impact of the proposal on Rotherham in terms of such planning-related issues as the environment, flooding, traffic and the vitality/viability of Rotherham town centre.

Site Description

The site comprises a number of adjacent plots of land to form one large site of over 25 hectares of ex-industrial brownfield land in the Lower Don Valley described as being underused, vacant and derelict. It lies to the south of Meadowhall shopping centre to the south of Meadowhall Lane, south-east of Meadowhall Road and north- west of Sheffield Road and Carbrook Street. Weedon Street and Meadowhall Drive/Vulcan Road pass through the site.

The site falls within all three flood zones, although only part of one of the five “phases” falls within the zone of highest flood risk (Flood Zone 3a).

Proposal

This is an outline application where the scale, design, layout, landscaping and access have been left as reserved matters for future planning applications in the event of approval being given for the outline application. It would appear that the applicants are therefore seeking approval for the principle of the redevelopment of the land and the introduction of new uses for the land including residential, offices and hotels.

The site would be divided into five plots of varying size, separated by existing roads to be retained within the site, namely Weedon Street and Meadowhall Drive. Four of the plots have been identified by the developers to accommodate an element of any of the proposed uses. The fifth plot is allocated for offices or hotel floorspace only.

The range of uses and their total scale as a result of redevelopment for the whole site is proposed as follows:-

USE MIN REQUIREMENT MAX REQUIREMENT

Offices (B1) 60,000 sq.m 120,000 sq.m Residential (C3) 800 units 1300 units (97,950 sq.m) Retail (A1) 2,000 sq.m 2,499 sq.m Hotels (C1) 0 10,000 sq.m Other (A2-A5, 2,000 sq.m 6,600 sq.m D1, D2)

TOTAL: 210,140 sq.m

MAX TOTAL CAR PARKING: 2,818 spaces

“Other” uses include leisure, food and drink, community and civic facilities, ancillary and non-commercial uses.

The office element of the scheme is intended to be occupied by a large company as their headquarters.

The proposal is intended to provide 600 jobs during the construction phase and 5,500 jobs during the operational phase. The applicants state that the majority of these jobs will be open to, and targeted at, the local communities in Sheffield and Rotherham through a training and skills programme managed by The Source.

Although the scale, design, layout, landscaping and access have been left as reserved matters for future planning applications, a Design and Access Statement and Parameters Plans have been submitted outlining “Design Codes” and general approaches towards the design and layout of the development. In the event of the approval of the application, these matters would be fully assessed as part of the future “reserved matters” applications.

The applicants have submitted a number of documents to address the key planning issues associated with the development and the impact on the environment. These include a Flood Risk Assessment, Design and Access Statement, an Environment Impact Assessment, Planning Policy Assessment (which includes “PPS6 sequential test” information), Sustainability Appraisal, Ground Conditions Assessment (including contamination reports), Energy Strategy Statement, Remediation Strategy, and Statement of Community Involvement.

Appraisal

The main issues with the proposal affecting Rotherham would include the impact of the development on the vitality and viability of the town centre, the impact on traffic levels within the Borough and the impact on the general environment, including flooding.

With regard to the impact on Rotherham Town Centre, the Government’s Planning Policy Statement 6 “Town Centres” encourages office and retail developments to be located in town/city centres rather than more peripheral areas in the interests of their vitality and viability and for sustainability reasons. However, if it is demonstrated that no more suitable sites exist within or closer to the centres, then more peripheral areas can be deemed to be acceptable locations for this purpose.

The recently published Regional Spatial Strategy for also encourages commercial and office development in town and city centres but also encourages development in ex-industrial areas such as the Lower Don Valley.

Sheffield’s Unitary Development Plan was adopted in 1998 and the area is allocated for Business use although housing could also be allowed if this, amongst other things, does not constrain any further business development in the interests of protecting the amenities of the housing development.

The above UDP is ten years old and more recent national and regional policies look to encourage business development in more central locations. The emerging Sheffield Development Framework is set to replace the UDP. The SDF looks to reinforce the aims of PPS6 and the Regional Spatial Strategy by encouraging business development in the city centre but also allows an element of business floorspace in other areas with good transport links, including Meadowhall, to compliment the city centre and accommodate businesses requiring different kinds of sites from those available in the city centre.

The applicants have submitted “sequential test” information which seeks to address the above issue by assessing available sites within, or closer to, . Rotherham town centre is also assessed but without analysis of available sites. The report on Rotherham concludes that the proposal will provide a “different environment and product for officer occupiers than is currently being planned either in or on the edge of Rotherham town centre” i.e. Rotherham town centre is more likely to attract smaller scale local firms.

In response to the above, it is accepted that the proposal is in line with national, regional and local planning policies. However, it is also considered that a condition should be added to cap the amount of the office floorspace provided to 65,000 sq.m and that no further office floorspace should be provided beyond this restriction until the ability of Rotherham town centre to accommodate further office floorspace has been adequately re-assessed.

In terms of the proposed retail and hotel floorspace, PPS6 and the RSS would also require these uses to be located in town/city centres. However, the amount of floorspace provided for these uses is very small-scale in relation to the other uses proposed and existing uses in the area and appears to solely serve and compliment the proposed development.

With regard to traffic, it is recognised that there are sustainability advantages with the site due to its close proximity to a rail station, bus links and cycle paths which connect Sheffield city centre to Rotherham town centre (there are also tram stops connecting the site to Sheffield city centre). The proximity of the existing nearby shopping centre and proposed mix of business and housing is also a sustainability advantage. The maximum parking provision is suitably restricted in order to encourage the use of modes of transport other than the car (in line with Government policy). Whilst RMBC would not want to instantly object to the proposal on traffic concerns, it also considers that no approval should be given until, with the aid of Highways Agency assessment, it is demonstrated that the proposal would not lead to a significant increase in traffic within Rotherham.

With regard to flood risk, the nearby River Don flows downstream to Rotherham and there were instances of flooding from this river in 2007. RMBC should request that no approval is given until it is assessed by SCC and the Environment Agency that the flood risk in any part of the Borough would not be exacerbated by the proposed development.

Item 5 File Ref. RB2008/EN06

Courtesy consultation from Sheffield City Council for the variation of condition 3 of permission 01/10135/FUL (Bernard Road energy recovery plant) to allow waste to be collected from Barnsley, Doncaster and Chesterfield and to increase the waste collected outside Sheffield to 75,000 tonnes at Environmental and Waste Management Service, Bernard Road, Sheffield for Veolia Environmental Services Ltd.

Recommendation

That Sheffield City Council (SCC) be thanked for the opportunity to comment on this application and be informed that the Council does not wish to object to the above proposal. However, it would request that SCC explore the possibility of transporting waste from areas outside of Sheffield to the incinerator via rail and canal freight travel rather than via roads in the interests of air quality.

Background

Rotherham MBC has been consulted on the above planning application submitted to Sheffield City Council. This is a “courtesy” consultation due to the possible impact of the proposal on the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham. RMBC must provide SCC with comments on the application and the impact of the proposal on Rotherham in terms of such planning-related issues as the environment and traffic levels.

Site Description

The site is off Bernard Road, approx one mile to the north-east of Sheffield city centre (and close to the Parkway), and comprises a waste incinerator which was built under a 2002 planning permission.

Proposal

This is an application to vary a planning condition attached to the planning permission for the waste incinerator in Sheffield. “Condition 3” restricted the amount of waste that could be delivered and handled at the incinerator from other areas. The application has been submitted to vary this condition to allow a greater amount of waste to be brought in from areas outside of Sheffield and to be collected from Barnsley, Doncaster and Chesterfield.

The existing condition 3 states:

"Unless otherwise agreed by the LPA: a) waste received at the facility shall be restricted to waste collected within the Waste Disposal Authority area of Sheffield, Rotherham and North East Derbyshire; and b) no more than 10% of the waste received at the facility shall be collected from outside the Sheffield Waste Disposal Authority Area.”

Rotherham Council is not currently contracted to deliver waste to the Sheffield incinerator although it does have a shared waste strategy with Barnsley and Doncaster.

The applicants have submitted a number of environmental statements in support of the proposal.

Appraisal

In terms of planning policies, there are no policies in the waste management sections of the Regional Spatial Strategy for Yorkshire and the Humber or the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan (adopted June 1999) that would be breached by the proposed relocation and increase of waste into Sheffield via Rotherham.

No objection has been raised by the Waste Management Section of RMBC in terms of the waste management interests of the Council and their waste strategy which is shared with Doncaster and Barnsley Council’s. This Section notes:

“We in Rotherham are supportive of the Veolia (VES) application for a number of reasons:

(a) In terms of carbon footprint, Rotherham refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) will be driving a greater distance within Sheffield to reach the VES landfill site than they would if they were to tip at the ERF

(b) In connection with (a), not only is the distance for Rotherham RCVs greater, it is also a more tortuous route to the VES landfill than it would be to the REF. Accordingly, less of Sheffield’s roads in number and length would be affected if the REF were to be used in preference to the VES landfill.

(c) ……there is a sustainability issue and possible reputation issue for Sheffield and Rotherham in allowing longer journeys to be travelled to reach a landfill disposal point when there is a ready alternative involving shorter journeys, less environmental impact and the proper treatment of waste.

(d) Rotherham will be renewing its RCV fleet over the next two years and if the VES application were approved, Rotherham would be able to amend the current specification to vehicles which would not need to traverse across landfill sites. This would allow the specification of much more fuel efficient vehicles than those needed for landfill traverse. This aspect would also contribute significantly to the carbon footprint reduction referred to above.

….In summary, Rotherham supports the VES application and would ask Sheffield to approve it so that environmental benefits can be realised for Sheffield and Rotherham.”

One issue with the proposal in terms of the direct impact on Rotherham would include resultant traffic levels in Rotherham due to the rise in vehicle numbers using the Borough’s roads to deliver increased amounts of waste to the Sheffield incinerator. The vehicle routing is likely to be directed through the Borough to access the Sheffield incinerator close to the Parkway, particularly from Doncaster.

The RMBC Transportation Unit does not object to the proposal on the grounds that it would not appear to have a material increase in traffic on Rotherham’s roads. However, there is a policy in the UDP which encourages the use of railways and canals for using freight as this results in less emissions than using road vehicles and is therefore more in line with environmental concerns. There are direct rail and canal links between Sheffield and Doncaster very close to the incinerator site and the section of canal between Rotherham and Doncaster was upgraded in the 1980s.

As the proposal is not expected to lead to a material increase in vehicle movements affecting Rotherham, and there is no clear policy objection associated with the proposal, it would not be appropriate to object to the proposal. However, SCC should be requested to explore the possibility of movement of waste via rail or canal as this would help the proposal to comply with a greater number of environmental policies.

Item 6

Appeal Decision – Appeal against Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of a fence erected at Falconer Grange Farm, Smallage Lane, Fence, Rotherham for Mr B Crump.

Recommendation

That the decision to dismiss the appeal be noted.

Background

Planning permission for the conversion of a Dutch barn building on site to residential and the erection of a separate storage building towards the front of the site was refused planning permission (RB2005/2238). The storage building had already been erected and an enforcement notice was served requiring the removal of the unauthorised building. Mr. Crump appealed against this enforcement notice and the appeal was subsequently dismissed. Mr. Crump challenged the decision of the Planning Inspectorate to refuse the related planning application and this was to be considered in the High Court, though this challenge was subsequently withdrawn on 21st August, 2008.

Whilst dealing with the enforcement of the storage building it was noted that a fence had been erected on top of a wall adjacent to the unauthorised building. This fence was considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and a separate enforcement notice was served on Mr. Crump requiring him to remove the fence, with a compliance period of 1 month. Once again Mr. Crump appealed against the enforcement notice under ground ‘a’ (That planning permission should be granted) and ‘f’ (the steps required to comply with the notice were excessive). I have now been informed that this appeal has been dismissed.

In respect of ground a, the Inspector dealing with the appeal notes that “The fence in question is a close-boarded timber fence which is not needed for an agricultural or any other suitable rural purpose; it is therefore an inappropriate form of development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. In this instance, the fence has been constructed so as to add to the height of an existing stone wall which is built on land elevated well above Smallage Lane. Because of its height, its solid appearance and its prominence from the Lane, the fence unacceptably reduces the openness of the Green Belt, its most important attribute.”

The Inspector does not accept Mr. Crump’s argument that the fence is needed for security reasons and considers that the unacceptable impact of the fence could not be suitably mitigated by landscaping.

With regards to ground (f) the Inspector notes that Mr. Crump is willing to reduce the height of the fence by 1m though does not consider that this would be sufficient to remove the visual harm of the fence; it would still appear obtrusive and the openness of the Green Belt would still be unduly diminished.

The Inspector noted that the fence is 3.35m above the level of the ground on which it is erected, rather than the 4m stated in the enforcement notice. As such, he has corrected the notice to refer to “the erection of a fence of more than 2 metres height above ground level". The fence should be removed within 1 month of the appeal decision date (in other words by 9th October 2008) and I have written to Mr. Crump informing him of this, and requesting that the unauthorised storage building also be removed as soon as possible.

Item 7 Ref: RB2008/1372

Outline application for and details of access for a new community comprising 3890 residential units, including 973 affordable units, two primary schools, offices/financial services (400 sq metres), food store (1500 sq metres), pubs, bars, restaurants, cafes, small shops, health centre, community centre, gym, sailing club, hotel, public open space and associated infrastructure including combined heat and power generation plant and construction of roads, cycleways, footpaths and bridleways at land at former Orgreave Open Cast Site, Highfield Spring, Catcliffe.

Recommendation

1. That the contents of the report be noted.

2. That updates be provided prior to the consideration of the recommendation on the proposals in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Board.

Background

The Waverley site comprises a former open cast coalmine of approximately 300ha. The mining operations ceased in 2003 and restoration of the site is almost complete. This includes the creation of three lakes and a containment cell for the contaminated material created through the previous use of the site for coke production. The site lies adjacent the boundary of the authority area, bordering Sheffield to the west.

Planning permission has previously been granted and the development commenced for the Waverley Advanced Manufacturing Park on the northern most part of the site and for commercial development at Highfield Commercial (adjacent to Highfield Spring) which is 22.5ha in size.

UK Coal have now submitted an outline planning application for Waverley New Community which comprises residential development, associated commercial centre, green spaces and open space on an area of 230 hectares. It is intended to submit an application for office development on the Highfield Commercial site to house central government office campus (Helical Governetz) in the next couple of weeks. An application from SYPTE for a Park and Ride facility at Waverley is also proposed and is expected in October. The new community application does not include proposals to construct the Waverley Link Road.

The application

The application for the Waverley New Community is made in outline with access to be considered and all other matters reserved for future consideration. The application is for:

• 3890 residential units including 973 affordable units (545 social rented and 428 intermediate/shared ownership). • commercial development (small businesses) 400 sq metres • food store 1500 sq metres • pubs, bars and restaurants 2750 sq metres • cafes 750 sq metres • dry cleaners 100 sq metres • chemist 100 sq metres • paper shop 100 sq metres • post office 150 sq metres • health centre 3000 sq metres • community centre 400 sq metres • commercial gym 1800 • sports shop 100 sq metres • sailing club 360 sq metres • hotel 5600 sq metres • public open space 130 hectares

The developer is offering as part of a Section 106 Agreement the following:

• 25% of the residential units to be affordable housing. • A travel plan • Two primary schools • 400 sq metre community facilities • 3000 sq metre health care facility • open space, which could include sports pitches a playground and works to the public realm in the central square or waterfront • site management and maintenance

A copy of the indicative layout is provided below.

Policy Background

The site is a former opencast site with requirements to restore land suitable for future development.

On the UDP the northern area of the site is identified as a Strategic Regeneration Area which anticipates 32 ha of industrial business use within the plan period. The central part of the site is white i.e. unallocated land the presumption being that open casting would be carried out during the plan period. The southern part of the site is Green belt. The application will need to be referred to the Secretary of State to direct whether it can be dealt with by the authority or whether it would be called in for the Secretary of State to determine following a public inquiry.

A master planning exercise was undertaken in 2003 in connection with a public consultation exercise. This proposed:

• a community of at least 7500 inhabitants • ideally a new Supertram route • a density of between 40 and 90 units per hectare • a traditional grid pattern for development • three local centres based around Highfield Central (at the north of the application site), Waverley Station (at the western boundary) and Waverley Square (within the residential area). The issues arising from the master planning exercise and the public consultation included:

• 64% of people thought it would be a good idea to build a new community • the majority thought it was important to provide lakes and open spaces • the need for a Supertram link got a mixed response • a link road through the site was thought to be important by 51% although many questioned its route

Key issues identified by officers at that time were:

• the provision of affordable housing to meet the needs of local people • provision of training to meet the needs of local people • release of land for housing at Waverley to take account of the relative sustainability and phasing of sites within the South Yorkshire market area • provision of community facilities – education and health • identification of the green belt boundary • impact of the proposed link road • transportation matters – impact of the proposed development on the surrounding network • impact on air quality • safety of the containment cell • out-of-centre office development (not included in the current application) • proposed use of the green space and the green belt land • design, layout and land use • sustainability

LDF Core Strategy Preferred options recognises the potential for an exemplar sustainable mixed-use community with significant housing provision.

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) makes one reference to Waverley in Policy SY1. It states:

Plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes for the South Yorkshire sub area should:

• support Advanced Manufacturing and related Research and Development at Waverley

The RSS was adopted in May 2008 but an immediate review of housing land supply was commenced, which will look at further locations for housing in order that the Government’s housing targets can be met.

Waverley is part of the South Yorkshire and Doncaster Growth Point which sets targets for housing delivery approximately 20% above that set in the RSS. Growth point status allows a bid for funds for the additional infrastructure required to serve the additional development.

Progress of the Application

The Waverley New Community application was validated at the end of August. The authority has signed up to a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA). The PPA includes the provision for considering the application at planning board within 9 months of its validation; which would be by the end of May 2009. The project vision contained in the PPA is:

“To create a new mixed use, sustainable community of approximately 3900 homes incorporating schools, health, leisure, social and cultural facilities sufficient to meet future needs. It will integrate with the recently restored landscape setting of this former coal field and connect with surrounding villages and employment areas. The development will also compliment Sheffield/Rotherham City Region.”

The PPA sets out a number of groups which would be involved in commenting on the application and managing its process, including a steering group which the Strategic Director (or his substitute) is to attend and regular working groups of officers and Sheffield colleagues. A project board is proposed comprising ward councillors. The Waverley Liaison Group comprising representatives of the local community which helped to arrange and run the pre-application consultation events held by the developer is also to be involved.

Standard public consultation has already been carried out: press notices have been published and numerous site notices erected. Full details of the application have also been made available on the Council’s website with dedicated Waverley pages.

Requests for comments have been sent to a wide range of statutoryth and non- statutory consultees. The deadline for receipt of comments is 17 October 2008. In addition, a meeting has been held with the Waverley Liaison Group; to receive comments about the application and also to help plan additional events; the public consultation normally carried out for planning applications will be supplemented given the scale of the proposals and this will include arrangements for involving Sheffield officers, members and members of the public. A number of public events are planned to provide updates on progress and to gather comments on the proposals.

The application is to be considered by CABE th(Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) th at a review in Leeds on 8 October 2008 and at the Council’s Design Panel on 14 October 2008.

ATLAS (the government’s advisory service for dealing with large applications) has also offered to provide advice and assistance in dealing with the application.

Issues

The application is at an early stage; however, it is already apparent that there are issues which will need to be addressed. It is possible that others may emerge during the processing of the application. In brief there are issues relating to:

• the policy basis for determining the application and phasing to take account of housing market renewal • phasing to take account of the long build out proposed (20 years) and changing circumstances over time • Highway issues relating to the relationship with the existing road and public transport network and the proposed arrangements within the site • The proposed indicative grid iron layout, including the relationship with the open drainage channels and impact on community safety • Concern of local residents regarding flood risk, traffic generation, air quality and other impacts • Impact on Sheffield Authority • Landscaping, open space and ecology provision and maintenance • Sustainability issues including energy efficiency, use of renewable energy, life time homes and community safety • Quality of the built environment, including housing mix and density • Land condition resulting from the previous use • Impact on air quality • Negotiation of a Section 106 agreement, including agreement on the level of provision of community facilities

Further updates to the Planning Board

Given the planned timetable for the consideration of the application and the regular planned meetings of the steering group, regular updates on the progress of the application could be provided for the Board, if members considered this necessary.

Due to the scale of the proposals, members may consider it helpful for an item to be brought to the Board close to the date of the consideration of the application, for example, mid May to enable clarification on factual elements of the proposals, prior to the meeting when the officer recommendation would be considered.

Feedback from members on their requirements for updates is welcomed.

Members of the Board are reminded of the need to declare any interests which arise under the Model Code (personal/prejudicial) prior to determination of the application.

Members are also reminded of the need not to express an opinion on the application in advance of determination (pre-determination). Members should restrict themselves to questions or clarification.

Finally Members should also be aware of the issue of lobbying i.e. when being lobbied, Members should not express any opinion about the desirability of an application and should restrict themselves to procedural advice. Any opinion that is expressed should be accompanied by the caveat that the Member will only be able to make a final decision once he/she has heard all the relevant evidence and arguments at Board. The LGA (Probity in Planning Update, 2002, para 8.2) also advise that any lobbying by Members within the Council should be restricted to ward members only: Members of the Board should certainly not be advocating a particular position and then expect to vote on the matter.