(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Development Control Committee

Public Document Pack

High Peak Borough Council

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AGENDA

Date: Monday, 3 December 2018

Time: 1.30 pm

Venue: Main Hall - Town Hall, Market Street, Chapel-en-le-Frith

23 November 2018

PART 1 1. Apologies for Absence

2. To receive Disclosures of Interest on any matters before the Committee 1. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests 2. Other Interests

3. Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 3 - 6)

4. Update Sheet

5. Planning Applications (Pages 7 - 8)

6. HPK/2018/0428 Land rear of 20 Sunlaws Street, Glossop, Derbyshire - Detached 4 bedroom stone house with natural slate roof with associated external works and landscaping, using existing vehicular access from Sunlaws Street (Pages 9 - 24)

7. HPK/2018/0174 Thorn Heyes House, London Road, Buxton - alterations to roof (Pages 25 - 34)

8. HPK/2018/0356 137 Thorn Heyes Cottages, London Road, Buxton - Alterations to existing residential house and apartments to create 3 apartments and 1 maisonette (Pages 35 - 48)

9. HPK/2018/0496 Silverlands, Buxton Football Club - Variation of condition 6 relating to HPK/2017/0620 (Pages 49 - 56)

10. HPK/2018/0337 Fern Farm, Fern Road, Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 9NP - Proposed new covered riding arena (Pages 57 - 68)

11. HPK/2018/0120 Former Bottling Plant, Station Road, Buxton - Erection of extra care accommodation for older people landscaping and car parking (Pages 69 - 132)

12. HPK/2018/0125 Former Bottling Plant. Station Road, Buxton - new multi-agency healthcare campus (Pages 133 - 174) 13. Performance on Planning Appeals (Pages 175 - 182)

SIMON BAKER CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Membership of Development Control Committee Councillor D Lomax (Chair) Councillor E Thrane (Vice-Chair) Councillor A Barrow Councillor L Dowson Councillor C Howe Councillor J Kappes Councillor R McKeown Councillor G Oakley Councillor J Perkins Councillor P N Roberts Councillor J Todd Councillor S Young Agenda Item 3 High Peak Borough Council

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Meeting: Monday, 5 November 2018 at 1.30 pm in Main Hall - Town Hall, Market Street, Chapel-en-le-Frith

Present: Councillor D Lomax (Chair)

Councillors A Barrow, L Dowson, C Howe, J Kappes, R McKeown, G Oakley, J Perkins, P N Roberts, E Thrane, J Todd and S Young

Councillor Sizeland was in attendance as an observer for part of the meeting.

19/69 TO RECEIVE DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ON ANY MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE (Agenda Item 2)

Councillor Dowson declared an ‘other’ interest in agenda item 8, “HPK/2018/0431 Thornbrook Surgery, Thornbrook Road, Chapel en le Frith, Extension to Surgery” (reason: public governor at Stepping Hill Foundation Hospital and although has no direct involvement with Thornbrook Surgery does work with some of the surgery’s GPs on various health related groups and committees)

Councillor Perkins declared an ‘other’ interest in agenda item 8, “HPK/2018/0431 Thornbrook Surgery, Thornbrook Road, Chapel en le Frith, Extension to Surgery” (reason: my surgery and DCC member on NHS Trust)

19/70 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 24 SEPTEMBER AND THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON 8 OCTOBER 2018 (Agenda Item 3)

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Special Meeting held on 24 September and the meeting held on 8 October 2018 be approved as a correct record.

19/71 UPDATE SHEET (Agenda Item 4)

RESOLVED:

That the update sheet be noted.

19/72 PLANNING APPLICATIONS (Agenda Item 5)

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted. Page 3 1 Development Control Committee Monday, 5 November 2018  19/73 HPK/2017/0590 FOXLOW FARM, HARPUR HILL ROAD, BUXTON (Agenda Item 6)

Submission of reserved matters relating to the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the whole of the residential phase of the development (395 dwellings) pursuant to outline planning permission HPK/2013/0603

Applicant: Keepmoat Homes and Hallam Land Management Ltd.

The Committee were addressed by Mr Hough in objection to the application and Mr Love (agent).

The Committee had undertaken a site visit.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred, pending receipt of outstanding consultation responses and further consideration to be given to the following areas of concern:  Management of the emergency access, in particular so as to prevent it becoming a rat run  Design concerns regarding the use of concrete grey roofing tiles  Design concerns regarding the proposed split level 2 and 3 storey height dwellings and retaining walls  Significant shortfalls in local plan privacy distances as set out in the update sheet and consequently consideration be given to the removal of plot 1 in its entirety  the proposed use of bungalows  detailed proposals concerning the arrangements for the allotments  other issues of concern as set out in the committee report

19/74 HPK/2018/0526 LAND TO THE REAR OF HALLSTEADS, DOVE HOLES, BUXTON (Agenda Item 7)

Application to vary Condition 3 of outline planning permission HPK/2013/0625 to facilitate a phased discharge of the condition and phased development

Applicant: Hopwood Homes Limited

The Committee had undertaken a site visit.

RESOLVED:

1. That authority be delegated to the Operations Manager – Development Services, in consultation with the Chair to approve the application, subject toPage the expiry 4 of the statutory consultation period 2 Development Control Committee Monday, 5 November 2018  and the receipt of no new substantive matters and the conditions as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

19/75 HPK/2018/0431 THORNBROOK SURGERY, THORNBROOK ROAD, CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH (Agenda Item 8)

Extension to surgery

Applicant: Mr A Rodgerson

The Committee had undertaken a site visit.

RESOLVED:

1. That planning permission be approved as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

19/76 HPK/2018/0443 TINTWISTLE FOOTBALL CLUB, TINTWISTLE (Agenda Item 9)

Variation of condition 12 relating to HPK/2015/0423

Applicant: Tintwistle Athletic Football Club

The Committee were addressed by Mr Hewson on behalf of Tintwistle Athletic Football Club.

RESOLVED:

1. That the application be approved as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations / or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation Page 5 3 Development Control Committee Monday, 5 November 2018  with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

19/77 PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS (Agenda Item 10)

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The meeting concluded at 2.28 pm

CHAIRMAN

Page 6 4 Agenda Item 5

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to Development Control Committee

3 December 2018

TITLE: PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION BY COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE COUNCILLOR: Councillor Tony Ashton

CONTACT OFFICER: Ben Haywood – Operations Manager – Development Services

WARDS INVOLVED: All

Appendices Attached - None

1. Reason for the Report: To outline the Committee’s determination of planning applications

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the report be noted.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 Unless the Committee decide to waive their delegated power in respect of any application, the Committee’s determination of any application will operate as a final decision, unless:-

a. it is a major departure from Council Policy;

b. There are resource implications for the Borough Council which need to be considered by the Executive

3.2 The environmental, legal, financial and equal opportunities raised by each application are dealt with within each report. There are no known Community Safety issues unless specified in the report.

Web Links and Location Contact details Background Papers Background papers for all planning Town Hall, Buxton applications

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 3rd December 2018

Application HPK/2018/0428 No: Location Land Rear of 20 Sunlaws Street, Glossop, Derbyshire, Proposal Detached 4 bedroom stone house with natural slate roof with associated external works and landscaping. Using existing vehicular access from Sunlaws Street Applicant Mrs E Garratt Agent Mr Eric Smith Parish/ward Howard Town Ward Date registered 23/08/2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw - Email [email protected]; Tel: 01538 395400 Ext: 4921

REFERRAL

The application has been referred to the Committee by Councillor Godfrey Claff for reasons of transparency as the Applicant is the wife of a former employee of High Peak Borough Council Planning Department.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve, subject to conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site is a rectangular piece of land accessed from Sunlaws Street and is at the rear of the Applicant’s house at No. 20 Sunlaws Street and also extends behind the neighbour’s house at No. 22. The site is surrounded by neighbouring properties’ gardens. No. 22A’s garden is to the south west side of the site, No. 16’s garden is to the north east side, Nos. 20 and 22’s rear yards are to the east and the site is bounded by a garden serving No 60 Queen Street to the west. The site generally slopes down from Sunlaws Street.

2.2 The site is within the built up area boundary of Glossop.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application is for the erection of a detached dwelling and associated works and landscaping. Revised plans have been received during the course of the application. These change the scale and design of the new dwelling.

Page 9 3.2 The proposed dwelling would be a detached two storey building with four bedrooms. The dwelling would be sited centrally on the rear part of the site. The existing single width vehicular access driveway from Sunlaws Street would be utilised and the plans indicate 3 parking spaces to the front of the new dwelling and a turning area. The plans also indicate new screen hedge at the back of the parking area on the boundary with both No. 16 and No. 22A Sunlaws Street.

3.3 The application and details attached to it - including the plans, supporting documents, representations and responses from consultees - can be found on the Council’s website at:-

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2266 73

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has a history of refused applications and subsequent appeals for residential development. The most recent applications are as follows:

HPK/2009/0041 – Proposed detached dwelling and garage – Refused 03/04/2009.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=1086 67

HPK/2007/0748 - Resubmission of HPK/2007/0032: Land to the rear of 22 Sunlaws Street : detached dwelling and garage – Refused 12/11/2007.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=9908 8

HPK/2007/0032 – Detached dwelling and garage – Refused 13/03/2007.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=9451 5

HPK/2004/0401 – Resubmission of HPK/2003/0167 – one dwelling – Refused 17/06/2004.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=4325 1

HPK/2003/0167 – One detached dwelling – Refused 07/05/2003.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=4013 3

HPK/2001/0152 – Resubmission of application no. 039711 for 8 no. lock up garages – Refused 16/07/2001.

Page 10 http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=3609 3

HPK/0003/9711 – 8 lock up garages for rent to local residents – Refused 12/03/2001.

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=3530 9

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

S1 Sustainable Development Principles S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S2 Settlement Hierarchy S3 Strategic Housing Development S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy EQ1 Climate Change EQ5 Biodiversity EQ6 Design and Place Making EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ11 Flood Risk Management H1 Location of Housing Development H2 Housing Allocations H3 New Housing Development H4 Affordable Housing CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities CF6 Accessibility and Transport CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy

Supplementary Planning Documents

 High Peak Design Guide 2018  Residential Design  Landscape Character  Housing Needs Survey  Planning Obligations

National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018)

National Planning Practice Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 28.09.2018 Press notice Expiry date for comments: N/A

Page 11 Neighbours Expiry date for comments on the amended scheme: 02.12.2018

Neighbours

6.1 7 no. neighbours have submitted objections to the proposal. Details can be read on file. A summary of the issues raised is provided below:-  Loss of wildlife and trees.  Loss of privacy to nearby properties on Sunlaws Street and Queen Street.  The dwelling will be imposing for neighbours and cause overshadowing.  Increased noise disturbance to neighbours.  The Applicant is considerate in their use of the driveway but future occupiers of the proposed dwelling may not be.  The noise survey doesn’t predict future uses of the drive by different types of vehicles.  Nuisance from car lights and light pollution.  Security risk due to potential of uninvited visitors going down the driveway. There will be no knowing who is legitimately round the back of the gardens and houses.  The Applicant’s husband objected to previous applications and is therefore being disingenuous and tactical. He has contradicted his previous objection now there is some benefit to himself.  The Applicant was formerly a planning officer at HPBC  The new blockwork garage is a replacement of a previous car port.  The acoustic fence has been erected against the wishes of the occupiers of No. 22 and has caused distress.  The new fence is not an “acoustic” fence.  The acoustic fence deflects sound back towards No. 22A and the two neigbbours at Nos 20 and 22A can no longer see each other for a chat..  The dwelling is not in keeping and will dominate existing terraces.  Over development of the site and the proposal will appear cramped.  Previous applications for a dwelling have been refused so there is no justification for now approving the proposal. There have been no material changed to justify it.  This is not an affordable dwelling.  The site is not brownfield.  The building design does not take account of sustainable building practice.  There are two nearby schools and the street is very congested.  Disruption and noise due to construction vehicles/deliveries.  Danger to pedestrians from cars pulling out of the access. The access drive is narrow – too narrow for emergency vehicles.  Neighbours at Nos. 22 and 22A may both decide to increase fence height making exit from the drive potentially dangerous.  No explanation of how the site will be accessible to all.  The proposed dwelling may be sold in the future and future owners may wish to develop the land further.  Will planting be inspected after construction?

Page 12 6.2 2 no. letters of support have also been received (one of which is from a relative of the Applicant) in which the following comments are made:-  The Applicant has kept the occupier of No. 16 informed throughout and the application seeks to minimize the impact on No. 16’s garden.  The application incorrectly states that the boundary to the north side of the site is with the garden of No. 18 Sunlaws Street. In fact the north boundary of the site is within No. 16’s garden.  There is a severe shortage of homes in the UK.  If this development is not accepted then it is only a matter of time before another future owner would want to develop it.  The Applicant has been open and transparent with their neighbours with this development.  Personal comments about the Applicant are unacceptable and unnecessary.  The development is sympathetically designed and the land was just a parking area and wasteland, hardly a haven for wildlife.  The development is not profit driven but seeks to accommodate family and friends.  Denying permission on the basis of overlooking would be unreasonable.

Consultees

Consultee Comment Officer response DCC Highways The Highway Authority did not raise objections to Paras the previous applications HPK/2007/0032 and 7.32-7.35 HPK/2009/0041. The highway comments remain as previously stated. If minded to approved please include all previously recommended highway conditions (see consultation letter dated 6 February 2007). Arboricultural Main concern is the Lime tree T23 which is on Paras Officer neighbour’s land. It is not protected but the 7.36-7.39 applicant needs to be concerned about the implications of the construction of this tree. The tree report deals with this at section 4.3, it will require some exploratory excavation to identify roots and there is the potential that the building may need to be built on pile and beam foundations to accommodate it. There is also potential impact on another neighbour tree. There will be tree removal required but this is either of low quality or small trees. Therefore based on the above there will not be an overriding arboricultural objection as long as any approval is suitably conditioned to deal with the impact on neighbouring trees and that there is some landscape mitigation.

Recommend (standard) conditions: LA03 basic landscaping

Page 13 LA10 tree retention LA13 method statement LA14 implementation of tree protection

Environmental Cannot see the proposed development having a Health Officer significant (in a planning context) long term impact on amenity with regard to noise. The proposed residential use isn’t inherently noisy.

You may wish to consider conditions to protect amenity during the construction phase – control of dust, no burning/fires on site, restriction on construction hours and piling, and no amplified music/radios during construction phase.

There is little to suggest a significant risk due to land contamination, however, as the end use is sensitive a condition is recommended – if during development any contamination is identified then the applicant shall submit a written scheme to identify and control that contamination. Derbyshire Based on the information provided and consulting Paras Wildlife Trust our biological records database, the application 7.36-7.39 area appears to be of limited ecological value. Ecological survey work is not considered necessary and a net biodiversity gain can be achieved by incorporating a bat box and bird box within the structure of the new building as detailed in the Planning Statement. The commitment to planting to benefit pollinators and birds is also welcomed. Condition is recommended requiring an integral bat box and bird box to be incorporated within the new dwelling. The type and location of the boxes shall be approved by the LPA. HPBC Waste No issue with the planning application. However and Recycling the occupiers of the new dwelling will need to bring their waste to the edge of their curtilage on Sunlaws Street. United Utilities Recommend condition requiring foul and surface Paras water to be drained on separate systems. 7.40-7.42

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context

7.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Page 14 7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Local Plan Policies Adopted April 2016.

7.3 Paragraph 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) explains that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision makers this means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan they should be approved without delay; or where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless:-

i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. (Para 11 NPPF July 2018).

7.4 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development as economic, social and environmental.

7.5 Local Plan policy S1a establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF.

7.6 Section 5 of the NPPF seeks to deliver a sufficient supply of homes.

7.7 The Council is considered to have a five year housing land supply and therefore housing supply policies are up-to-date.

7.8 The policies contained in the Framework are supplemented by the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), which is also a material consideration in the determination of applications.

7.9 A list of key policies, guidance and other material considerations is provided above (section 5).

Principle of development

7.10 Policies H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6 of the Local Plan provide for housing development within the Borough in accordance with specific site allocations, other sites and instances as outlined in policy H1.

7.11 Policy H2 identifies the specific sites that are allocated for housing development across the Borough. The application site is not an allocated site.

Page 15 7.12 Policy H1 states that provision will be made for housing by supporting development of allocated sites, promoting the effective reuse of land, supporting housing development on unallocated sites within defined built up area boundaries of the towns and larger villages, encouraging the inclusion of housing in mixed use schemes, supporting development identified through a Community Right to Build Order and supporting self-build housing schemes.

7.13 The site is within the built up area boundary of Glossop and is sustainably located having good links to local services and shops by walking/cycling and nearby public transport. The site is in a mainly residential area and is adjacent to residential properties.

7.14 Overall the principle of a new dwelling on this site accords with LP Policy H1.

Design/impact on the character and appearance of the area

7.15 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and creating better places in which to live and work (Paragraph 124). Section 15 of the NPPF seeks to protect and enhance the natural and local environment. Local Plan Policies S1 and EQ6 seek to secure high quality design in all developments; developments are required to respond positively to the environment and contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area.

7.16 Given its proposed siting, the proposal could be considered a “backland” form of development as it lies behind the terrace of properties. However, the housing development at Wren Nest Close within close proximity to the south west is a similar form of development situated behind terraced properties and it should be noted that the previously refused applications in 2007 and 2009 did not raise this as an issue and therefore it would be unreasonable to resist the proposal on this basis.

7.17 As noted above, revised plans have been submitted during the course of the application which reduce the footprint and overall scale of the proposed dwelling. The long side elevations originally proposed have been reduced to create a more square footprint and a dwelling which will sit more comfortably within the plot with sufficient gaps from the side and rear boundaries. There are to be garden areas to both sides of the dwelling as well as the front and rear.

7.18 The dwelling is a two storey detached building with 4 bedrooms and therefore larger in scale than the existing terraced properties on Sunlaws Street. However, it is noted that there is a pair of semi-detached villas and a substantial detached dwelling on the other side of Sunlaws Street. The proposal will not therefore appear out of context in the street scene. The proposal will be partially visible from Sunlaws Street in the gap between Nos 22 and 22A as indicated on the street scene drawing. However, the dwelling will be set back a considerable distance from the road frontage and sits lower than the existing terraces due to the topography of the site. The hipped roof to the south west side of the building will reflect the hipped roofs of the terraced properties. The existing trees on the site boundaries together with new hedges to be planted will soften the impact of the development. The proposed materials are stone elevations and a slate roof which are sympathetic to the

Page 16 character of the area. All windows and doors would have stone heads and cills to reflect the character of the nearby properties and windows have a vertical emphasis. The revised design and resulting impact on the street scene are considered acceptable.

7.19 The parking area to the front of the property will be shielded from Sunlaws Street by the existing terrace and hedge planting is proposed to the boundaries of the turning and parking area which will further soften this aspect of the development.

7.20 Bearing all the above points in mind it is considered that the siting, layout, size, scale, design and materials of the proposed development is acceptable. The proposal would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposed development accords with Local Plan policies S1 and EQ6 and Section 12 of the NPPF.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenity

7.21 LP Policy EQ6 seeks to sure that new development achieves a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development, taking into account factors such as privacy, visual intrusion, shadowing and overlooking.

7.22 The impact on the neighbouring properties was a key consideration in the determination of the previous applications and appeals relating to this site. There have been a number of attempts to develop the land: an appeal was dismissed in 1990 for the erection of a bungalow, and an outline application for residential development was also dismissed in 2005. The most recent application to have been refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal is HPK/2009/0041. Other applications for the development of the land, going back to 1984, have all been the subject of refusals by the Council. Each of these decisions included the harmful impact on the amenity of adjoining residents as a reason for refusing planning permission.

7.23 The Inspector for the 2009 appeal found that the main issue was ‘the effect which the proposal would have on the living conditions of adjoining residents, especially in relation to any noise and disturbance or loss of privacy which might be involved’. The Inspector considered the impact on the living conditions of No. 22 unacceptable as a result of the use of the driveway by people and movement of vehicles.

7.24 The driveway runs between the driveways of Nos. 22 and 22A and the use of this driveway to access a dwelling at the rear has been a key area of concern for the previous applications. In particular, No. 22 has ground floor windows to habitable rooms facing the driveway. It is noted that in the case of No. 22A, this neighbouring property does not contain any window openings to the side elevation facing the driveway.

7.25 Since the previous refusal in 2009 the Applicant has erected a close boarded fence to a height of 1.8m along the boundary of the driveway with No. 22 to mitigate noise and disturbance to the occupiers of No. 22 from people and vehicles using the driveway. This is in addition to the existing palisade fence and hedge noted by the

Page 17 Inspector in 2009. The new fence provides No. 22 with privacy to their side facing windows and garden. The submitted Noise Assessment Report assesses the potential impact from the use of the existing driveway of the proposed dwelling on the side windows of No. 22 Sunlaws Street. The report was carried out through daytime and evening conditions and assumed an average 8 car movements per day. It measured the noise of vehicles using the driveway over the existing loose gravel surface. The noise report, which was undertaken before the 1.8m high close boarded fence was erected, concludes that the effect on the local noise levels would be negligible or less. In addition to the new fence, the Applicant also proposes to replace the existing gravel driveway with a bonded surface to reduce movement noise further.

7.26 It is understood that the Applicant has been using the driveway since 2010 to access their rear garden and parking area and no complaints have been received from the neighbours over the last 8 years. This would suggest that the movements of vehicles / people along the driveway is not causing a significant nuisance to the neighbours.

7.27 The Applicant also states that their existing right of way along the side of No. 22 needs to be taken into account. They state that they have a right of way immediately to the side of No. 22 which runs alongside that house and past its side windows which they can use at any time, something which previous inspectors were not aware of.

7.28 In relation to the impact on No. 22A, it is understood that this neighbour has built a blockwork garage at the end of their drive which provides some screening from the proposed driveway. As noted, this neighbouring property does not contain any windows to the side elevation facing towards the driveway and therefore should not be significantly affected by the proposal.

7.29 Taking the above considerations into account, it is considered that there have been material changes to the site circumstances which lead me to conclude that the use of the driveway would not lead to significant noise and disturbance to the neighbouring occupiers. The Environmental Health Officer does not anticipate any noise disturbance for the neighbours as a result of this application though conditions are recommended to control and mitigate the impact of the construction phase.

7.30 The siting of the proposed dwelling is intended to respect the privacy of the nearby properties. The site is well screened with a variety of buildings and garages between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring properties on Sunlaws Street. Separation distances of at least 21 metres are maintained from all neighbouring properties’ windows. The orientation of the dwelling is front-back with only secondary or non-habitable windows looking to the sides. The main habitable room windows in the front elevation look down the gap between houses on Sunlaws Street. It is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling will be within relative close proximity of the rear gardens of Nos. 16 and 22A Sunlaws Street, however, following receipt of amended plans the scale and footprint of the proposed dwelling is much reduced. The revised proposal will be much less overbearing in relation to the neighbouring gardens as the side elevations are shorter. There is some tree/shrub planting along these boundaries which will minimise any overlooking/overbearing impact. The main

Page 18 sitting out areas for these neighbours are located immediately to the rear of the properties. To the rear site boundary, a mature hedge will screen the proposal from the neighbouring property on Queen Street.

7.31 Bearing these points in mind, the proposed development accords with the residential amenity tenets of Local Plan policies S1 and EQ6 and bullet point ‘f’ of para 127 of the NPPF.

Highway safety

7.32 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that local planning authorities should seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel.

7.33 Local Plan Policy CF6 seeks to ensure that new development can be accessed safely, provides access to a range of transport modes and minimise the need to travel by unsustainable modes.

7.34 The proposed access to the dwelling will be from the existing driveway onto Sunlaws Street. The plans indicate parking for 3 vehicles and a turning area is provided. The Highway Authority does not object to the proposal subject to the conditions recommended for the previous applications in 2007 and 2009. These conditions require 2m x 70m visibility splays from the existing access to be maintained; provision of parking and manoeuvring space within the site in accordance with the submitted plans; and space to be provided within the site for storage of plant and materials, loading and unloading of good vehicles. An informative was also recommended advising that the proposed access driveway should be surfaced with a solid, bound material for the initial 5m measured back from the highway. These conditions have been added to the recommendation.

7.35 Bearing the above points in mind it is considered that the application accords with Local Plan Policy CF6 and section 9 of the NPPF.

Arboricultural, landscaping and ecological issues

7.36 Local Plan policy EQ9 seeks to protect existing trees, woodland and hedgerows. Local Plan policy EQ2 seeks to protect, enhance and restore the landscape character of the Plan Area for its own intrinsic beauty requiring, inter alia, development to protect and/or enhance the character, appearance and local distinctiveness of the landscape and to resist development which would be detrimental to the local or wider landscape. Local Plan policy EQ5 seeks, inter alia, to preserve and/or enhance biodiversity. Section 15 of the NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment.

7.37 There are trees within the site and on neighbouring land. The submitted Arboricultural Report identifies that the lime tree within the garden of No. 16 in particular will require pruning works as well as exploratory excavation to identify any significant roots and if so special foundation design could be used to avoid negative impacts on the condition of the tree. Two trees will require removal as they are

Page 19 situated on the footprint of the new dwelling however these are both of low value, retention category ‘C’. The tree report also identifies that the development provides an opportunity to undertake new tree planting as part of the soft landscaping scheme to mitigate for the required tree removals. The Arboricultural Officer raises no objection on arboricultural grounds, subject to conditions relating to tree protection measures and landscaping.

7.38 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) does not object to the proposal stating that the site is of little ecological value. A net biodiversity gain can be achieved by incorporating bat and bird boxes within the structure of the new dwelling and a condition has been included within the recommendation to this effect.

7.39 Bearing in mind all the above points it is considered that, subject to conditions, there are no significant arboricultural, landscape or ecological issues arising from the proposal. As such, the proposal accords with Local Plan policies EQ2, EQ3, EQ5 & EQ9 and section 15 of the NPPF.

Flooding & drainage

7.40 Policy EQ11 of the Local Plan seeks to support development which avoids areas of current or future flood risk. Para. 155 of the NPPF states that development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. The site is not located within an area identified as high risk.

7.41 United Utilities have raised no objection to the current application, subject to conditions relating to details of surface water and foul drainage. The application states that the development will incorporate sustainable drainage systems with permeable paving used on the drive, parking area and paths.

7.42 Bearing the above comments in mind, it is considered that, subject to the condition recommended by United Utilities, the proposal does not raise any significant issues relating to surface water run-off, flood risk and drainage. As such it is considered that the proposal accords with Local Plan policy EQ11 and section 14 of the NPPF.

8. Conclusion & Planning Balance

8.1 It is considered that the principle of development is acceptable. The siting, layout, scale, design and materials proposed would not harm the visual amenities of the locality. There are no adverse impacts in respect of highway safety, trees and biodiversity and there no flooding or drainage issues arising from the proposal.

8.2 In respect of the impact on the amenities of number 22 Sunlaws Street, the development proposals are finely balanced. On the one hand, as noted by the Planning Inspector in his appeal decision, even with the erection of a fence, there would still be a perception of intrusion as a result of the movements alongside the house (22 Sunlaws Street) that would be over and above that which would be considered reasonable. Conversely, this application is supported by a noise assessment and the applicant has offered to surface the access with a solid bound

Page 20 surface (rather than gravel as presently found), thereby reducing the potential impact of noise.

8.3 There would be economic benefits stemming from the construction phase, future residents contributing to the local economy and additional Council Tax and potential New Homes Bonus payments. There would be some limited social benefits with the contribution of 1 No. dwelling to the housing needs of the Borough, notwithstanding that the Council can currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. As such, on balance, it is considered that the proposed development is a sustainable form of development that accords with Local Plan policies S1 and S1a and the concept of sustainability at the heart of the NPPF. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

10. RECOMMENDATION

A. That planning permission is APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined below.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager - Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Conditions

Condition Brief description Comment number TL01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission AP01 Development in accordance with approved/amended plans LA10 Tree retention LA13 Arboricultural Method Statement LA14 Tree Protection NON Landscaping scheme to be submitted STANDARD and agreed. LA02 Landscaping to be carried out and maintained. NON Biodiversity enhancements – integral STANDARD bat box and bird box shall be incorporated within the new dwelling in accordance with details to be agreed. NON Construction working times: STANDARD i. 07:30 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday);

Page 21 ii. 08:30 - 14:00 hours (Saturday) iii. No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. NON Any piling restricted to the hours of STANDARD 09:00 to 16:00 Monday to Friday only NON There shall be no visible dust STANDARD emissions beyond the site boundary. CL05 If during development any contamination or evidence of likely contamination is identified that has not previously been identified or considered, then the applicant shall submit a written scheme to identify and control that contamination. This shall include a phased risk assessment. NON Foul and surface water shall be STANDARD drained on separate systems. NON Details of facing materials to be STANDARD submitted. NON Details of rainwater goods to be STANDARD submitted. NON Joinery details to be submitted. STANDARD NON Details for the storage of plant and STANDARD materials, site accommodation, loading, unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles, parking and manoeuvring of employees and visitors vehicles during construction works.

NON 2m x 70m visibility splays shall be STANDARD maintained from the existing vehicular access clear of all obstructions greater than 1m in height (0.6m in the case of vegetation).

NON No dwelling shall be occupied until STANDARD space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the application drawings for parking and manoeuvring of residents and visitors vehicles. NON Solid bound surface to the access road STANDARD

Informative

Page 22 where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 3rd December 2018

Application HPK/2018/0174 No: Location Thorn Heyes House, London Road, Buxton Proposal Alterations to roof Applicant Brentoak Properties Agent Dayle Bayliss Associates Parish/ward Cote Heath Ward Date registered 19 April 2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw, [email protected] 01538 395400 ext. 4921

REFERRAL

The application has been referred to the Committee due to on-going enforcement issues relating to the site.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site relates to part of a substantial building on the outskirts of Buxton on the eastern side of London Road, one of the main arterial routes (A515) into the town centre. The building is set within a relatively large plot and unlike most of the neighbouring development is set back from the public highway. The locality in general has undergone regeneration with the completion of the neighbouring Haddon Hall Care Home to the immediate north and beyond that the newly approved hotel development, both of which contribute positively to the street scene and distinctive character of the area. The site is within the built up area boundary of Buxton.

2.2 The main building known as Thorn Heyes is constructed from coursed gritstone and random limestone rubble with natural blue/grey slate to the roof. It has been converted into 3 apartments, (one per floor), with 3 new build cottages to the rear. All of the cottages on site and the surrounding development to the south and east, such as the properties on Highland Close are in residential use.

2.3 To the front of the building there is a large car parking area with dual access to London Road which was formerly landscaped with large mature trees, which have, over time, been removed.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

Page 25 1 3.1 The application seeks planning permission for alterations to the roofs of the side and rear extensions to the building that were permitted in 2015 (ref. HPK/2015/0330). These extensions were subsequently constructed but, as built, do not accord with the approved plans and the site has been subject to enforcement action and a Breach of Conditions Notice to require compliance with the approved scheme. The application proposes alterations to the roofs of the extensions and changes to windows and door openings in order to regularise the unauthorised development. It is noted that amended plans have been received which details stone heads and cills to the windows and doors.

3.2 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans and the responses of the consultees can be found on the Council’s website at: http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=223250

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The following is a summary of the most recent planning applications relating to the site:

HPK/2018/0374 – Application for lawful development certificate for an existing use as dwellings – Pending. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=225909

HPK/2018/0356 – Alterations to existing residential house and apartments to create 3 apartment and 1 maisonette – Pending. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=225649

HPK/2018/0175 – Alterations to existing residential houses and apartments to create 9 houses and apartments, include alterations to elevations – Pending. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=223251

HPK/2016/0453 – Proposed three bedroomed dwelling and demolition of single storey cottage – Refused 04/04/2017. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=210070

HPK/2016/0118 – Proposed extension to letting apartments at Thorn Heyes House to provide small function room and managers apartment – Refused 25/04/2016.

Page 26 2 http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=205892

HPK/2015/0330 – Proposed extension/flat extensions – Approved 27/08/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=192884

HPK/2014/0054 – Ground floor extension to Yew Tree Cottage – Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal 20/03/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=159824

HPK/2014/0053 – Ground floor extension to Yew Tree Cottage – Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal 20/03/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=159804

HPK/2014/0052 – Extension to Flat 2 Thorn Heyes – Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal 20/03/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=159784

HPK/2014/0038 – Extension to Flat 3 Thorn Heyes – Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal 20/03/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=159324

HPK/2011/0364 - First floor extension to form two additional rooms and bathroom – Approved 05/09/2011. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=130364

HPK/2005/0462 – Conversion of guest house and ancillary buildings to 6 dwellings – Approved 01/08/2005. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=46003

HPK/2004/0822 – Change of use of guest house to two apartments, conversion of four holiday apartments to two dwellings – Approved 04/01/2005.

Page 27 3 http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=44241

HPK/0003/9187 – Removal of condition 3 of 038344 to allow the approved dwelling to be disposed of separately to the hotel – Refused 10/08/2000. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=34261

HPK/0003/8344 – Erection of one dwelling for owners accommodation – Approved 28/09/1999. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=32575

HPK/0003/6194 - Conservatory and garage - Approved 29/04/1997. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=28275

HPK/0001/2033 - Conversion of existing stabling, used as a store and garage to holiday apartments – Approved.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan 2016

S1 – Sustainable Development Principles S1a – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S2 – Settlement Hierarchy S7 – Buxton Sub area strategy EQ1 – Climate Change EQ5 – Biodiversity EQ6 – Design and Place Making EQ10 – Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ11 – Flood Risk Management CF6 – Accessibility and Transport

Supplementary Planning Documents

High Peak Design Guide 2018 Residential Design SPD Appendix 2 – Guidelines for the Design and Layout of Residential Development

National Planning Policy Framework

Para 11 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Section 2 Achieving sustainable development Section 6 Building a Strong, Competitive Economy Section 9 Promoting Sustainable Transport

Page 28 4 Section 12 Achieving well designed places Section 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding & coastal change

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 23/05/2018 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2018 Press notice Expiry date for comments: N/A

Neighbours

No comments received.

Consultations

Consultee Comment Officer response Highway No objection. Authority

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy Context

7.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development plan comprises the adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016.

7.3 The new NPPF was published in July 2018. Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision makers this means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan they should be approved without delay; or where the development plan is out of date, grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development as

Page 29 5 economic, social and environmental.

7.4 The committee will note that this application is one of three applications under consideration, with application HPK/2018/0356 also on the agenda. The third application, HPK/2018/0374 is an application for an existing lawful development certificate relating to the original Thorn Heyes building, which is currently under consideration by officers.

Principle of development

7.5 The site is within the built up area boundary of Buxton whereby under the terms of Local Plan Policies S2 and S7 new development proposals should be directed. The proposal relates to alterations to the roof of the building. The principle of the development is in general accord with the Local Plan and NPPF, subject to consideration of other material planning issues as discussed below.

Design / Visual Amenity

7.6 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 127 of the newly adopted NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout. Policy EQ6 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that that development is well designed and of a high quality that responds positively to its environment whilst contributing towards local distinctiveness and a sense of place.

7.7 Planning permission was granted in August 2015 under application HPK/2015/0330 for extensions to the building the subject of the current application. The three storey extension approved to the north side of the building was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The two storey rear extension was also not implemented in accordance with the approved scheme in that the roof of the rear extension was built much higher than shown on the approved plans. In addition, the as-built scheme does not correspond to the approved scheme in terms of window and door opening positions and details. The Breach of Conditions Notice required a number of alterations to be made to the extensions to ensure compliance with the 2015 planning approval. In summary, the steps required to be undertaken are as follows:

1. Remove roof to the side extension and replace with roof design approved in 2015. 2. Lower eaves height to side extension as previously approved. 3. Remove roof to rear extension and replace with roof design previously approved. 4. Lower ridge and eaves height to the rear extension as per the approved application. 5. Replace ground and first floor windows on rear extension, south east elevation with approved door and window details.

Page 30 6 6. Remove all windows on rear extension to north west elevation and replace with door as approved and reinstate openings with stone to match existing.

7.8 The proposed alterations to the roof of the three storey extension involve removing the unauthorised mansard type roof, which is not in- keeping with the building or the surrounding area, and replacing it with a pitched roof which in design terms reflects the character of the existing building and the scheme approved in 2015.

7.9 The eaves line of this extension would not be lowered in line with the 2015 approval and the requirements of the Breach of Conditions Notice, but is proposed to remain as-built. Whilst the eaves are marginally higher than the eaves of the main building, given the height of this roof and the extension being set back well back from the main building, the marginally higher eaves level of the extension is not readily apparent from street level and not significantly harmful to the visual amenity. On balance, the retention of the eaves level is considered acceptable.

7.10 The rear extension is proposed to be lowered so that the eaves and ridge would be broadly in line with the 2015 approved scheme with the new ridge line being set slightly below that of the adjoining cottage. This alteration would mitigate the impact that this extension has on views from London Road as its prominence will be significantly reduced.

7.11 Some changes are also proposed to the window and doors openings with additional windows and altered window designs proposed to the front elevation of the three storey extension and side elevations of the rear extension. The positions of door openings to the north west elevation have also changed. It is considered that the changes to window and door openings are acceptable. Amended plans have been received which show new stone heads and cills to the windows, including those to the front elevation of the side extension. The windows will therefore reflect the character of the existing building and surrounding area.

7.12 Given the amended plans indicating provision of heads and cills to the window openings, it is concluded that the proposed development accords with the design principles set out in the NPPF and Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan.

Amenity

7.13 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and development should not undermine quality of life. Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan requires new development to achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent occupiers to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring occupiers will not be compromised, thus reflecting the requirements of paragraph 127 of the Framework.

Page 31 7 7.14 The main impact of the proposed alterations would be on No. 1 Thorn Heyes Cottages which is attached to the rear extension and Haddon Hall Care Home to the north of the site. The impact on neighbour amenity as a result of the extensions was considered as part of the previous application HPK/2015/0330 and found acceptable. The proposed lowering of the roof of the rear extension will reduce the impact that this extension has on 1 Thorn Heyes Cottages. The proposed alterations and additional window and door openings will not result in any significant overlooking of the neighbouring properties. The close boarded fence to the side boundary with Haddon Hall Care Home will screen the additional/amended windows and doors at ground floor to the north west side elevation of the extensions.

7.15 It is therefore considered that the proposal will not significantly affect the amenities of neighbouring occupants and thereby accords with paragraph 127 of the NPPF and Policy EQ6 in this regard.

8. CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE

8.1 The starting point for the determination of any planning application is section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 38(6) states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise. In this instance the High Peak Local Plan 2016 is the adopted Development Plan for the area.

8.2 The NPPF requires consideration of the social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainable development. There are no objections to the proposed scheme on design grounds. The proposals would have no adverse impact on neighbour amenity. Overall the development would not result in environmental harm.

8.3 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means approving proposals that accord with the development plan, which is the case in this instance.

8.4 Given the above, it is concluded that the development would comply with the relevant development plan policies and in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Framework, the application is recommended for approval.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

Condition ref Brief description Comment number

Page 32 8 TL01 3 Year Time Limit – Full Planning Permission AP01 Approved plans

Non standard Samples of materials

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative

This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan

Page 33 9 Page 34 10 Agenda Item 8

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 3rd December 2018

Application HPK/2018/0356 No: Location 137 Thorn Heyes Cottages, London Road, Buxton Proposal Alterations to existing residential house and apartments to create 3 apartments and 1 maisonette Applicant Mr Howard Agent Dayle Bayliss Associates Parish/ward Cote Heath Ward Date registered 06 August 2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw, [email protected] 01538 395400 ext. 4921

REFERRAL

The application has been referred to the Committee due to on-going enforcement issues relating to the site.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.3 To the front of the building there is a large car parking area with dual access to London Road which was formerly landscaped with large mature trees, which have, over time, been removed.

Page 35 1 2.4 The site has been subject to enforcement action and a Breach of Conditions Notice which relate to extensions granted in 2015 under (HPK/2015/0330) and which were not constructed in accordance with the approved plans and also unauthorised fencing and sheds to the front of the building. The sheds and fencing have now been removed from the site.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Full planning permission is sought for the conversion of the northern side of the building to 3 apartments and 1 maisonette located over three storeys. The 3 apartments are 1 bed units and are located to the front of the building. The proposed maisonette is to the rear and provides a 3 bed unit with accommodation over two storeys and storage at second floor level.

3.2 Revised plans were received during the course of the application to include the external courtyard space to serve the proposed maisonette to the rear. These plans also amend the parking layout. The revised plans include details that were missing from the original plans including second floor plan and the south east facing side elevation. The amended scheme also includes provision of stone heads and cills to the windows in the extensions.

3.3 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans and the responses of the consultees can be found on the Council’s website at: http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=225649

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The following is a summary of the most recent planning applications relating to the site:

HPK/2018/0374 – Application for lawful development certificate for an existing use as dwellings – Pending. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=225909

HPK/2018/0174 – Alterations to roof – Pending. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=223250

Page 36 2 HPK/2016/0453 – Proposed three bedroomed dwelling and demolition of single storey cottage – Refused 04/04/2017. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=210070

HPK/2016/0118 – Proposed extension to letting apartments at Thorn Heyes House to provide small function room and managers apartment – Refused 25/04/2016. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=205892

HPK/2015/0330 – Proposed extension/flat extensions – Approved 27/08/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=192884

HPK/2014/0052 – Extension to Flat 2 Thorn Heyes – Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal 20/03/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=159784

HPK/2014/0038 – Extension to Flat 3 Thorn Heyes – Refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal 20/03/2015. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=159324

HPK/2011/0364 - First floor extension to form two additional rooms and bathroom – Approved 05/09/2011. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=130364

Page 37 3 HPK/2005/0462 – Conversion of guest house and ancillary buildings to 6 dwellings – Approved 01/08/2005. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=46003

HPK/2004/0822 – Change of use of guest house to two apartments, conversion of four holiday apartments to two dwellings – Approved 04/01/2005. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=44241

HPK/0003/8344 – Erection of one dwelling for owners accommodation – Approved 28/09/1999. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=32575

HPK/0003/6194 - Conservatory and garage - Approved 29/04/1997. http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?P KID=28275

HPK/0001/2033 - Conversion of existing stabling, used as a store and garage to holiday apartments – Approved.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan 2016

Page 38 4 CF6 – Accessibility and Transport

Supplementary Planning Documents

High Peak Design Guide 2018 Residential Design SPD Appendix 2 – Guidelines for the Design and Layout of Residential Development

National Planning Policy Framework

Para 11 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Section 2 Achieving sustainable development Section 5 Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 6 Building a Strong, Competitive Economy Section 9 Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 12 Achieving well designed places Section 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding & coastal change

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 01/10/2018 Expiry date for comments in relation to the amended Neighbours plans: 30/08/2018 Press notice Expiry date for comments: N/A

Neighbours

No comments received.

Consultations

Consultee Comment Officer response Highway Initial comments 17/09/2018 Paras 7.18- Authority 7.21 The Application Form and Design and Access Statement propose alteration of an existing house and apartments to create 4no. single bedroom apartments and a single bedroom maisonette although the Proposed Plan 4 appears to demonstrate a 3no. bedroom unit.

Notwithstanding, the Highway Authority has previously advised that adequate off-street parking to serve all of the proposed and existing

Page 39 5 development should be provided within the site. The e-mailed highway response of 26 June 2018 included a suggested revision to the access/ parking layout with a view to improving access geometry and manoeuvring beyond as well as increasing available off-street parking space without need of additional hard surfacing.

It’s noted that the suggested revision has not been incorporated into the proposals. Therefore, it’s recommended that the applicant submits vehicle swept path details demonstrating suitability of the access/ parking layout to enable two vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass. I trust that you will satisfy yourself that the proposed level of off-street parking is appropriate to meet your own Authority’s standards as any under provision would be likely to result in vehicles being either parked within areas dedicated to manoeuvring and consequential reversing to/ from the A515, or parked on the A515, each situation considered against the best interests of safe and efficient flow of traffic on the public highway.

Therefore, it’s recommended that the applicant is requested to submit additional details to satisfactorily address the above issues. If you are minded to determine the application as submitted, the Highway Authority would appreciate further opportunity to make recommendations.

Comments on revised plans

Comments to be reported.

Environmental No observation to make concerning Health this application.

Waste Collection No objection. Service

Page 40 6 Severn Trent No comments received. Water Ltd. Buxton Mineral No comments received. Water Ltd.

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy Context

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

7.3 Policy H1 of the Local Plan promotes the effective reuse of land by encouraging housing development including redevelopment, infill, conversion of existing dwellings and the change of use of existing buildings to housing, on all sites suitable for that purpose. Housing development on unallocated sites within the defined built up area boundaries of the towns and larger villages will also be supported.

7.4 Policy H4 requires all new residential development to address the housing needs of local people by:

a) Meeting the requirements for affordable housing within the overall provision of new residential development as set out in Policy H4

b) Providing a range of market and affordable housing types and sizes that can reasonably meet the requirements and future needs of a wide range of household types including for the elderly and people with specialist housing needs, based on evidence from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or successor documents

c) Providing a mix of housing that contributes positively to the promotion of a sustainable and inclusive community taking into account the characteristics of the existing housing stock in the surrounding locality

d) Ensuring new residential development includes a proportion of housing suitable for newly forming local households

Page 41 7 e) Supporting dwellings designed to provide flexible accommodation which is capable of future adaptation by seeking to achieve adequate internal space for the intended number of occupants in accordance with the Nationally Described Space Standard and delivered to meet accessibility standards set out in the Optional Requirement M4(2) of Part M of the Building Regulations.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7.5 The new NPPF was published in July 2018 and sets out the Governments policy for planning. Paragraph 10 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision makers this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

Main Issues

7.6 There are a number of planning considerations which arise from this application including the principle of the development, consideration of the impact on neighbouring amenity, design and visual amenity and access and highway matters. It is necessary to consider whether the proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the development plan and any other material planning considerations.

7.7 The committee will note that this application is one of three applications under consideration, with application HPK/2018/0174 also on the agenda. The third application, HPK/2018/0374 is an application for an existing lawful development certificate relating to the original Thorn Heyes building, which is currently under consideration by officers.

Principle of development

7.8 The site is within the built up area boundary of Buxton whereby under the terms of Local Plan Policies S2 and S7 new development proposals should be directed. The proposal will reuse an existing vacant building which has a history of residential use and the building is surrounded by other residential properties. Policy H1 is supportive of housing development on unallocated sites within the built up area boundaries of the towns and larger villages. The 2015 application permitted 2 no. flat extensions within the three storey extension, an extension to Yew Tree Cottage to the front of Thorn Heyes House (which has since been demolished) and an extension to Thorn Heyes Cottage to the rear. The current proposal seeks to utilise the existing three storey extension permitted in 2015 for 3 apartments whilst the extension to the rear to Thorn Heyes Cottage is to be used as a maisonette. The proposals will therefore consolidate what was previously approved. The site is sustainably located within the built up area boundary where residential development of the type proposed is supported. The proposals will therefore comply with Policy H1.

Page 42 8 Policy H3 requires all residential development to address the housing needs of local people by providing a range of market and affordable housing types and sizes and a mix of housing that contributes to the promotion of a sustainable and inclusive community. The scheme proposes 3 smaller (1 bed) units which can be found in other similar larger properties throughout Buxton and will add to the range of market housing in the town together with a 3 bed maisonette. The overall housing mix is therefore considered appropriate. The principle of the development is therefore in general accord with LP Policies H1 and H3 and the tenets of the NPPF, particularly Section 5, subject to consideration of other material planning issues as discussed below.

Design

7.9 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 127 of the newly adopted NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout. Policy EQ6 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that that development is well designed and of a high quality that responds positively to its environment whilst contributing towards local distinctiveness and a sense of place.

7.10 The submitted plans indicate alterations to the roof of the building which are proposed as part of a separate planning application, HPK/2018/0174, which is also on this agenda. Some changes are also proposed to the window and doors openings. Amended plans have been received which indicate provision of stone heads and cills to the window openings to reflect the character of the building and the surrounding area.

7.11 The application includes an alteration to the site access and provision of designated parking spaces to the car park to the front of the building. The site frontage currently has a stark appearance following the removal of mature trees and shrubs. New planting around the car parking area would soften its appearance and a condition has been attached to the recommendation to require a scheme of landscaping to be submitted for approval.

7.12 Given the above, it is concluded that the proposed development accords with the design principles set out in the NPPF and Policies EQ6 and EQ7 of the Local Plan.

Amenity

Page 43 9 7.14 The proposals seek to utilise the existing building for 3 apartments and 1 maisonette. It is considered that the provision of additional apartments in this building, as proposed, will not lead to a significant intensification of use of the existing building and is compatible with surrounding land uses which are residential. Some changes are proposed to window and doors openings with additional windows proposed, particularly to the side elevation facing towards Haddon Hall Care Home. The new ground floor windows will not cause intrusive overlooking of Haddon Hall due to the existing close boarded fence which screens these windows from view. The additional first floor windows serve two bedrooms to the rear unit but these are narrow windows which would not result in significant overlooking whilst the remaining additional first floor windows on this elevation will serve bathrooms and stairwells and therefore not likely to cause overlooking.

7.15 The provision of the external courtyard space to serve the proposed maisonette to the rear will not result in any significant impact on the neighbouring properties. It will utilise the area that was previously approved as a patio to serve this unit.

7.16 Turning to the amenities of future occupants of the proposed apartments, Units 1, 3 and 4 are 1 bed, 1 person units each with approx. 38m2 of floorspace. The Government’s National Described Space Standards (NDSS) recommendation for this type of unit is 39m2 (which can be reduced to 37m2 where a shower room is provided instead of a bathroom as is the case here). Unit 2 (maisonette) is a 3 bed, 5 person unit over 2 floors which has a floorspace of 114m2. The NDSS minimum floor area for this type of unit is 93m2. As can be seen the proposed apartments and maisonette meet these standards and it is therefore considered that the proposed units will provide sufficient internal space for future occupants. All habitable rooms will have windows with adequate outlook and light.

7.17 It is therefore considered that the proposal will not significantly affect the amenities of neighbouring occupants and thereby accords with paragraph 127 of the NPPF and Policy EQ6 in this regard.

Highway and Parking Considerations

7.18 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and that development should ensure that: a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

Page 44 10 7.19 Paragraph 110 of the newly adopted NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Policy CF6 of the Local Plan requires the site to be accessed safely and levels of car parking commensurate with Appendix 1 of the adopted Local Plan.

7.20 County Highways comment that adequate off street parking should be provided to serve all of the proposed and existing development and it is suggested that a revision of the access/parking layout should be sought to improve access geometry and manoeuvring. It is noted that the 1 bed units will each have access to a parking space within the site whilst the maisonette will have 2 designated spaces. The level of off road parking to serve the proposed units is considered appropriate and meets the parking standards set out in the Local Plan. The amended plans received seek to address the Highway Authority’s concerns with an increase in parking provision on the site to serve the proposed development and the rest of the units at Thorn Heyes. An alteration to the site access off London Road is also indicated. It is considered that the amended parking layout will provide sufficient parking to serve the 4 units proposed as well as the remainder of the existing units at Thorn Heyes. Comments from County Highways are awaited and will reported.

7.21 Subject to there being no objection to the amended scheme from County Highways, the proposals therefore comply with the provisions of Section 9 of the NPPF and policy CF6 of the adopted Local Plan in this regard.

Flood Risk / Drainage

7.22 The site does not lie within a designated high flood risk area. It is considered that there are no objections to the proposed development on drainage or flooding grounds and as such it would comply with Local Plan Policy EQ11.

8. CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE

8.2 The NPPF requires consideration of the social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainable development. There are no objections to the proposed scheme on design, amenity, or flooding grounds and the development would not result in environmental harm. Subject to no adverse

Page 45 11 comments from County Highways to the amended scheme, the proposals would not result in a ‘severe’ impact on highway safety.

8.3 The site lies within the built up area boundary of Buxton and is located within a sustainable location with good links to transport and local services. There are clear economic and social benefits to the scheme including a contribution towards the Borough’s housing supply, creation of jobs during the construction phase and additional spending in the local economy from future residents. This reflects the NPPF and the Government’s intention to build a strong and competitive economy.

8.4 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means approving proposals that accord with the development plan, which is the case in this instance.

8.5 Given the above, it is concluded that the development would comply with the relevant development plan policies and in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Framework, the application is recommended for approval.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

Condition ref Brief description Comment number

TL01 3 Year Time Limit – Full Planning Permission

AP01 Approved/Amended plans

NON Landscaping scheme to be submitted and STANDARD agreed. LA02 Landscaping to be carried out and maintained.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Page 46 12 Informative

Site Plan

Page 47 13 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 3 December 2018

Application HPK/2018/0496 No: Location Silverlands, Buxton Football Club Proposal Variation of Condition 6 relating to HPK/2017/0620 Applicant Mr Robert Turner Agent N/A Parish/ward Buxton Central Date registered 2nd October 2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: James Stannard, Tel. 01298 28400 extension 4298, [email protected]

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION

1.1 This application has been brought before the Development Control Committee because the original application for replacement floodlighting, educational facility buildings, and a replacement artificial playing surface (HPK/2017/0620) was a Major Application.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land adjacent to Silverlands, Buxton, operated by Buxton Football Club; a semi professional club which currently competes in the Evostick Northern Premier League (the 7th Tier in the English football pyramid).

2.2 The site comprises a grass playing pitch measuring 104m x 74m, associated stands/terraces and ancillary structures. These are made up of two stands on the northern and western sides of the pitch; two terrace alongside the southern and eastern sides of the pitch; a clubhouse/bar facility; toilet block; catering facilities; and director’s box.

2.3 The site is bounded to the north by the public highway and Police headquarters beyond. To the south of the site sit two blocks of residential development. Terraced properties off Mill Court are positioned on the western side of the southern boundary whilst newer development off Woodside is located further east. The Ashbourne quarry railway line lies to the west whilst allotment gardens are situated beyond the eastern boundary.

Page 49 1 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The site was subject to a previous application for the replacement of floodlights, the installation of a 3G artificial playing surface, and new educational facilities, which was approved under (HPK/2017/0620).

3.2 The new artificial playing pitch and educational facilities are now used by a number of various groups within the local and wider community, in addition to both first team and reserve team training and matches. The pitch is in use until 22:00hrs 7 days per week.

3.3 Condition 6 of planning consent HPK/2017/0620 states:

6. The use of the floodlighting hereby approved shall only be permitted between the hours of 07:00 - 22:00. The floodlighting shall be permitted for a maximum of 3 days of a calendar year from 07:00-23:00 to allow for evening cup fixtures to allow for the potential of extra time and penalties Reason: n order to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is protected in accordance with Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan

3.4 Following an enforcement investigation which has established that the club are in breach of Condition 6, due to operating the floodlights beyond 22:00 on more than 3 occasions, this application seeks to variation to Condition and amend the operation hours of the floodlighting. Following discussions with the applicant and in light of objections from Environmental Health and members of the public, the proposed (revised) condition is as follows:

6. The use of the floodlighting hereby approved shall only be permitted between the hours of - 07:00 – 22:10pm Monday – Friday & Sundays - 07:00 – 20:00pm Saturdays - 07:00 – 23:00pm Maximum of 6 x days per calendar year to allow for extra time and penalties in cup replays

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The following planning history is relevant to this proposal:

HPK/2017/0620 Provision of new accommodation for education facilities and replacement pitch and floodlights - Approved 3rd May 2018

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak local Plan 2016

S1 Sustainable Development Principles S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Page 50 2 S7 Buxton Sub-area Strategy EQ6 Design and Place Making CF5 Provision and Retention of Local Community Services and Facilities

National Planning Policy Framework

Achieving Sustainable Development Chapter 2 Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities Chapter 8 Achieving Well Designed Places Chapter 12

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 21st November 2018

Neighbour letters Expiry date for comments: 31st October 2018

Press Notice Expiry date for comments: 29th November 2018

Neighbours

6.1 2 x objections have been received from members of the public which are presented below:

Objection 1:

 Football Club already has permission to use the facility to a very liberal operating regime of 7 days a week. As a resident living within close proximity, the light pollution from the floodlights is already a nuisance particularly at night.

 Football Club claims that as it hires out the facility until 22:00, it is not possible for users to vacate the pitch and for the floodlights to be switched off and that in order to meet the existing deadline, a new condition allowing for extra time is needed. In my view this would lead to a greater loss of amenity for local residents

 More preferable solution would be for arrangements for users to vacate the pitch earlier to allow floodlights to be switches off on time and comply with the existing condition. The club could easily install a timing device to ensure that this is achieved.

 Completely unacceptable for the football club to want to generate as much revenue as possible from letting out its facility without due regard to the impacts on the amenity of neighbours living nearby

Objection 2:

Page 51 3  Object in strongest possible terms. The lights are already very bright and on most nights until far too late at night. It is causing dreadful light pollution.

 It is impossible to sleep when there are glaring lights coming through the curtains. It is already unacceptable and I certainly will not stand for this awful situation being made even worse.

 We were not properly informed when the rugby club were moving here, there should have been letters through doors within the neighbourhood. I feel it was sneaked in as an alteration.

Consultee Comment

Environmental From what I can see of the submission, I can’t really see a Health justification for extending hours; the applicant hasn’t demonstrated a real need. Extending hours of operation beyond 22:00 will give rise to a considerable loss of amenity (tipping the balance) in a predominantly residential area that is not mitigated by a reduction in hours on Saturdays.

With this in mind, I recommend we honour the considered outcome of the Planning Committee in HPK/2017/0620 and recommend refusal of the current application

Environmental I’m happy with the revised hours, but can we keep the early Health closing on Saturday (8.00 - 20.00)? I think with this any loss of (Revised amenity is balanced out/minimal. Comments)

7. POLICY AND PLANNING BALANCE

Planning Policies

7.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan consists of the High Peak Local Plan Policies Adopted April 2016.

Page 52 4 7.3 Other material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). Paragraph 11 of the NPPF explains that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision makers this means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan, they should be approved without delay, but where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

7.4 Local Plan policy S1a establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF.

Principle of Development

7.5 The site is situated within the built up area boundary of Buxton. The application site is not constrained by any sensitive statutory designation and as such the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged.

7.6 Given the nature of the application and that it is seeking a variation of condition to a planning application which has been granted, the principle of development in this location has been established.

7.7 The main issue to consider in determining this application is the potential impacts to the residential amenity of current and future occupiers of neighbouring properties, which is assessed below.

Amenity

7.8 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires all developments to secure a high standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ6 outlines that developments should achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and not cause unacceptable effects including light pollution and other adverse impacts on local amenity.

7.9 Buxton FC competes in 3 x cup competitions throughout the season which have the potential to be decided by extra time and penalties in a replay. Cup replays usually takes place on either a Tuesday or a Wednesday evening. A replay would occur at Silverlands where the initial cup tie, played at the oppositions ground is drawn. The draw for each round in the cup is random.

7.10 The applicant advises that a standard evening (cup replay) football match kicks off at 7:45pm and typically ends between 9:45 and 9:50pm. If extra time is required, a further 30 minutes play would take a game until between 10:20pm and 10:30pm to conclude (allowing for a

Page 53 5 brief period after full time and half time in extra time). If the match is drawn after extra time, penalty kicks are required to decide a replay. If penalties are required, a game would typically finish between 10:30pm and 10:40pm. The players would then need to warm down before vacating the playing surface, and therefore 23:00pm is the realistic and necessary time for floodlights to be switched off, in such an event.

7.11 A review of Buxton FC’s recent 10 year history show that the club compete in between 4 and 6 cup ties each season which have the potential to be decided by extra time and penalties. As the draw for the cup ties are random, there is potential (albeit limited) for up to 6 cup replays to take place at Silverlands in one season. If the club gain promotion and are more successful, the number of games could potentially increase, for example progressing beyond the qualifying rounds and into the early ‘proper’ rounds of the FA Cup, which begin in November.

7.12 The applicant initially sought extended operating hours of 10 x calendar days. However, in light of the above analysis, it is considered that there is a quantifiable evidence for an appropriate variation to Condition 6 which makes provision for the unlikely, but possible, scenario of up to 6 x cup replays taking place at Silverlands over the course of a calendar year. The applicant is agreeable to this revised variation.

7.13 It is therefore considered that a variation to increase the number of calendar days for which the floodlights can operate until 23:00 from 3 to 6 (as opposed to the 10 days that was originally applied for), strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring that the Football Club can continue to flourish and compete in every cup competition, whilst ensuring that the amenity of the neighbouring residents is protected.

7.14 Following discussions, the applicant also seek to extend the standard operating hours by 10 minutes until 22:10pm Monday – Friday and Sundays, to allow for groups using the artificial pitch to vacate the facility after completing sport and recreational activities at 22:00pm. To offset the minimal increase in operating times during the week, the applicant proposes to reduce the hours of operation on Saturdays by 2 hours (07:00 - 20:00). This is considered to be reasonable and would not result in any further significant adverse harm to residential amenity.

7.15 In summary, the proposed variation of Condition 6 to HPK/2017/0620, which would increase the standard operating time of the floodlights by 10 minutes until 22:10pm Monday – Friday and Sundays; reduce the hours on Saturdays until 20:00, and increases the number of calendar days for which the floodlights could operate until 23:00pm from 3 to 6 (to facilitate extra time and penalties in cup replays) is not considered to result in any further significant harm to residential amenity, in accordance with Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan and paragraph 127 of the NPPF.

Page 54 6 Planning balance & Conclusion

7.16 The Football Club compete in 3 x cup competitions that have the potential to require extra time and penalties. The proposed variation to condition 6 is not considered to result in any further significant adverse harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties which would outweigh the benefits of facilitating an established and growing community facility. As such the application is considered to accord with Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan and relevant paragraphs contained within the NPPF.

7.17 In conclusion, the application is considered to constitute a sustainable form of development, and in line with Policy S1a of the Local Plan and paragraph 11 of the NPPF, the application (in is agreed revised form) is recommended for approval, with all other conditions relating to HPK/2017/0620 continuing to apply.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. APPROVE to vary condition 6 relating to HPK/2017/0620 as follows;

1. The use of the floodlighting hereby approved shall only be permitted between the hours of: 07:00 – 22:10 Monday-Friday & Sundays 07:00 – 20:00 on Saturdays.

The floodlighting shall be permitted for a maximum of 6 days of the calendar year from 07:00 – 23:00 to allow for evening cup fixtures to allow for the potential of extra time and penalties”

Reason:- In order to ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is protected in accordance with Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan

2. Conditions as imposed under HPK/2017/0620

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Page 55 7 Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site plan

Page 56 8 Agenda Item 10

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 3rd December 2018

Application HPK/2018/0337 No: Location Fern Farm, Fern Road, Buxton, Derbyshire, SK17 9NP Proposal Proposed New Covered Riding Arena Applicant Mrs Wendy Howe/Helen Atkin Riding for the Disabled Group Agent Mr David Prior, David Prior Designs Parish/ward Temple Ward Date registered 25.06.2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: John Williamson - Email [email protected]; Tel: 01538 395400 Ext: 4922; Mob: 07812981964

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve, subject to conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application site is an area of land currently used as a paddock in association with Fern Farm and the Helen Atkin Riding for the Disabled Group. The site is located to the west of the access road (Fern Road) which leads from London Road (north of the site) and finishes at the entrance to the Riding School. Fern Farm and a few other dwellings are located just beyond, south of, the head of the access road referred to. Apart from a few other dwellings located on Fern Road the site is surrounded by open countryside with the land rising to the west and south. There are woodland areas to the east, west and south of the site’s location.

2.2 The site lies within the countryside, ‘settled valley pastures’ landscape character area and Buxton Mineral Water & Source Protection Area. There is a Public Right Of Way (PROW) (HP4/55/2) running in a north-south direction that passes the eastern boundary of the site, the route of which is also the (conjectured) line of a Roman Road (HER MDR9032), as defined in the Local Plan.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application seeks full planning permission to erect a covered riding arena. It is noted that revised plans have been submitted due to the proposed building having been moved 5m further west to avoid any archaeological impact on Roman Road remains.

3.2 The application details - including the plans, supporting documents, representations and responses from consultees - can be found on the Council’s website at:-

Page 57 http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2253 48

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 HPK/2011/0066 – Level existing Jumping Paddock & Renew Post and Rail Fence. Approved, 14.06.11

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=1276 20

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan Adopted April 2016

S1 – Sustainable development principles S1a – Presumption in favour of sustainable development S7 – Buxton sub-area strategy EQ1 – Climate change EQ2 – Landscape character EQ3 – Rural development EQ6 – Design and place making EQ7 - Built and historic environment EQ9 - Trees, woodland and hedgerows CF5 - Provision and retention of local community facilities and services CF6 – Accessibility by public transport

National Planning Policy Framework

 1. Introduction  2. Achieving sustainable development  6. Building a strong, competitive economy  9. Promoting sustainable transport  12. Achieving well-designed places  14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change  15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

National Planning Practice Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 09.08.2018 Press notice Expiry date for comments: 20.12.18 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 30.07.2018

Neighbours/Local Interest Groups

Page 58 6.1 14 No. representations have been received, all supporting the proposal. Details can be read on file. A summary of the comments made is provided below.

 Given the weather in Buxton having such a facility would be a great asset to the town both for locals and tourists; sessions are often cancelled during the winter months due to the weather; an indoor facility would ensure all year round availability which would provide the riders with the best chance to progress in strength and confidence and reach their individual goals  The facility would provide more reliable conditions for the riders and volunteers  The size and height of the building will enable the group to restart carriage driving and introduce show jumping and dressage. Being able to offer carriage driving adds a new dimension to an RDA group enabling disabled people who, for whatever reason, are not able to ride to have an opportunity to interact with horses, learn new skills and meet new challenges as well as giving those whose condition deteriorates (such that they are unable to ride) an opportunity to continue working with horses. Dressage and show jumping will offer new opportunities and challenges for the more able riders  It would be in keeping with the farm buildings there at present; the choice of materials and colours will be in keeping with the surrounding area  It would not detract from the surroundings  The proposed building will be on the site of an existing open grass arena currently used for jumping practice. The building will not be visible from higher ground due to existing woodland, and other woodland provides screening from the housing estate across a valley  As a parent carer of a rider steering this group, the benefits of these therapeutic riding sessions are huge; to be able to continue to ride in all weather supports mental and physical well being and other health benefits  It would provide a valuable community resource; all year round support would enrich and add purpose to lives  As a mother of an RDA member I’ve witnessed the confidence instilled by being able to participate regularly, which has led to a great independence for my daughter and coping skills to deal with difficulties in life. I cannot recommend enough the benefits of this proposal  For over 10 years I have been volunteering with another North Midlands RDA group so I have seen first-hand how disabled children and adults can blossom when given the opportunity to learn to ride or even just benefit from being on the horse for physical therapy  For those riders who show real talent and affinity with horses RDA can be a stepping stone to success in para-equestrian sport in the country  The use of an indoor arena will benefit the riding for the disabled charity; the building is necessary to deliver the service that Buxton riding school deliver for them and the community as a whole  I realise as a resident of Hadfield I am not directly affected by an indoor arena being built, however, as a rider at Fern Farm I have seen first hand the amazing work the Riding for the Disabled (RDA) do for disabled people & for their families. To get the chance to spend time with horses is such a privilege, either riding or just being near horses and Fern Farm has been brilliant over the years in helping this to happen.

Page 59  A decade of government cuts, the difficulties those cuts have inflicted on local authorities, have affected disabled people even more than other sections of the community. I believe Fern Farm’s support of this facility for disabled people & their families should be given all the support it can from the local authority, via the granting of permission to build the indoor arena  Access is satisfactory for the current operations at the site. There will be no change in the types of vehicle accessing the site or any significant impact on volume of traffic in the surrounding area as a result of this development  Somewhat surprising to see that it has gone beyond it's suggested decision date. Is there a particular reason for this?

Consultees

Consultee Comment Officer response DCC Highways The site is reached via a private track from London 7.20-7.23 Road, where the junction has previously been improved (being wide enough to allow 2 No. vehicles to pass each other). The track also serves a public car park and a PROW abuts the red-line boundary.

It is noted that within the D & A S no additional staff are proposed in association with the proposed development but the car park is being extended It is presumed that due to the nature of the organisation sessions will be pre-booked, which will limit traffic movements throughout the day. If this is not the case then a booking system is recommended.

Notwithstanding the above, the Highway Authority is not aware of any existing highway reasons that would justify a reason for refusal. If approved conditions should be attached re:

1. Details of a Construction Management Compound. 2. All equestrian activities to be made via a booking system. 3. The premises shall not be brought into use until the revised parking has been made available.

Informative

 The PROW should not be affected in any way; contact DCC if necessary re temporary closure, etc.

Page 60 DCC Initial comments 7.19 Archaeology The site is alongside a possible line of the Roman road into Buxton from the south-west (Derbyshire HER MDR9032), which runs along the existing footpath. Archaeological monitoring of the adjacent groundworks during creation of the existing outdoor riding area were monitored in 2011 with no archaeologically significant results; it should be noted however that the area of cut observed was some 10m uphill from the footpath, and did not impact the downslope area closest to the ‘road’.

There is potential for archaeological impacts from the current proposals, depending on the proposed groundworks in the eastern part of the site. The applicant should therefore provide some detail on proposed groundworks in this area, to allow the archaeological impact to be assessed. The applicant may also wish to consider building in a buffer between the possible Roman road alignment and the edge of the building, to minimise any such impacts.

Subsequent comments (following submission of amended plans)

The proposed building has now been moved to allow a 5m buffer to the likely Roman road alignment. This moves the building back into an area previously subject to groundworks and archaeological monitoring in 2012, with negative results, and I therefore conclude that in this location the building will have no impact.

No details are provided for landscaping within the 5m buffer. If this area is to be retained as existing then there would be no archaeological impact and no requirement for archaeological work under the NPPF policies. The local planning authority may wish to condition details of proposed landscaping/services within this buffer to be submitted for approval, with the proviso that such details might need to include provision for archaeological monitoring should intrusive work be planned in the relevant area. HPBC The proposal has no impact on existing trees. 7.17 Arboriculture A landscaping condition may be appropriate (to try

Page 61 and incorporate some trees and hedgerow planting to soften the impact), however, the result of such planting would be minimal. Buxton Mineral No comments received. Water

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context

7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Local Plan Policies Adopted April 2016.

7.4 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development as economic, social and environmental.

7.5 Local Plan policy S1a establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF.

7.6 A list of key policies, guidance and other material considerations is provided above (section 5).

Principle of development

7.7 As noted, the application seeks full planning permission for a covered riding arena.

Page 62 7.8 The site lies within the countryside, ‘settled valley pastures’ landscape character area, Buxton Mineral Water & Source Protection Area and there is a (conjectured) line of a Roman Road (HER MDR9032) which runs in line with the footpath that passes the site running in a north-south direction, as defined in the Local Plan

7.9 Policy EQ3 of the adopted Local Plan (2016) concerns rural development outside the settlement boundary. The policy allows for certain forms of development, including: a) supporting equestrian development where it does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area: and b) supporting development associated with recreational and open space uses in accessible and least environmentally sensitive locations. Therefore, whilst the general principle of development is considered acceptable, this is subject to ensuring that new development does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the site.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area (countryside)

7.10 The NPPF (para 124) highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities. Local Plan Policies S1, EQ2 and EQ6 seek to protect, enhance and restore the landscape character of the area for its intrinsic beauty and its economic, social and environmental benefits and to secure high quality design in all developments.

7.11 Section 16 of the NPPF seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment. Local Plan policies S1 and EQ7 seek, inter alia, to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. The heritage asset of relevance here is the Roman Road.

7.12 The proposed development consists of erecting a covered riding arena, to be erected over the existing outdoor paddock area. The proposed building measures approx. 50m x 30m with a ridge height of 9.9m and eaves height approx. 5.8m. The proposed external materials are treated vertical softwood boarding to elevations and box profile steel roofing panels (heritage green). Roof-lights are to be inserted on the western facing roof slope and solar panels are to be fixed to the eastern facing elevation. The eastern facing elevation has a row of open panels and there are doors on both end elevations. There is a relatively small (5m x 2.5m) area within the building for spectators, with a wc.

713 During the course of appraising the application the Council questioned the requirement for a building of the size proposed and its impact on the landscape/countryside. The applicant subsequently submitted additional information, some of which comes from the British Horse Society (BHS) who has stated that conventional arenas tend to be either 40m x 20m or 60m x 20m; however, given that the applicants wish to use the arena for (amongst other things) jumping the 30m width will allow correct safe distances to be used for such purposes.

7.14 The proposed covered arena is for use by disabled riders participating in a range of horse riding activities – eg. riding therapy, disabled dressage, disabled

Page 63 carriage driving, disabled countryside challenge, riding lessons and equestrian sport improvement. An indoor arena will reduce cancellations due to bad weather and allow participants to continue riding throughout the year. The quality of the facilities will allow riders to train and compete accordingly. The nearest equivalent centre is at Scropton, near Repton, but travelling to this venue is both costly and time consuming.

7.15 The proposed arena is sited on the western side of Fern Road. There is a footpath that runs parallel with Fern Road and there are footpaths on the surrounding higher ground (eg. to the west/south-west, near ‘Solomons Temple’).

7.16 As noted above the proposal is acceptable in principle, subject to not having a detrimental impact on the landscape character. When viewed from the west which is on rising land, the building, although relatively large, would not be visible from popular public vantage points beyond the immediate surrounding land/road/footpaths. Moreover, the building would be constructed with vertical wooden panelling and a green roof which is similar to many agricultural buildings. Therefore it is considered that the impact on the wider landscape, given the topography surrounding the site would be limited.

7.17 The Arboricultural Officer notes that no trees would be affected by the proposal and that a condition could be attached to any permission requiring details of some screen planting; however, the result of such planting would be minimal.

7.18 In light of all the above, and noting that the building is of a size that would allow for all the required riding activities to be undertaken, it is considered that the size, scale, siting, design and materials of the proposed development would have an acceptable relationship with, and an acceptable impact on, the surrounding landscape and the character & appearance of the countryside. However, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring details of any illumination required, given the countryside location and the size of the building. As such, the proposed development is considered to comply with the design tenets of Local Plan policies S1, EQ3 and EQ6 and section 12 of the NPPF.

Archaeological Impact

7.19 Policy EQ7 seeks to ensure that new development does not have a significant adverse impact on any known or yet to be discovered archaeological remains. It is likely that the route of an old Roman Road runs broadly along the route of the footpath which passes by the eastern side of the proposed building. Consequently, following a site visit with the applicants and the Archaeology Officer, the applicant has agreed to move the proposed building 5m further west, to avoid potentially harming any remains of the Roman Road. The Agent has confirmed that a 5m ‘buffer’, at the eastern side of proposed building will be provided. No works are proposed within this area, however if any subsequent works are required (e.g. engineering operations) it will be necessary to impose a condition requiring further details. As such, and subject to a suitable condition should there be any changes proposed to the ‘buffer’ area, it is considered that the proposal will not harm any archaeological interests; therefore the proposal accords with Local Plan policy EQ7 and section 15 of the NPPF.

Page 64 Highway safety

7.20 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that local planning authorities should seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel.

7.21 Local Plan Policy CF6 seeks to ensure that new development can be accessed safely, provides access to a range of transport modes and minimises the need to travel by unsustainable modes of transport.

7.22 As noted above, the Highway Authority does not object to the proposal and sees no reasons for refusal on highway grounds, subject to the conditions outlined. Hence, the proposal will not affect the surrounding highway network. There is currently a hardstanding area to the east of the existing access road with approximately 12 spaces, which will provide parking to serve the development. The submitted plan also shows an area to the west of Fern Road for 20 spaces which is to be used for additional parking. The Highway Authority have requested that a condition be imposed securing the additional parking and details of any booking system. It is not considered reasonable or enforceable to impose a condition relating to booking details as sufficient parking will be provided at the site.

7.23 The application site is located on the outskirts of the Town and although it is likely that any visitors with mobility problems are likely to arrive by car, there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate the parking. Bearing in mind these factors it is considered that there are no highway safety/transport issues that would arise from the proposal and therefore the proposal complies with Local Plan policies CF6 and section 9 of the NPPF.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenity

7.24 Policy EQ6 seeks to ensure that new development achieves a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development, taking into account factors such as privacy, visual intrusion, shadowing and overlooking. Bullet point ‘f’ of paragraph 127 of the NPPF seeks, inter alia, to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

7.25 The proposed development is considered to be sited a sufficient distance from the nearest residential properties in the area for it not to harm the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. As such, the proposal accords with the amenity tenets of policies S1 and EQ6 of the Local Plan and bullet point ‘f’ of para. 127 of the NPPF.

Other Matters

7.26 Policy S7 sets out that new development should have regard to the Buxton Mineral Water Catchment Area and Groundwater Source Protection Zone. To date no comments have been received from Buxton Water, if any comments are received these will be reported on the updates sheet.

Page 65 7.27 It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring details of any illumination required.

8. Sustainability, planning balance, conclusion & recommendation

8.1 Bearing the above factors in mind, the proposed development is considered to be a sustainable form of development that accords with Local Plan policies S1 and S1a (sustainability) and all other relevant Local Plan policies and other material considerations. The new building will provide an important facility to enable disabled people to interact with horses and learn new skills, thus meeting the social dimension of sustainable development. Therefore it is recommended the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives outlined below and any outstanding representations.

9. RECOMMENDATION: Approve

A. That following the expiry of the consultation period, and subject to no substantive objections being received, DELEGATE to the Operations Manger in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee to Approve, subject to the following conditions and informatives

Condition Brief description Comment number TL01 The development hereby permitted Standard shall be begun before the expiration of Condition three years from the date of this permission AP01 The development hereby permitted Standard shall be carried out in accordance with Condition the approved plans NON The approved development shall be STANDARD – undertaken in accordance with the Construction submitted Construction Management Management Plan (Plan 429-08), the details of which Plan shall remain in place until the development is complete NON The approved development shall not STANDARD – be brought into use until the additional Additional parking area shown on approved plan Parking Area 429-06 B has been laid out and available for use. The additional spaces shall be retained thereafter, free from impediment to their desinated use, for the lifetime of the development NON The materials shall be as specified in STANDARD - the application/on the approved plans. Materials NON Should the building cease to be used

Page 66 STANDARD – for its intended purposes it should be Remove removed from the site and the land building if use restrored to its current condition within ceases 6 months of the use ceasing, unless a planning application has first been submitted to the Local Planning Authority proposing a use for the building NON Should any works be proposed within STANDARD – the 5m archaeological buffer (i.e. the Details of any land between the Public Right Of Way work in the HP4/55/2 and the eastern side ‘buffer’ elevation of the approved building) details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Such details may require the provision of archaeological monitoring. NON Details of any means of illumination STANDARD

Informatives  The LPA has liaised with the applicant. Amended plans and additional information has been submitted to the Council as requested to secure a sustainable form of development. Para 38 of the NPPF has been adhered to.  The granting of permission is not consent to divert or obstruct a public right of way.  The application site is affected by a Public Right Of Way (No. 55 Buxton) on the Derbyshire Definitive Map. The route must remain unobstructed on its lawful alignment at all times and the safety of the public using it must not be prejudiced either during or after development works take place. If the Public Right Of Way is required to be temprarily or permanently diverted advice on the procedures for the temporary or permanent diversion of such routes may be obtained from the County Council's Public Rights Of Way Section at Shand House, tel: 01629 533190 or email [email protected]  If development is to permanently affect a Public Right Of Way works shall not commence until a diversion order has been confirmed.

Page 67 Site Plan

Page 68 Agenda Item 11

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 3rd December 2018

Application HPK/2018/0120 No: Location Former Bottling Plant, Station Road, Buxton Proposal Erection of Extra Care accommodation for older people, landscaping and car parking Applicant YourLife Management Services Ltd Agent The Planning Bureau Ltd Parish/ward Buxton 26th June 2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood [email protected] 01538 395400 ext. 4924

1. REFERRAL & BACKGROUND

1.1 Members will recall the above application HPK/2018/0120 at the meeting of the 10th September 2018, whereby it was resolved to defer the application. The minutes of this meeting are as follows:

HPK/2018/0120 - FORMER BOTTLING PLANT, STATION ROAD, BUXTON - ERECTION OF EXTRA CARE ACCOMMODATION FOR OLDER PEOPLE, LANDSCAPING AND CAR PARKING (Agenda Item 9)

Erection of extra care accommodation for older people, landscaping and car parking

Applicant: YourLife Management Services Ltd.

The Committee had undertaken a site visit.

The Committee were addressed by Paul Tomlinson on behalf of Peak Rail in objection to the application and Chris Butt (agent).

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred due to concerns regarding the size, scale and design of the proposed building, and further information be sought around issues of viability and whether other models of provision could be made whilst maintaining the public benefit.

1.2 Since the previous deferral, Officers have been engaged in pro- active discussions with the developers regarding the design of the scheme and a revised proposal has been put forward. The revised scheme has been subject to a full public reconsultation, and the comments received are detailed below.

Page 69 1.3 This report deals only with the changes to the scheme and should be read in conjunction with the previous report (appended) which deals with all other planning considerations.

2. CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Peak Rail

2.1 No comments had been received at the time of report preparation.

Arboricultural Officer

2.2 I have been consulted on the revised scheme as far as I am aware there have been no changes to the landscape as yet so previous comments remain

Historic England

2.3 The application site is the site of the former bottling plant. The site lies on the north side of Station Road on rising land. The site is located outside and is visible from both the Central and Hardwick conservation areas. Both conservation areas contain numerous listed buildings; prominent within the Central conservation area is the Grade I listed Crescent and the associated Grade II registered park and garden (PAG) of the Slopes. The proposed development has the potential to affect the significance the conservation areas and numerous listed buildings within derive from their settings.

2.4 We have previously provided advice on the proposals in our letter of 2nd May 2018 and 29th August 2018, including an assessment of significance, which remains relevant to the determination of this application.

2.5 We have been consulted in relation to amended plans. We welcome the revised design, which we believe is a considerable more suitable response than the earlier scheme. The amendments, which include hipped roofs and parapets, give the appearance of a smaller building. In our view, the amended design reduces the visual impact of the proposed building on the significance of individual listed buildings including the Station and the Viaduct, and the Grade II registered Slopes, as well as, the significance which the conservation areas derive from their setting.

2.6 Our advice is given in line with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and the Historic Environment Good Practice in Planning Notes 2-3.

Recommendation

Page 70 2.7 Historic England has no objection to the application on heritage grounds. Ultimately, the overall success of the scheme will be dependent on the quality of the materials and the detailed design. We recommend you seek further advice in this regard from your in - house conservation team.

2.8 In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

Police Architectural Officer

2.9 Thank you for sending notification of further amendments to this extra care scheme.

2.10 There is one internal change which I consider is a backward step from the previous layouts. There is now no separation between public space and private apartments on the ground floor, where previously there were doors which could form part of a progressive access control policy.

2.11 I’d advise that two sets of doors are re-positioned at ground floor level to restrict public access beyond the communal lobby areas.

2.12 This will probably require an altered position for the innermost disabled WC, so that the door on this side of the entrance lobby can be placed prior to reaching other semi private areas and lifts.

Lead Local Flood Authority

2.13 Due to the nature of the re-design proposals not having a material impact to the impermeable area to be drained the LLFA have no additional comments to add to the full response sent on 29/08/2018.

Network Rail

2.14 Having reviewed the revisions to the proposal – Network Rail has no comments to add to our previous comments.

Environmental Health

2.15 I can confirm that High Peak Borough Council, Environmental Health have no observations to make concerning this application. The revised submission is not believed to significantly impact on environmental considerations for the site and I refer you to my comments dated 27th April 2018. Conservation Officer

Page 71 2.16 The amendments to take account of issues raised by Peak Rail appear just to affect the northeast corner of the development – primarily the east elevation. I’m struggling to understand why the previous northeast ‘module’ has been replaced by the bay with a flat roof. This looks quite awkward and I think we need to understand why the previous module cannot be reinstated.

2.17 Generally, regarding the new design submitted following the last presentation to the Planning Committee, I am happy with the revised form and the pitched roof. The Committee’s request for this form to be considered was (amongst other things) to reduce the overall scale of the development. Although the building is of a similar height to the previous design, by ‘losing’ a storey in the roof, I think that this revised form is successful in this regard.

2.18 Having gone down the pastiche route, I think that it is important to get the details right:

1. The drawings show a list of materials but I think that further clarification is required:

a. Roofing materials should be natural blue slate rather than the artificial slate proposed given the prominence of the roof on the elevations. b. Elevational materials. Not clear which parts of the elevations are referred to as ‘Walls 1’ and ‘Walls 2’. We have discussed smooth faced natural ashlar stone being used on the prominent parts of the elevations in our various meetings. I presume that this is what is referred to as Walls 1. The recessed parts of the elevations were agreed to be a pitched faced natural stone. Forticrete stone (referenced on the drawings against ‘Walls 2’) would not be acceptable.

2. Window details need to be refined:

a. The perspectives show (albeit rather insubstantial) stone cills which do not get picked up on the elevations b. If costs were an issue, the stone lintels could have plain sections rather than the decorative lintels shown. c. A simple two-over-two pattern sash window would be more appropriate detail in Buxton rather than the design shown. There are now some very good sash windows supplied in uPVC (eg Heritage Rose Sash Windows from Nottingham Window Company). d. In order to give a more solid and robust appearance to the elevations, a deep window reveal of a minimum of 150 mm. should be allowed for.

Page 72 e. There are a few rooflights (as opposed to dormers) that are prominent and need signing off in terms of details.

3. The central bay to the West elevation needs refining:

a. The pedimented top to this section is a little alien and could easily achieve its same prominence and purpose with a continuation of the cornice on either side. b. Not convinced that the window reveals without glazing is a detail that works very well in this location – consider glazed dummy windows to match the real windows but ‘greyed out’ behind the glass. This is a common Georgian detail. In fact, both dummy windows with glazing and window reveals without glazing are incorporated on the Crescent. However, dummy windows with glazing are used on the front elevation, the other treatment is restricted to the side. Given that the central bay is the front- facing ‘entrance’ suggests to me that glazed dummy windows should be used. c. The ground floor entrance is very weak. Some sort of widened door (would have to be dummy glazing on either side) would be better or a portico detail similar (but less prominent) to the real entrance on the north elevation should be considered. To accommodate the enlarged entrance, the two ground floor window reveals could be omitted.

4. Landscaping:

a. Can this be conditioned as details to be agreed as we have discussed a harder landscaping treatment to the front (west) elevation facing the station whereas this is now shown as lawns behind railings. Both this point and 3(b) above needs reviewing in the context of whether there is a serious attempt to create a frontage on the west elevation or not. b. The railings look OK but they would work better with a stone plinth (to pick up the detailing of the copings to the steps) rather than the low hedge which could easily become a litter trap and maintenance liability in this location. c. The drawings show a defined flight of steps to address the level changes between the back of pavement and the front of the building. It would be better to treat this as public landscaping incorporating steps without privatising it with the railings.

Third Parties

2.16 No additional party or public comments have been received.

Page 73 3. OFFICER COMMENT

3.1 Following the deferral at committee on design grounds, the applicant has revisited the scheme and sought to address the points of concern. The planning committee expressed a desire to see a traditional style of architecture on the site, one which referenced high quality precedents seen in the town centre.

3.2 A fresh look at responsive architectural treatments was undertaken, and a meeting held with officers tabling options for how to develop the scheme.

3.3 A revisit of local architectural precedents was undertaken by the applicant to further inform a revised design approach. A number of locally distinctive features were identified ensuring a responsive design solution was developed. Local features identified included, - roof space accommodation, - parapet details, - consistent flat fronted facades with vertical emphasis and vertically positioned windows and visual framing, - Continuous hipped roof profiles and articulation of massing with central primary elements and secondary bookends. - Ground floor plinths - 3.4 Rationales for a revised contemporary solution and a traditionally styled scheme were tabled for feedback. Strongly referencing local context, and taking on board the feedback from the planning committee the applicant was advised by officers that the scheme should be developed referencing traditional forms seen in the town. However a number of developments on the approach were suggested. These included - “frontage” elevation treatment to the station - Hipped roofed forms behind parapets - Highest status block to be positioned closest to the station rather than centrally, - Dormers repositioned to emphasis Vertical fenestration patterns

3.5 Amenity space and car parking arrangements have been significantly re-arranged to deliver an improved setting and approach to the development with a large uninterrupted amenity space now provided. This space will also be open to view from the public space in front of the railway station offering a visual improvement to the quality of public realm upon arrival into the town.

3.6 The Committee previously expressed concerns regarding the size, scale and design of the proposed building. In particular they requested that the scheme be reduced from an overall 4 storeys in height to 3 storeys with a pitched roof. Members were advised at the last meeting that the loss of an entire floor of accommodation would generate issues

Page 74 of viability. This could result in the scheme not coming forward and the public benefits of redeveloping this brownfield site and the provision of elderly persons care not being realised. They therefore requested further investigation as to whether other models of provision could be made whilst maintaining the public benefit.

3.7 The developer has responded by providing a 3 storey, traditionally styled building with a pitched roof. Through the provision of some accommodation in the roof space, in keeping with many similar examples in the vicinity in Buxton, they have achieved a scheme which remains economically viable, will deliver the required economic and social benefits for the town whilst, remaining in keeping with its surroundings.

3.8 Moreover, the scheme has been subject to full consultation and Historic England has withdrawn their objections. The scheme has been considered in detail by the Council’s Conservation Officer who has raised no objection in principle or to the design generally. He has raised a number of minor points of detail which can be addressed either by suitable conditions or by minor amendments to the design. These have been fed back to the developer and changes requested. A further update will be provided prior to the meeting.

3.9 Therefore it is concluded that there will be no harm to the designated heritage assets as identified in the previous report and therefore the proposal complies with policies EQ6 - Design and Place Making and EQ7 – Built and Historic Environment and the provisions of the NPPF with regard to protecting heritage assets. . 4. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Overall, the scheme is considered to address the Committee’s previous concerns regarding the design and having regard to this, along with the relevant development plan policies, and material considerations set out in the previous report (appended) the scheme is recommended for approval, subject to the minor amendments recommended by the Conservation Officer, Section 106 Agreement and conditions.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

A: Approve subject to Section 106 agreement to secure:

 Plan monitoring fee of £5,000.  £10,000 towards Traffic Regulation Orders, implementation, management and maintenance of active car parking signage and enhancement of existing bus stop shelters  Minimum of 2 hours care per week.

and the following conditions:

Page 75 Condition Brief description Comment number TL01 Standard Time Limit NSTD Reference to approved plans NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of Scheme of External Lighting NSTD No works in breeding bird season without survey NSTD1 Submission ,approval and implementation of biodiversity enhancement strategy NSTD1 Submission, approval and implementation of contaminated land survey and mitigation. NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of Dust Control Measures

NSTD Disposal of construction waste – no lighting of fires etc NSTD Submission of piling method Statement NSTD Restriction of construction hours SNTD Noise and machinery insulation NSTD Scheme of Acoustic insulation to be submitted, agreed and implemented NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of scheme of junction improvements with Station Road. NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of construction management plan NSTD Provision of parking / loading etc shown on the approved plans NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of details of bin storage NSTD Implementation of Travel Plan NSTD Limit occupancy to over 65’s NSTD Revised landscaping scheme to include confirmation of hard landscaping materials and

Page 76 treatment of Station Access frontage NSTD Implementation of landscaping NSTD Details of Materials to be agreed NSTD Limitation to Use Class C2 NSTD Design, management & maintenance plan for surface water drainage NSTD Detailed assessment to be provided to demonstrate destination for surface water is acceptable NSTD Details of overland flow NSTD Submission of detailed drawings showing the cornice detail around the building and the enhanced version of on the Station Road/station forecourt corner. NSTD Submission of scheme of boundary treatment including railing details NSTD Submission of bin storage details.

NSTD 150mm window reveals

NSTD Submission and approval of rooflight details NSTD Submission and approval of window / door details

B In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative

Page 77 development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan

Page 78 APPENDIX

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 10th September 2018

REFERRAL

The application is referred to Development Control Committee because it is a major development.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve subject to Historic England comments, Section 106 Agreement and conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application relates to 0.6025ha of vacant brownfield land adjacent to Buxton Station. The site is bounded to the north by rail lines and by Station Road. The station site and associated carpark lie to the west and vacant brownfield land forming part of the same site lies to the east. The site was once part of one of the two railway networks which were instrumental in growing and developing the town in the second half of the nineteenth century. After the decline of the railways the site was occupied by a Perrier factory in 1998. In 1992 this became the property of Nestle Waters which continued to use the site until it obtained a new factory in 2012. The site has now been cleared and is predominantly hardstanding with a scattering of shrubs and grass, typical of a recently cleared brownfield site.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Full Planning permission is sought for the re-development of land at Station Road with Retirement Living PLUS (Extra Care) accommodation for the elderly, together with attractive landscaped gardens and car parking.

Page 79 1 3.2 This application seeks to provide accommodation for the frail elderly, typically those over 80 years of age, with the aim of maintaining their independence via a wide range of communal facilities and care packages tailored to their individual needs as frailty increases through later life. The development also features an estate manager’s office and staff sleepover accommodation to allow for 24 hour assistance along with communal facilities such as a residents’ lounge; a glass roof terrace; a restaurant with catering kitchen; a heavy duty laundry; electric buggy store; and emergency call/alarm systems. This scheme has been designed with a roof top terrace and winter garden within a glass enclosure, creating a space to be used as a communal lounge.

3.3 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, comments made by residents and the responses of the consultees can be found on the Council’s website at: http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2227 16

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There are no relevant previous planning applications. However, at the previous Development Control meeting, the Committee resolved to grant outline planning permission for the development of a Health Care Campus (HPK/2018/0125 refers) elsewhere on adjoining land forming part of the same site. Full Planning Permission has also recently been granted for an access road to serve both developments (HPK/2018/0124 refers).

PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

S1 – Sustainable Development Principles S1a – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S2 – Settlement Hierarchy S7 – Buxton sub area strategy EQ1 – Climate Change EQ2 – Landscape Character EQ5 – Biodiversity EQ6 – Design and Place Making EQ7 – Built and Historic Environment EQ8 – Green Infrastructure EQ9 – Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows EQ10 – Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ11 – Flood Risk Management E1 – New Employment Development E3 – Primary Employment Zones CF6 – Accessibility and Transport

National Planning Policy Framework Section 2 – Achieving sustainable development

Page 80 2 Section 4 - Decision making Section 5 – Delivering a sufficient supply of Homes Section 6 – Building a strong competitive economy Section 8 – Promoting healthy and safe communities Section 9 – Promoting sustainable transport Section 11 - Making efficient use of land Section 12 – Achieving well-designed places Section 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2018 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2018 Press notice Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2018

Third Parties

Objections

 The Plans as submitted, ignore the access rights and train running rights of Peak Rail.  The proposed building is too large, out of keeping with the rest of Buxton and ugly.  The increase of traffic will bring the already busy roads to a standstill and will raise air pollution levels.  DCHS does not have the consent of Buxton’s population for the proposal and a wider consultation is required.  The proper use for the site is to return it to its original railway use which would increase tourism in the surrounding area.  The proposal would block the view of two Grade II listed Structures: Buxton Station & Hogshaw Viaduct Curve.  The proposal should be built in a different location.  It is short-sighted to build a health centre without any room for expansion.  The railway can only go in one place, where the proposal can be sited in other locations.  There is no provision for the Peak Rail expansion to the platform enabling passenger excursions from other parts of the UK to access Buxton. Any one who doubts the benefits this brings to the local economy should research Sheringham in Norfolk (NNR) and Swanage Dorset Minehead in Somerset. etc etc. It seems as if this application has completely ignored the provisions set by Parliament on historic railway land and subsequent involvement that all former railways must be free of any development enabling reinstatement as needed. It certainly is here

Support

 This is a wonderful project and a good use of a brownfield site which is currently an eyesore.  The location is close to the centre of town which has good links to public transport and would be easy to access.

Page 81 3  The proposal will help the community with offering a local hospital otherwise people have to travel out the area.  It is a short distance from the town centre shops.

Other Comments

 There is potential the proposal will stand out. To minimise the visual impact there is a need to ensure that the tree planting scheme as proposed is designed to help break up the frontage and visually shield parts of the new development.  The proposal should incorporate sustainable features such as solar panels and environmental features for the provision of bird nesting.  The proposal shares an entrance onto Station Road, which is often congested, Derbyshire County Council should advise on schemes to alleviate this worsening problem.  The adjacent Peak Rail site is not big enough for a station. Trains could run to Sheffield and Manchester now and in the future to Matlock  In the meantime the plot could be used as a car park. It should be bought by the Borough Council.

Consultations

Consultee Comment Officer response Police There are no objections to the use of this site 6.28 for extra care accommodation. The detail provided is appropriate for the intended occupant profile from a community safety perspective.

The building elevations should provide an outlook for passive supervision of the surrounding area, also the potential access drive for the proposed health care facility to the east.

Consequently we would welcome the proposal in bringing greater ownership and occupancy into this more peripheral town centre area. DCC We were consulted in 2015 in relation to the 6.23 Archaeology development of this site for retail (HPK/2014/0560). At this time, my colleague Steve Baker provided the following advice:

The application site is a substantial area of c2.5ha, located some 100m outside the Buxton Area of Archaeological Interest, corresponding to the likely area of Roman

Page 82 4 activity in the town. I note however that the site has a history of substantial ground disturbance, in the context of development of the railways during the 19th century, and in construction and landscaping of the late 20th century commercial and industrial uses now within the site. It is clear that substantial terracing and infilling of ground has been carried out during this period, and I feel that the potential for encountering early archaeology is therefore minimal.

The historic railway development within the site, dating from the 1860s (Derbyshire Historic Environment Record 2885) is also of archaeological and historic interest. The proposal area contained the Midland Railway’s goods shed and possibly also the LNWR goods shed, as well as sidings and other peripheral buildings. Although the Midland Railway goods shed survived as late as 1984, there are no traces of railway architecture remaining on the site today.

Given these observation I feel that the site retains little or no archaeological potential, and I therefore recommend that there is no need to place an archaeological requirement on the applicant. With regard to setting impacts on designated heritage assets (listed buildings and conservation areas) I recommend that the application be determined in line with the advice of the local planning authority’s conservation officer and of English Heritage (now Historic England).

In the light of this assessment of the archaeological potential of the site we would have no further comments on this scheme. Derbyshire We have checked the site against the Trust’s 6.18 Wildlife Trust data sets (see Endnote) and identified a previously recorded stand of Japanese knotweed located close to the entrance on Station Road at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference: SK0597173729. No other records of protected species were identified within or adjacent to the application area for the new road.

An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was

Page 83 5 undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates (PAA) in January 2018. No significant ecological constraints are highlighted. The potential for the site to support nesting birds (both ground nesting and others) is identified, however this can be addressed through a condition and alternative nesting provision can be provided as part of the landscaping scheme. Whilst little ringed plover are mentioned in the report, given the early stage of clearance/succession and the dominance of hardstanding, the site is unlikely to support this species regularly or in any number.

The Trust encourages the retention of trees where possible and advise that compensatory native tree planting is undertaken for any that require removal. Landscaping should be designed to benefit wildlife and include native species.

PAA did not record the Japanese knotweed highlighted on our database during the extended Phase 1 habitat surveys. The location of this previously identified strand is likely to be addressed as part of the application for the access road.

Page 84 6 development, a detailed lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA to safeguard adjacent green infrastructure and its functionality for nocturnal wildlife. This should clearly show lux levels of lightspill around the proposed building and provide details of the type of lighting and any mitigating features such as shields, hoods, timers etc. Guidelines can be found in Bats and Lighting in the UK (BCT, 2009). Such approved measures will be implemented in full.  Prior to the commencement of development, a biodiversity enhancement strategy as outlined in the ecology report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure no net loss for biodiversity and aim for a net gain (NPPF 2012) . Such approved measures should be implemented in full and maintained thereafter. Measures should include: o A raptor box/ledge or swift boxes facing onto the nearby green corridor to the east. o An integral bat box in an appropriate location. o Permeable boundaries to the north and east for wildlife such as hedgehogs e.g. fencing raised above ground level, the inclusion of small gaps (130 mm x 130 mm), railings or hedgerows. o Ecologically beneficial landscaping, including native species. o Insect boxes within the roof garden.

Environment This application is situated in flood zone 1 6.22 Agency and therefore the EA has no comments to make. The Lead Local Flood Authority should be consulted for their comments on the surface water.

Page 85 7 Environmental The phase 2 contaminated land site 6.7 Health investigation submitted in support of the application (ARC Environmental, ref: 17-883, dated 15th January 2018) does not relate to this site. As the proposed end use of the development is particularly sensitive to the presence of land contamination, conditions 1 is recommended.

The construction/demolition stage of the development could lead to an increase of noise and dust experienced at sensitive premises and subsequent loss of amenity, for this reason conditions 2 to 6 are suggested.

Its recommended that the noise and vibration assessment (SLR, ref: 42617-T01; dated 20th February 2018) undertaken in support of the application may be accepted. Conditions 7 and 8 are recommended to protect the amenity of future building occupants, and the wider environment.

Its recommended that the lighting assessment (Strenger, March 2018) undertaken in support of the application may be accepted. Condition 9 is recommended to protect the amenity of future building occupants, and the wider environment.

Conditions: -Contaminated Land Investigation - Dust Control Measures - Construction Waste Disposal - Piling - Hours of Construction - Noise Insulation - Noise and Machinery - Lighting Details

Lead Local The proposals are to dispose of surface 6.22 Flood water at a 30% betterment to the calculated Authority Brownfield rate of discharge giving 38 l/s for the 0.396 Ha via a proposed 71m3 of Geo- cell storage attenuation with a Hydrobrake to a previously accessible combined public sewer outfall in the south east corner of the site. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) support the latest guidance from the

Page 86 8 Environment Agency in relation to climate change and would require that at the detailed design stage of the development the applicant applies a sensitivity test of 40% for a range of rainfall intensities. The LLFA wish to see that full consideration of SuDS strategies is demonstrated as according to CIRIA SuDS Manual C753. Sustainable drainage systems should seek to improve water quality, amenity and biodiversity. The Flood Risk Assessment says that infiltration will not be feasible according to the Geoenvironmental assessment. However it is not clear if an appropriate ground investigation has been undertaken to support this. Currently the application cannot demonstrate the runoff destination hierarchy as described in paragraph 80 of the planning practice guidance. The LLFA require further details of how the on-site surface water drainage systems shall be maintained and managed for the lifetime of the development to ensure the features remain functional.

Recommend conditions relating to detail design and management of surface water drainage to be submitted, agreed and implemented, detailed assessment to demonstrate that the destination for surface water accords with para 80 of the PPG, submission of details of how additional surface run off will be avoided during construction. Highways I refer to the above applications that have 6.11 recently been forwarded to this Authority for highway comments together with earlier correspondence and discussions concerning development of the site.

A single Transportation Assessment has been prepared in support of 3no. separate applications these being for a Care Home (Full), a healthcare facility with additional office accommodation (Outline), and an extended access road with modified junction arrangement with Station Road (Full).

The Transportation Assessment estimates

Page 87 9 that the number of trips generated by the previous/ extant use of the site would be around one twentieth of the peak hour traffic forecast to be generated by the proposed development when completed in its entirety. However, subject to modification of the existing junction with Station Road to provide a right turn harbourage, the capacity assessment indicates that the junction would operate satisfactorily albeit with some queuing on the egress arm.

The junction of Manchester Road with St Johns Road has also been assessed, this indicating that in 2023 the approach arm from the latter would be approaching capacity in the AM peak without development and exceed capacity in the same period with inclusion of development related traffic. It’s predicted that queuing on the St Johns Road approach arm would effectively treble in length from 6no. vehicles (no development) to 17no. vehicles (with development).

As you will be aware, in order to mitigate the impacts of previous development proposals for this site, the Highway Authority has suggested intervention measures that could, for example, include real time car parking availability signing together with some traffic control / management measures funding for which would need to be secured under any Section 106 Agreement covering the site. The Transport Assessment supporting the current proposals considers that a developer contribution towards such a scheme could be provided. Obviously, the details behind the mitigation scheme, including future management and maintenance (for which a commuted sum may be required), will still need to be confirmed and contributions apportioned as appropriate.

Page 88 10 parked on the local highway network not currently subject to restriction and potential to prejudice its safe and efficient operation. With this in mind, it’s suggested that funding is secured for further traffic management measures on the local highway network should these prove necessary within a monitoring period of 5 years post opening of the full development, e.g. investigation into and subsequent implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders.

A Potential Access Arrangement drawing is included within the Transportation Assessment demonstrating how the aforementioned right turn harbourage may be accommodated within the existing limits of Station Road. Although, when taking into consideration the existing nature and volume of traffic using the A53, exit visibility sightlines of 2.4m x 43m aren’t considered to be appropriate, it’s suggested that the recommended sightlines of 2.4m x 47m should be achievable.

Whilst a 40m length of harbourage ‘pocket’ is referred to within the text, other than the exit visibility sightlines, there is no indication of proposed dimensions. The Highway Authority recommends that lane widths of 3.25m are provided with 1 in 20 tapers to form the turning lane. A revised, fully dimensioned, layout will need to be submitted for approval.

Swept path analysis of the proposed junction (as submitted) for use by both 10m Rigid and Large Refuse Vehicles have been submitted. Whilst these demonstrate minor encroachment into opposing lanes for left turn manoeuvres, when taking into consideration the nature of proposed development and the perceived number of trips by such vehicles that may be generated, it’s suggested that this would be unlikely to cause severe harm to safe operation of the public highway. However, further swept path analysis would need to be submitted in the event of the proposed junction layout being revised.

Page 89 11 The submitted details demonstrate introduction of a central refuge within the carriageway of Station Road approximately 75m to the east of the access road junction and creation of a formal pedestrian crossing point. Whilst introduction of the island is acceptable, it’s considered that there should be no formal pedestrian facilities associated with this.

It will be necessary for the applicant to enter into an Agreement with the Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 in order to carry out any Works within the public highway i.e. modification of the existing junction, introduction of central island, etc.

It’s not clear whether it’s intended to have a separate pedestrian access to the Care Home site in the vicinity of the access road/ Station Road junction and there doesn’t appear to be any information relating to access/ facilities for cycle users.

It’s appreciated that the proposed health centre application is Outline with all matters reserved, however, the Proposed Site Plan suggests that pedestrian access between the site and Charles Road is to be retained/ re- opened. Any subsequent Full or Reserved Matters application should take into account safe pedestrian and cycle access both to and through the site (e.g. the footway adjacent to the proposed access road is currently demonstrated as ceasing at the site boundary beyond which there would be shared pedestrian and vehicular use of the car parking area with no designated route to/from the proposed building).

You may be aware that this Authority’s Countryside Section have aspirations for a proposed Greenway across the southern frontage of the site and you may wish to seek that this isn’t prejudiced by the proposed internal site layout.

Comments with respect to the Framework Travel Plan are appended to this letter. It’s

Page 90 12 recommended that funding is secured under the Section 106 Agreement for future monitoring of the Travel Plan for each of the separate developments over a 5 year post opening period on the basis of £1,000 per annum per development i.e. a total of £5,000 for each of the Care Home, Health Centre and LPA Offices giving an overall total of £15,000.

The Highway Authority has previously advised that consideration should be given by the applicant to enhancement of existing bus stop shelters and seating to encourage use by visitors to the development. It’s suggested that this may form a part of post determination negotiations with funding secured under the Section 106 Agreement.

Therefore, it’s recommended that the applicant is given opportunity to submit revised details to demonstrate that the proposed junction modifications can be satisfactorily accommodated prior to determination.

However, should you be minded to approve the proposals as submitted, Highway Authority recommendations for the S106, Conditions and Advisory Notes are as follows:-

S106

It’s assumed a single Section 106 Agreement will be prepared with each of the developers signatory to it. This being the case, it’s recommended that funding is secured for:-

 Implementation, management and maintenance of active car parking signage prior to the development being brought into use.  Investigation into, and implementation of, traffic management measures should these prove necessary within 5 years of the entire development being brought into use.  Travel Plan monitoring for 5 years post opening of each element of

Page 91 13 development.  Enhancement of bus stop facilities prior to any part of the development being brought into use.

Conditions

 No development shall take place including any works of demolition until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: a. Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors b. routes for construction traffic c. hours of operation d. method of prevention of debris being carried onto highway e. pedestrian and cyclist protection f. proposed temporary traffic restrictions g. arrangements for turning vehicles  Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall not be commenced until a detailed scheme of highway improvement works for the modification of the existing access road junction with Station Road and provision of a carriageway central island together with a programme for the implementation and completion of the works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use until the required highway improvement works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt the developer will be required to enter into a 1980 Highways Act S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority

Page 92 14 in order to comply with the requirements of this Condition.  The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be occupied/ taken into use until space has been provided within the application site in accordance with the approved application drawings for the parking/ loading and unloading/ picking up and setting down passengers/ manoeuvring of residents/ visitors/ staff/ customers/ service and delivery vehicles (including secure covered cycle parking), laid out, surfaced and maintained throughout the life of the development free from any impediment to its designated use.  No part of the development shall be occupied until details of arrangements for storage of bins and collection of waste have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the facilities retained for the designated purposes at all times thereafter.  The Approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timescales specified therein, to include those parts identified as being implemented prior to occupation and following occupation, unless alternative timescales are agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Approved Travel Plan shall be monitored and reviewed in accordance with the agreed Travel Plan targets.

Advisory Notes

Page 93 15 a dish channel or gulley laid across the access immediately behind the back edge of the highway, discharging to a drain or soakaway within the site.  Pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, no works may commence within the limits of the public highway without the formal written Agreement of the County Council as Highway Authority. Advice regarding the technical, legal, administrative and financial processes involved in Section 278 Agreements may be obtained from the Strategic Director of Economy Transport and Community at County Hall, Matlock (tel: 01629 538658). The applicant is advised to allow approximately 12 weeks in any programme of works to obtain a Section 278 Agreement.  Car parking spaces should measure 2.4m x 5.5m (larger in the case of spaces for use by disabled drivers) with adequate space behind each space for manoeuvring.  Under the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004, all works that involve breaking up, resurfacing and / or reducing the width of the carriageway require a notice to be submitted to Derbyshire County Council for Highway, Developer and Street Works. Works that involve road closures and / or are for a duration of more than 11 days require a three months notice. Developer's Works will generally require a three months notice. Developers and Utilities (for associated services) should prepare programmes for all works that are required for the development by all parties such that these can be approved through the coordination, noticing and licensing processes. This will require utilities and developers to work to agreed programmes and booked slots for each part of the works. Developers considering all scales of development are advised to

Page 94 16 enter into dialogue with Derbyshire County Council's Highway Noticing Section at the earliest stage possible and this includes prior to final planning consents.

Severn Trent Foul and surface water is proposed to 6.22 connect into the public sewer, both of which will be subject to formal section 106 sewer connection approvals.

For the use or reuse of sewer connections either direct or indirect to the public sewerage system the applicant will be required to make a formal application to the Company under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. They may obtain copies of our current guidance notes and application form from either our website (www.stwater.co.uk) or by contacting our Developer Services Team (Tel: 0800 707 6600).

Suggested Informative Severn Trent Water advise that although our statutory sewer records do not show any public sewers within the area you have specified, there may be sewers that have been recently adopted under The Transfer Of Sewer Regulations 2011. Public sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent and you are advised to contact Severn Trent Water to discuss your proposals. Severn Trent will seek to assist you obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building.

NB. We have clean water apparatus within the proposed application site, the developer will need to contact Severn Trent Water Developer Services Team as detailed below to assess their proposed plans for diversion requirements.

Regeneration The proposal is for the development of a new 6.4 multi-agency healthcare campus at former Buxton Mineral Water site, Station Road, Buxton. This is in line with the key growth priorities of the High Peak Growth Strategy;

Page 95 17 • Investing in Community infrastructure • Improving the quality of life offer The proposal will provide the following outputs: • Achieving efficiencies - The proposal will replace several disparate and isolated healthcare services in Buxton, with a new, modern facility and provide efficiencies through a shared site. • Increasing footfall in the town centre - the town centre location and proximity to key transport networks means it will be easily accessible and encourage increased footfall and prolonged dwell time in the town • Parking provision - The development will generate additional car parking provision in line with estimated need .

• Jobs - Secure 180 full time and 155 part time jobs in Buxton Alliance My colleague commented on this application 6.28 Environmental earlier in the year stating that there was very Services little information on the bin storage area. The (Waste) internal bin store shown on the plan does not look like there is enough room for the number of bins required for 65 apartments and there is no indication that there is an external bin store. In theory the bin capacity for 65 apartments should be 15600 litres that is approximately 14 x 1100 bins for refuse and 12 x 1280 for recycling. However because it will be just one or two people living in each flat we can probably reduce that down to 10 x 1100 refuse bins and 8 x 1280 recycling. Even with less bin capacity that they are entitled to there isn’t enough room. The bin store shows 4 large bins and 5 smaller bins.

HPBC Tree There are trees and shrubs on site - none of 6.2 Officer any particular individual merit but the vast majority area to be removed to accommodate the proposals.

The most important aspect of the site in landscaping terms is to the south and the A53.

The proposed landscaping is combination of standard trees, native under planting with ornamental shrubs closer to the building.

Page 96 18 In principal this is ok but the standard trees area made up of a narrow selection of small/medium trees with limited life expectance. The tree selection relies heavily on 2 families which make up 78% of all trees on site.

There should be a greater diversity of species on the site to create a more interesting , resilient and sustainable landscaping scheme

Therefore I have no over riding objections on Arboricultural grounds but I consider that the landscaping scheme could be improved and as such the submission of a revised scheme should be a condition of approval

Network Rail NR owns the access road referred to in the 6.31 proposal and if any changes or works are required to the road this will require the agreement of Network Rail.

The outside party / applicant will require Network Rail agreement to works/changes to the access in addition to any planning consent from the council.

On applications 124 and 120 the plan on page 16 of the Flood Risk Assessment shows the red line within Network Rail’s land ownership on the northern boundary, this is incorrect. All Network Rail should be removed from the red line proposal area.

The outside party and the council are informed that there is to be no parking of construction vehicles or contractor vehicles on the access road at any time due to Network Rail and Northern Rail access requirements and all vehicles associated with the development must be parked on the development site. Network Rail and Northern Rail require access and egress on the road around the clock (24/7, 365) including weekends, night-time, bank holidays as well as for emergency vehicles.

When designing proposals, the developer

Page 97 19 and LPA are advised, that any measurements must be taken from the operational railway / Network Rail boundary and not from the railway tracks themselves. From the existing railway tracks to the Network Rail boundary fence, the land will include critical infrastructure (e.g. cables, signals, overhead lines, communication equipment etc) and boundary treatments which might be adversely impacted by outside party proposals unless the necessary asset protection measures are undertaken. No proposal should increase Network Rail’s liability.

The developer is to submit directly to Network Rail, a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) for all works to be undertaken within 10m of the operational railway under Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, and this is in addition to any planning consent. Network Rail would need to be re-assured the works on site follow safe methods of working and have also taken into consideration any potential impact on Network Rail land and the existing operational railway infrastructure. Builder to ensure that no dust or debris is allowed to contaminate Network Rail land as the outside party would be liable for any clean-up costs. Review and agreement of the RAMS will be undertaken between Network Rail and the applicant/developer. The applicant /developer should submit the RAMs directly to: [email protected]

Proposals for the site should take into account the recommendations of, ‘BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’, which needs to be applied to prevent long term damage to the health of trees on Network Rail land so that they do not become a risk to members of the public in the future.

All vegetation on site should be in line with the attached matrix.

The developer/applicant must ensure that

Page 98 20 their proposal, both during construction and as a permanent arrangement, does not affect the safety, operation or integrity of the existing operational railway / Network Rail land. The works on site must not undermine or damage or adversely impact any railway land and structures. There must be no physical encroachment of the proposal onto Network Rail land, no over-sailing into Network Rail air-space and no encroachment of foundations onto Network Rail land and boundary treatments. Any future maintenance must be conducted solely within the applicant’s land ownership.

Any scaffolding which is to be constructed within 10 metres of the Network Rail / railway boundary must be erected in such a manner that at no time will any poles over-sail the railway and protective netting around such scaffolding must be installed. The applicant / applicant’s contractor must consider if they can undertake the works and associated scaffolding / access for working at height within the footprint of their land ownership boundary. The applicant is reminded that when pole(s) are erected for construction or maintenance works, must have at least a 3m failsafe zone between the maximum height of the pole(s) and the railway boundary.

Page 99 21 the piling.  The impact upon the railway is dependent upon the distance from the railway boundary of the piling equipment, the type of soil the development is being constructed upon and the level of vibration. Each proposal is therefore different and thence the need for Network Rail to review the piling details / method statement. Maximum allowable levels of vibration - CFA piling is preferred as this tends to give rise to less vibration. Excessive vibration caused by piling can damage railway structures and cause movement to the railway track as a result of the consolidation of track ballast. The developer must demonstrate that the vibration does not exceed a peak particle velocity of 5mm/s at any structure or with respect to the rail track.

With a development of a certain height that may/will require use of a tower crane, the developer must bear in mind the following. Tower crane usage adjacent to railway infrastructure is subject to stipulations on size, capacity etc. which needs to be agreed by Network Rail’s Asset Protection prior to implementation. Tower cranes have the potential to topple over onto the railway; the arms of the cranes could over- sail onto Network Rail air-space and potentially impact any overhead lines, or drop materials accidentally onto the existing infrastructure. Crane working diagrams, specification and method of working must be submitted for review and agreement prior to work(s) commencing on site.

Page 100 22  Any soakaways for the proposal must be placed at least 30m from the railway boundary.  Any drainage proposals for less than 30m from the railway boundary must ensure that surface and foul waters are carried from site in closed sealed pipe systems.  Suitable drainage or other works must be provided and maintained by the developer to prevent surface water flows or run-off onto Network Rail’s property.  Proper provision must be made to accept and continue drainage discharging from Network Rail’s property.  Drainage works must not impact upon culverts on developers land including culverts/brooks etc that drain under the railway.  The developer must ensure that there is no surface or sub-surface flow of water towards the operational railway.

Network Rail will need to review and agree all excavation and earthworks within 10m of the railway boundary to determine if the works impact upon the support zone of our land and infrastructure as well as determining relative levels in relation to the railway. Network Rail would need to agree to the following:  Alterations to ground levels  De-watering works  Ground stabilisation works Network Rail would need to review and agree the methods of construction works on site to ensure that there is no impact upon critical railway infrastructure. No excavation works are to commence without agreement from Network Rail. The LPA are advised that the impact of third party excavation and earthworks can be different depending on the geography and soil in the area. The LPA and developer are also advised that support zones for railway infrastructure may extend beyond the railway boundary and into the proposal area; therefore consultation with Network Rail is requested. Any right of support must be maintained by the

Page 101 23 developer.

Network Rail requests that the developer ensures there is a minimum 2 metres gap between the buildings and structures on site and the railway boundary. Less than 2m from the railway boundary to the edge of structures could result in construction and future maintenance works being undertaken on Network Rail land. This would not be acceptable. All the works undertaken to facilitate the design and layout of the proposal should be undertaken wholly within the applicant’s land ownership footprint.

The LPA and the developer (along with their chosen acoustic contractor) are recommended to engage in discussions to determine the most appropriate measures to mitigate noise and vibration from the existing operational railway to ensure that there will be no future issues for residents once they take up occupation of the dwellings.

Network Rail is aware that residents of dwellings adjacent to or in close proximity to, or near to the existing operational railway have in the past discovered issues upon occupation of dwellings with noise and vibration. It is therefore a matter for the developer and the LPA via mitigation measures and conditions to ensure that any existing noise and vibration, and the potential for any future noise and vibration are mitigated appropriately prior to construction.

To note are:  The current level of railway usage may be subject to change at any time without prior notification including increased frequency of trains, night time train running, heavy freight trains, trains run at weekends /bank holidays.  Maintenance works to trains could be undertaken at night and may mean leaving the trains’ motors running which can lead to increased levels of noise and vibration.  Network Rail carry out works at night on the operational railway when

Page 102 24 normal rail traffic is suspended and these works can be noisy and cause vibration.  Network Rail may need to conduct emergency works on the existing operational railway line which may not be notified to residents in advance due to their safety critical nature, and may occur at any time of the day or night, during bank holidays and at weekends.  Works to the existing operational railway may include the presence of plant and machinery as well as vehicles and personnel for works.  The proposal should not prevent Network Rail from its statutory undertaking. Network Rail is a track authority. It may authorise the use of the track by train operating companies or independent railway operators, and may be compelled to give such authorisation. Its ability to respond to any enquiries regarding intended future use is therefore limited.  The scope and duration of any Noise and Vibration Assessments may only reflect the levels of railway usage at the time of the survey.  Any assessments required as part of CDM (Construction Design Management) or local planning authority planning applications validations process are between the developer and their appointed contractor.  Network Rail cannot advise third parties on specific noise and vibration mitigation measures. Such measures will need to be agreed between the developer, their approved acoustic contractor and the local planning authority.  Design and layout of proposals should take into consideration and mitigate against existing usage of the operational railway and any future increase in usage of the said existing operational railway.  Noise and Vibration Assessments

Page 103 25 should take into account any railway depots, freight depots, light maintenance depots in the area. If a Noise and Vibration Assessment does not take into account any depots in the area then the applicant will be requested to reconsider the findings of the report.

Where a proposal calls for the following adjacent to the boundary with the operational railway, running parallel to the operational railway or where the existing operational railway is below the height of the proposal site:  hard standing areas  turning circles  roads, public highways to facilitate access and egress from developments Network Rail would very strongly recommend the installation of suitable high kerbs or crash barriers (e.g. Armco Safety Barriers).

This is to prevent vehicle incursion from the proposal area impacting upon the safe operation of the railway.

As the proposal includes works which may impact the existing operational railway and in order to facilitate the above, a BAPA (Basic Asset Protection Agreement) will need to be agreed between the developer and Network Rail. The developer will be liable for all costs incurred by Network Rail in facilitating this proposal, including any railway site safety costs, possession costs, asset protection costs / presence, site visits, review and agreement of proposal documents and any buried services searches. The BAPA will be in addition to any planning consent.

The applicant / developer should liaise directly with Asset Protection to set up the BAPA.

Historic The quality of the historic environment in England Buxton is very high; this is reflected in the number of listed buildings it contains relative to its size with seven highly graded structures, the presence of two registered

Page 104 26 parks and the areas of townscape laid out to a historic design which remain recognisable as such. The importance and quality of Buxton as a historic town is indicated by the considerable amount of public funding invested in the area over the last 30 years, including significant sums from the Heritage Lottery Fund and sustained investment from English Heritage, now Historic England, in both areas based funding, the Devonshire Royal and the Crescent.

The application site is the site of the former bottling plant. The site lies on the north side of Station Road on rising land. The site is located outside and is visible from both the Central and Hardwick conservation areas. Both conservation areas contain numerous listed buildings; prominent within the Central conservation area is the Grade I listed Crescent and the associated Grade II registered park and garden (PAG) of the Slopes. The proposed development has the potential to affect the significance the conservation areas and numerous listed buildings within derive from their settings.

The site is immediately adjacent to the Grade II listed station and the Grade II listed viaduct is a strong visual feature to the east. The viaduct rises well above the townscape in the valley bottom and provides a strong horizontal line above much smaller scale buildings below it which tend to have a strong vertical emphasis. There is also a strong contrast between the viaduct and the wider tightly grained townscape of the conservation area on Spring Gardens. To the west of the development site the townscape features large listed buildings set in landscaped grounds- The Grade II listed Palace Hotel and Grade II* listed former Devonshire Royal Hospital. The Grade I listed Crescent facing the Slopes (PAG) is located to the south west. The Spring Gardens development lies immediately to the south of the development site and the large open

Page 105 27 car park means that the site is clearly visible from the Hardwick conservation area.

The Slopes was laid out in its current form by Jeffrey Wyatville c.1815. It incorporates a series of classical urns, individually listed Grade II*. The Grade II listed war memorial is located within the centre of the Slopes and sits on a square stone platform. The Slopes incorporates a series of curved terraced paths which are met by a further series of paths curving in the opposite direction forming a pattern of interlocking ellipses on a steeply sloping bank. The Slopes were designed as pleasure gardens in association with the development of Buxton as a spa resort and were funded by the Duke of Devonshire. Considering the steep topography of the site and the extensive network of paths throughout, there is little doubt, that the Slopes were designed to take advantage of the views that could be gained of the town and landscape beyond as increasingly wider views of the townscape of Buxton are gained when walking up the slopes.

Historically, the application site was developed in the 19th century and featured sidings and associated structures.

The site is covered by the Buxton Station Road Design Framework SPD, adopted August 2007 by your authority, which considers opportunities for the regeneration of the area. Both the Vision (page 23) and subsequent detail design principles at section 5 are relevant to an assessment of the proposal.

Impact

The proposal is for the erection of accommodation for older people, landscaping and car-parking. The proposed building is L shape in plan form and four storeys in height, with an additional roof terrace/winter garden. The proposed cladding materials include pale grey

Page 106 28 limestone panels and grey zinc cladding to some of the balconies.

We note that heritage assessment contained within the Design, Access and Sustainability Statement provides only a very limited assessment in relation to the potential impact of the proposed development on the significance the heritage assets affected, including the contribution made by their setting. As you are aware paragraph 128 of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. It will be for your authority to consider whether there is sufficient information to determine this application in line with 128 of the NPPF.

Notwithstanding the limited information provided, we have concerns that the building as proposed would appear as a, bulky, monolithic block within the surrounding townscape, by virtue of its scale, massing and design. In particular, we believe it would have an overbearing presence in relation to the adjacent single storey Station building. At the proposed four storeys with an additional roof terrace/winter garden, we consider that the development would be unduly dominant. The dominance of the proposed development in relation to the adjacent station is clearly shown in the street scene and perspectives drawing provided within the supporting information. The Aldi supermarket located towards the east end of Station Road and the Waitrose supermarket to the south of the site are at a lower level and scale, appearing less visually prominent within the surrounding townscape in comparison to the current proposal.

Page 107 29 Similarly, we have concerns that the proposed building would appear visually intrusive within key views. There are important ‘arrival or gateway’ views looking west from the Grade II listed viaduct which benefit from a significant height difference between the viaduct and adjacent buildings and include the Station Road approach, the tree line to the north, the station, and the roof scape of the Palace Hotel and the dome of the former Devonshire Royal hospital (listed Grade II*). The reverse view from the junction of Palace Road and Station Road is similarly identified in the SPD as an important gateway location; the viaduct is again a strong feature, with the Aldi and station being much lower level in this vista. The scale and mass of the proposed development would be visually prominent within these views.

The proposed development would also be visible above the Grove hotel from the War Memorial platform and as progress is made further up the slope would be a visually prominent feature in views from the Slopes and from the rear of the Spring Gardens. It would also be visible, though less prominent, from with the Assembly Rooms and the Crescent.

In our view, the proposal in its current form would therefore be harmful to the significance which the listed buildings affected within these areas derive from their setting, in particular the Grade II listed station and Viaduct as outlined above. The development would also have a harmful impact on the significance which the Hardwick and Central conservation areas derive from their settings.

The principle of development on the Station Road frontage is an important element of the aspirations for the site contained within the Buxton Station Road Design Framework SPD. Paragraph 5.9 Scale- states that new development in this area should

Page 108 30 • exploit the sloping landform of the area to enhance the town and its landscape setting - ensuring that the height, scale and massing of development is related to surrounding buildings, respects the existing skyline, does not adversely affect key views and vistas (in and out, across and within the area) and avoids obtrusive roof forms and roof top plant; responds to the sloping topography of much of the study; area and steps up the valley side to the Railway Station avoiding blank facades and large monolithic building blocks with poor permeability

The proposed development therefore does not currently appear to accord with your own SPD. We are content to defer the judgment of your in-house conservation officer for detailed consideration of the proposed materials to be used.

Policy

Your authority should aim to achieve the objective of sustainable development which means development that achieves social, economic and environmental gains. Conservation of the historic environment is recognised as one of the 12 core principles of sustainable development in the NPPF.

The importance attached to significance with respect to heritage assets is also recognised by the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in guidance, including The Planning Practice Guidance.

Significance can be harmed or lost through development and any harm or loss to significance ‘should require clear and convincing justification’ (paragraph 132, NPPF).

Paragraph 131 of the NPPF, reminds us that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage

Page 109 31 assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness

Paragraphs 63-65 are concerned with raising standards of design.

Position

Development of the site presents an opportunity to enhance the surroundings of individual listed buildings, such as the Grade II listed station and the conservation areas, as well as improving the appearance of an important gateway route through Buxton (Station Road). As such, Historic England supports the vision and design principles contained within the Buxton Station Road Design Framework SPD, adopted by your authority in 2007.

However, notwithstanding the limited information provided, we consider that the scale, mass and design of the building as currently proposed would have a harmful impact on the significance of individual listed buildings including the Station, the Viaduct, and the Grade II registered Slopes. It would also have a harmful impact on the significance which the conservation areas derive from their setting. In addition it appears to us that the proposal fails to correspond to your own SPD.

Ultimately it will be for your authority as the decision-maker to weigh the public benefits associated with the scheme against the harm, taking into account any ‘clear and convincing’ justification (paragraph 134 of the NPPF).

Recommendation

Historic England has concerns regarding the

Page 110 32 application on heritage grounds as outlined above. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 128,131,132, and 134 of the NPPF.

However, we believe the current scheme could be significantly improved both by reducing the scale of the proposed building and breaking up its overall massing. We recommend that the scheme is revised accordingly with the benefit of advice from your in-house conservation officer, drawing on the existing SPD for the site, to reflect our advice.

In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Peak Rail We hold a neutral view with regard to the uses set out in these proposals. However, we object to the applications in their current form on the following basis:

1. All three proposals would totally eliminate our existing vehicular and pedestrian rights over the subject land. These rights must be maintained in order to enable access to our site for the operation of a commercial railway.

2.With regard to application No. HPK/2018/120 and to a lesser extent application No. HPK/2018/125, both sites are subject to Peak Rail's Light Railway Order

Page 111 33 (1990 No. 2350) which grants the company power to build and operate a railway over this land. Although none of the land, including that within Peak Rail's ownership is currently operational, it is our intention to reinstate services in Buxton during the next three to five years, at which time we would propose to acquire ownership of all land necessary for this purpose.

It must be stressed that the very existence of a Light Railway Order on land reserves the railway operator's rights regardless of ownership insofar as the "statutory purpose " of the Order remains regardless of whether or not the land is currently used for railway purposes

In conclusion, we must comment that much work, time and money on the part of the applicants could have been saved had they had the courtesy or common sense to contact Peak Rail and discuss their proposals with us at an early stage. Derbyshire All new premises should be protected by an Fire and automatic sprinkler system Rescue HPBC This is a key site that is in need of a Conservation prominent, high quality, landmark building of Officer its time so as to be consistent with the principles approved in the Station Road Urban Design Framework and the Buxton Design and Place Making Strategy SPDs. There have been a number of proposals for the site in the past in which officers have argued for the need for the development to address both Station Road and the station forecourt itself. By so doing, and in the course of time, there is the potential to create a new public square in front of the station that is commensurate with the gateway nature of the site for those people arriving in Buxton by train. The proposals are of an appropriate form and site footprint. They are also considered to be of a high quality in terms of the proposed materials and the overall contemporary design.

Notwithstanding this, officers have held protracted discussions about the elevational

Page 112 34 treatment. The revised plans are much improved in comparison with the earlier sets. Ideally, the preferred scale of development on this site would be a storey less that that proposed however, it is accepted that the development has to deliver a sufficient number of flats to be viable.

To address the impact of the building on the key elevations facing Station Road, the station forecourt and Aldi, officers have consistently argued for a modular format along the lines of an earlier scheme approved on this site (in association with a proposed Tesco superstore). Unfortunately, a fully modular development is not possible due to the need to have corridor access on all floors across the whole length of the building. The elevations have therefore been designed with substantially recessed sections which are reduced in height to three storeys rather than the four. This leads to an unusual design but successfully breaks the main Station Road elevation into three units and the elevation facing Aldi into two. As such, I feel that it works in the context of this site and location.

The other issue has been the design of a cornice/roof detail at the top of the elevations to address the rather brutal look of some of the earlier designs. Some provisional sketches were submitted in advance of the current revised drawings which showed a more prominent cornice detail than that now included. In a similar vein, it was agreed that the Station Road/station forecourt building corner should be emphasised with an enhanced cornice detail to improve the building’s legibility.

The site’s landscaping looks to be of a high quality although I cannot find any key to the proposed hard surface treatments. These should be natural stone to match the buildings or a resin bound stone gravel. The propose railings are a simple robust response to the site’s town centre location although, a detailed point, the specification for the vertical bars (16mm x 16 mm) look to

Page 113 35 be rather lightweight and would be improved by something a little heavier – suggest 20 mm x 20 mm. Summary issues:  need to review the cornice detail around the building and the enhanced version of on the Station Road/station forecourt corner.

 need for confirmation of hard landscaping materials

 need to review the railing details

 need to submit stone samples

 POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context

6.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

6.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan consists of the adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016.

Principle of Development.

6.3 The site lies within the Station Road and Spring Gardens Regeneration Area, which is allocated in Policy DS3 in the High Peak Local Plan April 2016 for “Town Centre regeneration uses, including residential, office, hotel and tourist accommodation, leisure and cultural related developments.” It is noted that under Policy H2 of the plan, the site is expected to deliver c.30 dwellings, which are included within the Borough’s housing land supply. Whilst the proposed 54 extracare apartments are considered to fall within Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions) rather than Class C3 (Dwellinghouses), it is considered to be a residential use. Furthermore, it will contribute to meeting housing need, particularly as occupants of the units will vacate C3 dwellinghouses elsewhere within the Borough. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with policies DS3 and H2 of the local plan.

Page 114 36 6.4 It is also noted that Policy DS22 requires:

 Preparation of a comprehensive development plan and phasing programme, including a physical design assessment and viability appraisal;  Heritage Assessment;  Archaeological Assessment;  Contributions towards infrastructure, services and other community needs, including:  local labour agreement employment and training scheme; highway, parking and traffic management measures; greenways and public realm;  Provision of additional parking (approximately 30 spaces) to serve Buxton Station to the north of Station Road  Transport Assessment;  Travel Plan;  Environmental Impact Assessment if required;  Ecological Survey;  Hydrological Survey;  Flood Risk Assessment, including surface water control measures via the use of SuDS.

6.5 Subject to these requirements being met, therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Impact on Residential Amenity

6.6 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy EQ6 of the adopted Local Plan requires that development achieves a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and does not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing effect, noise, light pollution or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity.

6.7 The surrounding land uses comprise the railway and station / carpark to the north and west, the vacant Nestle site to the east and an Aldi store to the south. The nearest neighbouring residential property is over 100 metres from the site on the opposite side of the railway and therefore no amenity concerns are raised.

6.8 Concerns have been raised in respect of amenity implications of locating a residential use in close proximity to a main road and railway in respect of noise and air quality. A noise impact assessment has been submitted with the application which concludes:

The main sources of noise affecting the retirement living building are road traffic and plant noise from a nearby factory. Train noise is a minor source of noise at this location. The main sources of noise affecting the NHS building are road traffic, plant noise and freight train movement into and out of Buxton Up Relief Sidings. Standard double glazing and non-acoustic trickle vents can achieve the internal noise levels set out in BS 8233:2014 "Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings" for bedrooms and living rooms in the retirement

Page 115 37 living building In order to control noise from new plant, noise limits have been set to be met at the nearest residential receptors. Plant will be designed so that the Rating Level (as defined in BS4142) does not exceed the measured background level. I also give outline advice regarding noise affecting the NHS Building. Proximity of this building to the freight line and the nature of the train movements means that noise levels are very high. Careful consideration will need to be given to the internal arrangement of the building, ensuring that most sensitive rooms are not on the nosiest elevations. Upgrading glazing and mechanical ventilation may have to be used to bring noise levels within guidelines. Vibration from trains have been assessed to both buildings. Vibration levels are low enough that there will be a low possibility of adverse comment.

6.9 In respect of Air Quality a report has been submitted which concludes as follows:

No Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) have been declared by HPBC. There is a risk that additional traffic generated by the Proposed Development will impact on air quality at existing sensitive receptors. Additionally, due to the location of the Site close to busy main roads and the entrance to Buxton Station, there is a risk that future residents and users of the Proposed Development will be exposed to elevated pollutant concentrations. This report considers the potential air quality impacts associated with both the construction and operation of the Proposed Development. Construction phase impacts can be effectively managed through the implementation of best practice mitigation measures. Appropriate measures are recommended based on the identified level of risk. The impact of traffic emissions generated by the Proposed Development once operational on local air quality has been assessed and found to be slight adverse. Additionally, air quality for future residents and users of the Proposed Development has been considered and found to be acceptable.

6.10 The reports have been considered by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer who has raised no objection subject to suitable conditions.

6.11 With regard to amenity implications of construction the Environmental Health Officer has again recommended a number of conditions relating to such matters as dust, piling and construction noise which will adequately address these issues. In this respect it is considered that the development would comply with Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan as well as the NPPF.

Contaminated Land

6.12 A contaminated land assessment has been submitted with the application. However, this relates only to the portion of the site which is subject to the Extra Care application. It does not cover the area covered by the adjoining Healthcare Campus application. The Environmental Health Officer has advised that the site should be considered as a whole. However, he has also advised that the necessary investigations and remediation can be secured by condition.

Access and Highway Matters

Page 116 38 6.13 Policy CF6 states that the Council will seek to ensure that development can be safely accessed in a sustainable manner. Proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by unsustainable modes of transport and help deliver the priorities of the Derbyshire Local Transport Plan. This will be achieved by, inter alia:

 Requiring that all new development is located where the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate traffic generated by the development or can be improved as part of the development  Requiring that new development can be integrated within existing or proposed transport infrastructure to further ensure choice of transportation method and enhance potential accessibility benefits  Ensuring development does not lead to an increase in on street parking to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic

6.14 Third party comments raise concerns about the traffic impact of the proposals on Station Road. The Derbyshire County Council highway engineer has provided a joint response relating to all 3 current applications on this site. He has commented that the estimated number of trips generated by the previous/ extant use of the site would be around one twentieth of the peak hour traffic forecast to be generated by the proposed development when completed in its entirety. However, subject to modification of the existing junction with Station Road to provide a right turn harbourage, the capacity assessment indicates that the junction would operate satisfactorily albeit with some queuing on the egress arm. Consequently, there are no objections on traffic impact grounds. Drawings of the junction modifications have been provided with the application. The Highway Engineer has commented that the exit visibility sightlines of 2.4m x 43m shown on the drawings are not considered to be appropriate, it’s suggested that the recommended sightlines of 2.4m x 47m should be achievable. A revised plan and implementation of the improvements can be secured by condition.

6.14 Queries have been raised regarding pedestrian access to the Care Home site in the vicinity of the access road/ Station Road junction and access/ facilities for cycle users. Answers to these points have been sought from the Developer and will be the subject of an update to Members.

6.15 Other recommended conditions relating to construction management and drainage / management of surface water run off, bin storage, provision of parking and turning areas and implementation of travel plan are reasonable and subject to these conditions the proposal is considered to comply with Local Plan Policy in respect of highway safety.

Page 117 39 6.16 In terms of sustainability, the site is conveniently located in the town centre, in very close proximity to the railway station, nearby public parking and transport links including bus stops on Station Road.

6.17 It is therefore considered that there are no highway safety objections and the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the local road network. The proposal therefore complies with the provisions of the NPPF and policy CF6 of the adopted Local Plan 2016 in this regard.

Ecology

6.18 Policy EQ5 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that biodiversity interests will be conserved and where possible enhanced.

6.19 In respect of the proposals Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) have commented that they have checked the site against the Trust’s data sets and identified a previously recorded strand of Japanese knotweed located close to the entrance on Station Road at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference: SK0597173729. No other records of protected species were identified within or adjacent to the application area for the new road.

6.20 They comment that an extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken in January 2018. No significant ecological constraints are highlighted. The potential for the site to support nesting birds (both ground nesting and others) is identified. However this can be addressed through a condition and alternative nesting provision can be provided as part of the landscaping scheme. Whilst little ringed plover are mentioned in the report, given the early stage of clearance/succession and the dominance of hardstanding, the site is unlikely to support this species regularly or in any number. They also recommend that compensatory native tree planting is undertaken for any trees that require removal. Landscaping should be designed to benefit wildlife and include native species. It is considered that these requirements can be secured as part of the submission of landscaping details at the reserved matters stage.

6.21 Should the council be minded to approve this application, DWT advise that conditions should also be imposed to protect breeding birds, and provide details of external lighting. These appear to be reasonable conditions to impose on the outline consent and subject to compliance with the above the scheme is considered to comply with Local Plan Policy in respect of ecology.

Flooding

6.22 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 which is the area at least risk of Flooding. The Environment Agency has been consulted on the application and raised no objection. Similarly no objection has been received from Severn Trent. The Lead Local Flood Authority has also been consulted and asked for a number of points of clarification. These comments have been passed on to the developer and a response has been provided to the LLFA. Final comments have been provided by the Lead Local Flood Authority confirming that they no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Accordingly it complies with Policy EQ11 of the adopted Local Plan.

Archaeology

Page 118 40 6.23 The site was formerly part of the joint London Midland Railway and Midland Railway station and good facilities, the goods shed having survived into the 1980’s. However, all remaining traces of the railway were removed when the bottling plant was constructed and therefore the County Archaeologist has raised no objections and does not consider that further archaeological investigation or mitigation is necessary.

Design & Conservation

6.24 The site is a sensitive one in design and conservation terms. It sits alongside the listed station buildings and viaducts. It is elevated above the town with views from the site towards the Crescent, Slopes and Town Hall. Similarly from the public vantage point of the Slopes it forms a backdrop to the town including the important building of the Crescent, Devonshire Dome etc. Furthermore, from the elevated view points around the periphery of the town it will be visible and will form an important part of the townscape. It is also a key gateway into the town, particularly for those arriving by rail but also traveling along Station Road, one of the principal routes into and through the town. Careful and well thought out architectural treatment will therefore be critical to the success of the scheme and a great deal of attention will need to be paid to massing, height, materials etc.

6.25 The Council has produced a supplementary planning document “Station Road Design Framework” – Adopted July 2007 which considers how this site could be redeveloped. The aim of the document was ‘to arrive at an agreed design framework for the future development of land around Station Road’. This Design Framework establishes a number of design principles that respond to specific pressures and opportunities facing the area. These principles will inform and direct future developers and their design teams. The Design Framework does not attempt to provide a masterplan or comprehensive design for the study area.

6.26 In terms of design principles the Document envisages that development should:

 realise the full potential of the area as the gateway to the town centre;  promote and secure the sustainable design of the area;  address the negative impacts of Station Road;  reveal and integrate the River Wye (whilst addressing flood risk considerations); improve pedestrian movement and connectivity to key destinations  establish a vibrant mix of uses across the area; and  secure high quality, place specific development.

6.27 In terms of scale the document seeks to achieve development which exploits the sloping landform of the area to enhance the town and its landscape setting - ensuring that the height, scale and massing of development is related to surrounding buildings, respects the existing skyline, does not adversely affect key views and vistas (in and out, across and within the area) and avoids obtrusive roof forms and roof top plant. Moreover, development should respond to the sloping topography of the study area, steps up the valley side to the Railway Station avoiding blank facades and large monolithic building blocks with poor permeability.

Page 119 41 6.28 Specifically in terms of Character the SPD envisages that design should avoid pastiche in favour of high quality contemporary architecture that responds to the distinctive building and townscape qualities of Buxton town centre; integrate local art and craft traditions to reveal and communicate the place qualities of Buxton through the incorporation of art works and details within building and public space designs. The former bottling plant site is identified as an “area of potential change”. It is therefore considered that the scheme presents an opportunity for a high quality contemporary building utilising local materials and referencing local building traditions and the character of the town without resulting in a pastiche.

6.29 The Design as originally submitted was the subject of consideration by the Council’s Design Review Panel who raised a number of concerns. Although the Station Road Design Framework and the advice given in Building in Context seeks to promote development that works with the existing topography, the proposals only did this to the extent of sitting at a higher level than Station Road itself. Unfortunately, this resulted in a scheme that failed to positively address Station Road and provide a strong sense of enclosure to this route. There is a significant level change here and the existing landscaping and planting along this boundary should mitigate this to some extent (although may require some management and enhancement).

6.30 More importantly however, there was a missed opportunity to fulfil the requirements of the Station Road Design Framework - to positively address and enclose the station forecourt. The L shaped building, it was suggested, should be reversed to achieve this, which would allow car parking to be screened. Enhanced permeability to the front of the site from Station Road and the station forecourt should be encouraged. The proposed boundary treatment at this point (clipped hedge) the panel felt should be removed and the stone flagged surface extended to include the forecourt and footpath and provide an enhanced and seamless setting for the building.

6.31 They were also concerned that the proposed building was 4 storeys high and of a monumental scale when seen in the context of the station building (listed) and Aldi supermarket. As it sits on the plateau of the site, the development makes a significant impact on the street scene when travelling along Station Road. In order to address this, the panel felt that the building mass should be broken into smaller modular buildings with varying roof heights (3 – 4 storeys). Overall the building height should be restricted to 3 storeys with 4 storeys as a landmark/focal point at the junction with Station Road. The use of glazed subdivisions should be incorporated to break up the walling mass and present a development that appears to be a linked group of buildings. The glazed links can be used for entrance points, communal areas and circulation spaces

6.32 Overall, the panel felt that the detailed design approach of the building was acceptable and reflected the strong architectural details in Buxton (strong vertical emphasis and a contemporary approach to the Victorian bay). The top of the building looked a little on the weak side and requires a good depth/projecting cornice. The legibility of the entrance point is poor. There is no focal point to the building from the station forecourt and some form of entrance area should be considered here. Entrance points should employ the use of extensive glazing that can enhance its legibility and serve to break up the mass of the building as outlined in the point above.

Page 120 42 6.33 In general, the proposed materials are acceptable and of sufficient quality. Coursed stone should have a pitched face rather than split and should be gritstone rather than limestone. All materials, finishes and colour must be conditioned.

6.34 Third parties and Historic England also had concerns regarding the design as originally submitted. Historic England shared the view of the Design Review Panel that the building appeared as a, bulky, monolithic block within the surrounding townscape, by virtue of its scale, massing and design. They were also concerned that it would have an overbearing presence in relation to the adjacent single storey Station building and would adversely affect the setting of this building and the other heritage assets such as the viaducts.

6.35 They also had concerns that the proposed building would appear visually intrusive within key views. There are important ‘arrival or gateway’ views looking west from the Grade II listed viaduct which benefit from a significant height difference between the viaduct and adjacent buildings and include the Station Road approach, the tree line to the north, the station, and the roofscape of the Palace Hotel and the dome of the former Devonshire Royal hospital (Grade II* listed). The reverse view from the junction of Palace Road and Station Road is similarly identified in the SPD as an important gateway location; the viaduct is again a strong feature, with the Aldi and station being much lower level in this vista. The scale and mass of the proposed development would be visually prominent within these views. The proposed development would also be visible above the Grove hotel from the War Memorial platform and as progress is made further up the slope would be a visually prominent feature in views from the Slopes and from the rear of the Spring Gardens. It would also be visible, though less prominent, from with the Assembly Rooms and the Crescent.

6.37 In their view, the proposal as submitted would therefore be harmful to the significance of the listed buildings affected, in particular the Grade II listed station and Viaduct as outlined above. The development would also have a harmful impact on the significance which the Hardwick and Central conservation areas derive from their settings.

6.38 These concerns have been put to the developer and a series of productive meetings have taken place between the case officer, the Council’s Conservation and Conservation officer and the developers design team and amended plans have been submitted.

6.39 The Conservation officer has commented that he considers the amended plans to be a significant improvement in terms of the form of the building for the following reasons:

 We have been concerned about the previous slab-like appearance of the main (south) elevation and have consistently argued for a treatment that breaks the elevations down into a series of ‘modules’. This has now been achieved by recessing the elevation and reducing the number of floors from four to three at two points on the main (south) elevation and once on the east return facing Aldi – this elevation having been extended to compensate for the flats removed elsewhere. The result is a form that will read as four modules. Although we

Page 121 43 have yet to receive some further details, we have discussed further articulation of the modular by the use of a pitched stone on the recesses and smooth ashlar to the modules. I am satisfied that we have pushed the design team as far as they can go towards achieving this form.

 We have argued for a cornice detail to articulate an architectural full stop at the top of the elevation. This, combined with a slight lowering of the projecting bays, creates a visible cover or lid to each of the modules and addresses the rather brutal treatment to the elevation previously proposed without this detail.

 They have responded to our request for a stronger statement on the corner of the main south elevation and the return facing the station by including an exaggerated version of the same cornice detail.

6.40 Overall, the Conservation officer is satisfied that the design is a significant improvement on the previous proposals and provides a response which is consistent with the design advice contained within the adopted Station Road Design Framework and the Buxton Design and Place Making Strategy Supplementary Planning Documents. He has identified a number of minor outstanding matters of detail. In particular, the need to review the cornice detail around the building and the enhanced version of on the Station Road/station forecourt corner, the railing details, need for confirmation of hard landscaping materials and need to submit stone samples. However, these could be secured by condition. The revised comments from Historic England were still awaited at the time of report preparation and a further update will be provided to Members on this issue prior to committee.

6.41 The Police Liaison Officer has considered the proposal and raised no objection to the proposed design and layout. The Council’s waste collection company, AES, have also been consulted and have raised some queries with regard to waste collection arrangements. These have been passed to the developer who has requested that a condition requiring details of waste storage arrangements to be submitted and agreed be imposed. It is agreed that this is a minor matter of detail which would be appropriate for a scheme to be submitted by condition.

6.42 Overall, therefore, the proposal complies with policies EQ6 - Design and Place Making and EQ7 – Built and Historic Environment and the provisions of the NPPF with regard to protecting heritage assets.

Landscape and Trees

6.43 Policy EQ9 of the adopted Local Plan states that the Council will protect existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows, in particular, ancient woodland, veteran trees and ancient or species-rich hedgerows from loss or deterioration. This will be achieved by:

 Requiring that existing woodlands, healthy, mature trees and hedgerows are retained and integrated within a proposed development unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh their loss  Requiring new developments where appropriate to provide tree planting and soft landscaping, including where possible the replacement of any trees that are removed at a ratio of 2:1

Page 122 44  Resisting development that would directly or indirectly damage existing ancient woodland, veteran trees and ancient or species-rich hedgerows.

6.44 The area of the site concerned is predominantly hardstanding and grass verge areas with some trees and overgrown shrubs which have previously formed part of the landscaping of the site or have self-set since closure. There are no existing very mature trees of amenity value which would be adversely impacted by the proposals. The Council’s Tree Officer has considered the application and commented that there are trees and shrubs on site, none of which have any particular individual merit but the vast majority are to be removed to accommodate the proposals. The most important aspect of the site in landscaping terms is to the south and the A53. The proposed landscaping is a combination of standard trees , native under planting with ornamental shrubs closer to the building. In principle this is acceptable but the standard trees are made up of a narrow selection of small/medium trees with limited life expectance. The tree selection relies heavily on 2 families which make up 78% of all trees on site. There should be a greater diversity of species on the site to create a more interesting, resilient and sustainable landscaping scheme. Therefore she has no overriding objections on Arboricultural grounds but considers that the landscaping scheme could be improved and as such the submission of a revised scheme should be a condition of approval.

6.45 This matter has been brought to the attention of the developer and a revised landscaping scheme has been submitted. The Tree Officer has considered the revised scheme and commented that apart from the addition of a small area of woodland type planting along the frontage of the site there has been no significant change in the species composition to reflect her previous comments. Therefore she still considers that a revised and improved landscaping scheme could be provided. However, this matter can easily be addressed by condition as originally suggested by the tree officer.

Impact on Railway

6.46 The site is bounded on 2 sides by operational railway land. Network Rail has been consulted and has provided a lengthy response explaining that their consent will be required as the owners of the existing access road and expressing concern that their land is included within the red-line boundary. Given that the developer has served notice on Network Rail, due process has been followed and this is civil matter between the two parties.

6.47 Concerns about obstruction of the railway access by construction vehicles are also civil matters. They point to the requirement for a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) for all works to be undertaken within 10m of the operational railway under Construction (Design and Management) Regulations. As this is covered under other legislation it is not a material planning consideration. The developer can be made aware of this through an informative on the decision notice along with Network Rails comments about safe construction practices, scaffolding, use of virbo-compaction and piling machinery, tower cranes, drainage, excavation, separation from railway boundaries, noise and vibration from railway operations, installation of Armco barriers and asset protection agreements.

Page 123 45 6.48 In addition conditions are recommended relating to piling, drainage, construction management and lighting, which would appear to be reasonable requests. Whilst concerns about noise and vibration for new residents are noted, as detailed above, in the absence of any objection from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, and subject to suitable conditions, it is not considered that this provides sustainable grounds for refusal.

Affordable Housing

6.49 Policy H4 of the Local Plan requires a 30% affordable housing contribution on all new residential development sites of 25 units or more. The application is described as being for 54 extracare units which would fall within Use Class C2 (residential institutions) rather than C3 (dwellinghouses). Whilst policy H4 does not distinguish between different types of residential use, the Council would not normally seek contributions towards affordable housing from other C2 uses such as traditional care homes. The question is, therefore, whether the proposal does, in fact fall within the C2 use class. In this case the development comprises individual self-contained apartments which would be used by a single person or a couple which would all be offered for sale and in that respect are similar to conventional C3(a) apartments.

6.50 Residential and nursing homes fall within Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions) of the Use Classes Order, the other components of the class being hospitals, residential schools, colleges and training centres. Article 2 of the Use Classes Order 1987 provides a specific definition of care for the purposes of Class C2. It states that care means “personal care for people in need of such care by reason of old age, disablement, past or present dependence on alcohol or drugs or past or present mental disorder, and in class C2 also includes the personal care of children and medical care and treatment.”

6.51 Defining the characteristics of retirement housing has proved increasingly difficult as the market sector has evolved, with retirement housing increasingly providing for the longer term needs of residents as age and frailty increase. The term “extra-care” has come into use and is recognised as describing a range of specialist housing for the elderly. These include assisted living, extra or very sheltered housing, close care, continuing care retirement communities and retirement villages. In 2007 a, now obsolete, joint practice guidance note by the RTPI and Department of Health usefully identified the key attributes of extra-care housing as:  offering integrated housing and care;  enabling people to age in an appropriately designed building where they will receive assistance to carry on independent lives; and  providing support ranging from assistance with daily living activities, such as bathing, dressing, eating and the monitoring of medication, to the provision of intermediate care and rehabilitation services.

6.52 Typically, contracts can initially be purchased for a few hours a week for help simply with shopping and cleaning, and then added to as need arises. Such flexibility in provision, while progressive and welcome, has blurred the distinction between retirement housing and care homes and, in planning terms, between C3 and C2 uses.

Page 124 46 6.53 A decision on correct land use classification is highly relevant for the application of development plan policies in the decision making process, a Class C2 use falling to be assessed against general housing policies and triggering requirements such as affordable housing provision that may affect viability. The High Court in Leelamb Homes Ltd v SOS 09/07/2009 remitted an inspector’s decision to refuse a continuing care and retirement community in Essex. The development comprised a nursing home, 34 care bungalows and 14 affordable housing units. It had been held by the inspector that the development was contrary to local housing policies, but the development company argued that the proposal was in fact a C2 use and therefore an exception should have been made. The inspector had focussed on bungalows which would be sold as ‘extracare dwellings’ in deciding that the development was mixed C2/C3. The court ruled that the inspector had failed to take into account the appellant’s planning obligations which undertook that the dwellings would only be let to those in need of domiciliary care with at least one resident over the age of 55. The inspector had also failed to take into account the company’s pledge that the occupancy of the extra care dwellings would be managed and administered only by an operator registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection.

6.54 There are numerous Appeal examples of where inspectors and Local Planning Authorities have accepted that such extra care facilities do fall within Class C2 and therefore do not trigger affordable housing policies.

6.55 In a case at Horsham, the Inspector concluded: I turn first to the Policy argument. Policy 16, a strategic housing Policy, says that all residential developments of 5 dwellings or more will be expected to include an appropriate proportion of affordable homes, and on sites of 15 or more dwellings 35% of dwellings must be affordable…………. Turning to the justification under Policy 16 the Council says that this relates to all types of housing. However, although it refers to meeting local housing needs the requirement for an affordable housing contribution arises when over a specified number of dwellings are provided. The proposed development is agreed by the parties to be a Class C2 use in the Use Classes Order notwithstanding the proposed flats being self contained. A C2 use is defined as Use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within class C3 (dwelling houses). With that distinction having been drawn I consider that the proposed development cannot be considered as providing dwellings and thus Policy 16 cannot apply.

6.56 In another case from Lancashire the Inspector commented: Local residents argued that the development of 54 apartments should not avoid the requirements for the provision of affordable housing and other infrastructure contributions towards, for instance, public open space. The basis of the argument was that not all occupants would require care, and that therefore, parts of the building would be C3 Use Class, eligible to make the contributions. However, the C2 use will be secured by a condition in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety. Therefore, there would be no justification for requiring affordable housing or other infrastructure contributions.

6.57 In a third case from Evesham the Inspector considered the matter in detail and noted that local plan policy required the provision of affordable housing on sites of more than 15 dwellings but did not indicate how residential uses falling outside class C3 should be treated. The Council considered that the Extra Care apartments come within

Page 125 47 Use Class C3 (dwelling houses) and are therefore required to contribute towards affordable housing. The Council submitted that the Extra Care apartments constitute a number of individual planning units each of which constitutes a dwelling and therefore comes within Class C3. Each apartment would have its own living room, bathroom, kitchen and either one or two bedrooms and would therefore have the necessary attributes to be occupied as a single self-contained unit of occupation.

6.58 The Inspector noted that, however, in addition to the individual apartments, the proposal would provide a communal dining area and kitchen, a communal lounge, a function room, office, reception desk, laundry for use by staff, communal seating areas, a staff rest area, a staff sleepover suite, guest suites and 24 hour staffing in addition to other care services. These communal facilities would be spread throughout the building and would occupy a significant proportion of the proposed floorspace which would be greater than normal sheltered housing.

6.59 He also noted that “the occupants of the proposed accommodation would pay a service charge to provide a minimum level of care, which would include both personal care and the cost of overnight staff. They would also be able to purchase additional care as the need arises.” Whilst it was not unusual for people living in C3 dwellings to receive care, in this case “the primary purpose of the proposal is to provide care for the residents. The need for this care is reflected in both the physical form of the building, as well the manner in which the building will be used. In this respect the proposal would be fundamentally distinct from use as a dwelling house.”

6.60 He concluded: “If each individual apartment were to constitute a separate planning unit, then it must follow that the communal and other facilities within the building also form a separate planning unit or units. However, the primary purpose of these other facilities and services is to meet the identified care needs of all residents within the apartments on a 24 hour basis. I consider the individual apartments and the other areas and uses within the proposed building to be inextricably linked…………………………I therefore consider that the proposed Extra Care building forms a single planning unit and the proposal does not fall within Use Class C3. Its purpose is to provide residential accommodation and care to people in need of care, and therefore it falls within Class C2 of the UCO.”

6.61 In so far as the development currently under consideration is concerned the scheme involves varying levels of care but all residents would receive a minimum package as standard with the option to purchase additional care as the need arises. YourLife Management Services is a joint venture company with Somerset Care and McCarthy & Stone. YourLife was formed in 2010 and currently manages over 60 Retirement Living Plus developments across the country and provides market-leading management services to Homeowners, and is registered with the Care Quality Commission, the Scottish Care Commission, and the Care and Social Services Inspectorate in Wales, to provide personalised and flexible care and support packages to their Homeowners. There would also be a higher level of communal facilities provided compared to a normal Class C3 retirement apartment scheme. On this basis, and having regard to the case law set out above the scheme is considered to fall within Use Class C2 and does not generate a requirement for affordable housing. However, to accord with the Leelamb Homes decision it is recommended that an obligation requiring a minimum of 2 hours of care is provided to all residents and conditions should also be

Page 126 48 imposed to place age restrictions on occupancy and to restrict the use of the building to one falling within Use Class C2.

Public Open Space

6.62 The Council’s open spaces officer has confirmed that there is nothing specific contained in the High Peak Policies which refers to the ability to seek a contribution to public open space from the development of care homes falling within Use Class C2. Therefore for the reasons set out above no open spaces contributions are sought in this instance.

Other matters

6.63 A number of other matters have been raised by members of the public. In particular there is concern about the merits of relocating the town’s medical facilities to the site, including concerns about traffic impact. The relocation of the medical facilities does not relate to this proposal for extracare and was addressed as part of the application for the Healthcare Campus which was considered at the previous committee meeting. The traffic impact has been considered in detail above and in the absence of any objection from DCC it is not considered that a refusal on these grounds could be sustained.

6.64 The view has been expressed that the site would be better employed in use as additional land for a Peak Rail station and concern about access to the Peak Rail site. The site has been vacant and on the market for a considerable period of time and it was open to Peak Rail, who sold the site originally, to purchase it back at that time. Notwithstanding this point it is noted that Peak Rail have retained an area of land to provide a platform and station in the future if required. Concerns about rights of access are civil matters but in any event the Developer has advised that their solicitors have advised that the submitted proposals do not give rise to any legal difficulties in implementing the scheme. Peak Rail have made reference to the impact of their Light Railway Order and Officers have sought advice from the Council’s legal advisor as to whether this has any implications for the processing of the application.

6.65 She has advised that the Light Railway Order should be treated as an extant planning permission that has not been implemented. Article 4 sets out the extent of the land which has the benefit of the right to “make and maintain a railway” as being “on the line and to the extent of the former railway construct”. We can construe “former railway construct” as including any land previously used for a station. In terms of their specific points therefore:-

Page 127 49 could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.” However, given that the use is not currently existing or established it would only attract limited weight. 3. Power to build and operate a railway in respect of the land no longer in Peak Rail’s ownership is a private matter. Unless Peak Rail obtain a Compulsory Purchase Order they cannot force the purchase.

6.66 Points are made about the design of the extracare being out of keeping with the surrounding station and other heritage assets. These matters have been addressed under the Design section of this report above and through the submission of amended plans. Concerns about the suitability of the site for elderly persons accommodation given noise from nearby railway operations have also been addressed above.

6 CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE

7.1 The starting point for the determination of any planning application is section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 38(6) states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise.

7.2 The site lies within the Station Road and Spring Gardens Regeneration Area, which is allocated in Policy DS3 in the High Peak Local Plan April 2016 for “Town Centre regeneration uses, including residential, office, hotel and tourist accommodation, Leisure and cultural related developments.” It is considered that the proposed extracare can be considered to be a form of residential use and can therefore be supported in principle.

7.3 Given the separation to the nearest neighbouring dwellings no amenity issues are envisaged. Matters relating to amenity impacts arising from noise and air pollution from road and rail as well as contaminated land and ecology can be adequately addressed through conditions. DCC Highways have raised no objection subject to junction upgrading works on Station Road, which can be secured by condition, and Section 106 contributions to various traffic management schemes around the town. There are no archaeological concerns raised. It is acknowledged that this is a sensitive site in terms of design, being an important gateway to the town and also in terms of the setting of several heritage assets including the station and Crescent. The design as originally submitted triggered objection from officers, the Design Review Panel, Historic England and third parties due to it’s bulk and massing and impact on the setting of these assets. However, a more suitable revised scheme has been submitted and subject to no objection from Historic England the scheme is now considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Local Plan Design and Conservation Policies and advice within the NPPF in terms of achieving good quality design and protecting the setting of designated heritage assets. Revised landscaping details have been provided which are not acceptable to the Tree Officer but revisions can be secured by condition.

Page 128 50 7.4 The Lead Local Flood Authority confirmed that the additional information which has been provided is acceptable and the proposal is considered to comply with all relevant local plan policies set out above. In the absence of any other material considerations to indicate otherwise the proposal is recommended for approval.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

A: Approve subject to, no objection being raised by Historic England and Section 106 agreement to secure:

and the following conditions:

Condition Brief description Comment number TL01 Standard Time Limit NSTD Reference to approved plans NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of Scheme of External Lighting NSTD No works in breeding bird season without survey NSTD1 Submission ,approval and implementation of biodiversity enhancement strategy NSTD1 Submission, approval and implementation of contaminated land survey and mitigation. NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of Dust Control Measures

Page 129 51 management plan NSTD Provision of parking / loading etc shown on the approved plans NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of details of bin storage NSTD Implementation of Travel Plan NSTD Limit occupancy to over 65’s NSTD Revised landscaping scheme to include confirmation of hard landscaping materials and treatment of Station Access frontage NSTD Implementation of landscaping NSTD Fire Sprinkler system NSTD Details of Materials to be agreed NSTD Limitation to Use Class C2 NSTD Design, management & maintenance plan for surface water drainage NSTD Detailed assessment to be provided to demonstrate destination for surface water is acceptable NSTD Details of overland flow NSTD Submission of detailed drawings showing the cornice detail around the building and the enhanced version of on the Station Road/station forecourt corner. NSTD Submission of scheme of boundary treatment including railing details

NSTD Submission of bin storage details.

B In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative

This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Page 130 52 Site Plan

Page 131 53 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 3rd December 2018

Application HPK/2018/0125 No: Location Former Bottling Plant, Station Road, Buxton Proposal New multi-agency healthcare campus Applicant Mr Peter West Agent Mr Tim Robinson Parish/ward Buxton 26th June 2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood [email protected] 01538 395400 ext. 4924

1. REFERRAL & BACKGROUND

1.1 Members will recall the above application HPK/2018/0125 at the meeting of the 16th July 2018, whereby it was resolved to grant planning permission. The minutes of this meeting are as follows:

HPK/2018/0125 FORMER BOTTLING PLANT, STATION ROAD, BUXTON - NEW MULTI-AGENCY HEALTHCARE CAMPUS (Agenda Item 8)

New multi-agency healthcare campus Applicant: Mr Peter West The Committee had undertaken a site visit.

The Committee were addressed by Guy Dunk in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer reported on a late update from the highway authority stating that £30,000 would be sufficient to cover the necessary highway intervention measures to be secured under a S106 agreement and split two thirds to the NHS and one third to McCarthy and Stone.

RESOLVED: 1. APPROVED as set out in the report, subject to: a. The provision of outstanding drainage information b. No objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority c. A S106 agreement to secure: i. Plan monitoring fee of £10,000 ii. £30,000 towards the highway intervention measures to be split two- thirds to the NHS and one third to McCarthy and Stone d. The conditions as set out in the report;

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the

Page 133 Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

1.2 Since this time, the Council has received a complaint from Peak Rail who benefit from a Light Railway Order relating to land within and adjoining the development site, arguing that this makes them an “infrastructure manager” for the purpose of land for which they are responsible for developing, maintaining or managing (Reg 2 of the Development Management Procedure Order( DMPO)). As such they consider that they are a statutory consultee for the purpose of any planning application within 10 metres of that land (Reg 16 DMPO).

1.3 In responding to this complaint the Council has sought legal advice. The Council’s solicitor has advised that in respect of the extent of the land for which Peak Rail are infrastructure manager, clearly this will include the land that they are currently responsible for maintaining (i.e. the land in their current ownership). The wording of the Regulation 2 is in the present tense and therefore refers to current responsibilities and management rather than future or past uses and management. As such the consultation requirements only apply to applications within 10 metres of land under their current land ownership, and excludes the remainder of the land covered by the Light Railway Order, which falls within the application site and is owned by the NHS.

1.4 Therefore it would appear, with regard to the Healthcare Campus, that Peak Rail should have been a statutory consultee for this application. Although the scheme benefits from a resolution to approve from the Development Control Committee, the planning permission has yet to be issued as we are currently awaiting completion of a Section 106 legal Agreement. Therefore given that they do not appear to have commented before the application went to committee we have made the necessary arrangements for them to be given the opportunity to formally comment on the application.

1.5 The application is therefore referred back to Committee to reconsider it’s previous resolution in respect of the impact of the development on Peak Rail and in the light of any comments which they have to make.

1.6 This report considers only the impact on Peak Rail and should be read in conjunction with the previous report which is appended and addresses all other relevant planning considerations.

2. CONSULTATION RESPONSES:

Page 134 Peak Rail

2.1 No comments had been received at the time of report preparation. Peak Rail have until 29th November 2018 to make any comments on the Application. These will be reported in the update report.

3. CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT ON PEAK RAIL

3.1 The site has been vacant and on the market for a considerable period of time and it was open to Peak Rail, who sold the site originally, to purchase it back at that time. Notwithstanding this point it is noted that Peak Rail have retained an area of land to provide a platform and station in the future if required. Concerns about rights of access are civil matters. Peak Rail have made reference to the impact of their Light Railway Order and Officers have sought advice from the Council’s legal advisor as to whether this has any implications for the processing of the application.

3.2 She has advised that the Light Railway Order should be treated as an extant planning permission that has not been implemented. Article 4 sets out the extent of the land which has the benefit of the right to “make and maintain a railway” as being “on the line and to the extent of the former railway construct”. We can construe “former railway construct” as including any land previously used for a station. In terms of their specific points therefore:-

1. Existing vehicular and pedestrian rights is private matter. 2. Power to build and operate a railway in respect of Peak Rail’s current land holding – a material consideration taking into account para 182 of the new NPPF, which states that “Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.” However, given that the use is not currently existing or established it would only attract limited weight. 3. Power to build and operate a railway in respect of the land no longer in Peak Rail’s ownership is a private matter. Unless Peak Rail obtain a Compulsory Purchase Order they cannot force the purchase.

Page 135 3.2 As with the nearby Network Rail, a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) should be provided for all works to be undertaken within 10m of the operational railway under Construction (Design and Management) Regulations. As this is covered under other legislation it is not a material planning consideration. The developer can be made aware of this through an informative on the decision notice along with Network Rails comments about safe construction practices, scaffolding, use of virbo-compaction and piling machinery, tower cranes, drainage, excavation, separation from railway boundaries, noise and vibration from railway operations, installation of Armco barriers and asset protection agreements, all of which would apply equally should Peak Rail construct and operate a railway on their own land.

3.3 With regard to concerns regarding noise and disturbance to occupiers of the building from the operation of trains on the adjacent site, firstly it should be noted that the building is a commercial / community rather than residential facility. These issues have already been considered by environmental health with regard to the existing operational Network Rail line, which would be as close, if not closer to the proposed building than the Peak Rail land. Finally, any noise or vibration arising from any future Peak Rail operation, as with the existing Network Rail line could be adequately addressed by suitable design and insulation / mitigation which can be considered in detail at the reserved matters stage.

4. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Having carefully considered the implications of the development for any future Peak Rail operations on their site, and also having regard to the potential impact of future Peak Rail operations on the proposed development, the scheme is still considered by officers to be acceptable and in accordance with the relevant development plan policies.

4.2 Accordingly it is recommended that the committee resolves not to change it’s previous resolution and to grant planning permission subject to Section 106 Agreement and conditions as previously agreed.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That approval be GRANTED as per the committee’s previous resolution set out above.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/ informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager - Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Page 136 APPENDIX

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 16th July 2018

REFERRAL

The application is referred to Development Control Committee because it is a major development.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve subject to no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority, completion of a S106 Agreement and conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application relates to 15,081.00sqm of vacant brownfield land adjacent to Buxton Station. The site is bounded to the north and east by rail lines and by Station Road and the Aldi supermarket to the south. The station site and associated carpark lies to the west. The site was once part of one of the two railway networks which were instrumental in growing and developing the town in the second half of the nineteenth century. After the decline of the railways the site was occupied by a Perrier factory in 1998. In 1992 this became the property of Nestle Waters which continued to use the site until it obtained a new factory in 2012. The site has now been cleared and is predominantly hardstanding with a scattering of shrubs and grass, typical of recently cleared brownfield sites.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Outline planning permission is sought for a new multi-agency healthcare campus on the Station Road site adjacent to Buxton train station. It also offers the opportunity to provide office accommodation and front-line facilities for other public sector organisations providing a single hub facility where the public can access services.

Page 137 1 3.2 The proposed building would replace several disparate and isolated healthcare provisions across Buxton - which are coming to the end of their working life - into a modern facility. This should be easily accessible and benefit from the efficiencies offered by a shared site.

3.2 This application reserves matters of access, appearance, landscaping and layout. Although design intent is a reserved matter, the submission includes some notional / indicative architectural concepts, to demonstrate that the proposed facility can be accommodated on the site in a variety of layouts, sizes, massings and configurations.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There are no relevant previous planning applications. However, full planning applications are currently under consideration for the construction of an extra care facility (HPK/2018/0120 refers) elsewhere on adjoining land forming part of the same site. Full Planning Permission has also recently been granted for an access road to serve both developments (HPK/2018/0124 refers).

PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

S1 – Sustainable Development Principles S1a – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S2 – Settlement Hierarchy S7 – Buxton sub area strategy EQ1 – Climate Change EQ2 – Landscape Character EQ3 – Rural Development EQ5 – Biodiversity EQ6 – Design and Place Making EQ7 – Built and Historic Environment EQ8 – Green Infrastructure EQ9 – Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows EQ10 – Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ11 – Flood Risk Management E1 – New Employment Development E3 – Primary Employment Zones CF6 – Accessibility and Transport

National Planning Policy Framework

Para 14 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Page 138 2 Para 17 Core Planning Principles Section 1 Building a Strong, Competitive Economy Section 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 7 Requiring Good Design Section 10 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2018 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2018 Press notice Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2018

Third Parties

Objections

 The roads are not adequate to take on the increase of traffic caused from the proposal as they are already often congested.  The stationary motor vehicle traffic will raise air pollution levels.  There are better suited sites for the proposal.  DCHS does not have the consent of Buxton’s population for the proposal and a widely consultation is required.  The proper use for the site is to return it to its original railway use which would increase tourism in the surrounding area.  The proposed care home is spectacularly ugly.  The Peak Rail site is not identified on any of plans and there appears to be no means of access to the Peak Rail Site.

Support

 An appropriate use of a town centre eyesore  Is an improvement to the healthcare facilities available to Buxton  The site is very appropriate one and is located as it is close to good public transport provisions.  The proposal provides a much needed medical facility for the town and will help the community  The development accords with the local plan.  The development of the proposed site will free other sites for housing.  The proposal does not affect Peak Rail’s landholdings or rights in any way.

Other Comments

 The roads are often congested and the increase of use from the proposal will only add to the issue, can Derbyshire County Council pay great attention to the issues and come up with meaningful proposals to alleviate them.  As the car parking on site is within distance from the town centre, other people might use it when visiting the shops, could some sort of mechanism be installed

Page 139 3 to allow patients to visit free for up to an hour whilst preventing others from abusing the facility.  The addition of a pedestrian refuge at the site would make walking along Station Road much safer.

Consultations

Consultee Comment Officer response Police There are no objections to the application in 6.28 principle.

Whilst this is an outline application, there are some matters of indicative detail which require comment.

The site is quite visually annexed. Potential partial supervision from the proposed neighbouring McCarthy and Stone extra care centre is noted, but it’s siting, levels and boundaries are likely to limit this benefit, and it’s also assumed that the two developments aren’t inter-dependent, so one may proceed without the other?

There is mention within the supporting design and access statement of town centre overspill parking for the site. The situation of the site is similar to that of the Pavilion Gardens car parking areas, which have a history of nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

The proposed pedestrian link leading to Charles Street would provide a poorly supervised access in and out of the car park. Its relative seclusion and aspect are not in accordance with the features of safer footpath routes.

Levels would probably prevent use by the ambulant disabled and any wheeled use such as pedal cycles, pushchairs and wheelchairs.

The route moves away from rather than towards services.

Consequently my recommendation would

Page 140 4 be to discount this potential route and direct all site access along the main shared and better supervised route.

If the car park is to be taken into public use as town centre overspill I’d ask that approval is subject to conditions of a lighting scheme and formal CCTV surveillance.

It would be assumed that the existing railway line boundary fencing would remain and form the site boundaries across the west, north and east of the site. I’d recommend a further secure enclosure of the staff parking area and enclosed area to the north west and north east (rear of the building) of the site to provide additional security for staff vehicles and late working staff or lone workers required to visit the site during the evening or night.

DCC We were consulted in 2015 in relation to the 6.23 Archaeology development of this site for retail (HPK/2014/0560). At this time, my colleague Steve Baker provided the following advice:

The application site is a substantial area of c2.5ha, located some 100m outside the Buxton Area of Archaeological Interest, corresponding to the likely area of Roman activity in the town. I note however that the site has a history of substantial ground disturbance, in the context of development of the railways during the 19th century, and in construction and landscaping of the late 20th century commercial and industrial uses now within the site. It is clear that substantial terracing and infilling of ground has been carried out during this period, and I feel that the potential for encountering early archaeology is therefore minimal.

Page 141 5 other peripheral buildings. Although the Midland Railway goods shed survived as late as 1984, there are no traces of railway architecture remaining on the site today.

In the light of this assessment of the archaeological potential of the site we would have no further comments on this scheme.

Derbyshire We have checked the site against the 6.18 Wildlife Trust Trust’s data sets (see Endnote) and identified a previously recorded stand of Japanese knotweed located close to the entrance on Station Road at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference: SK0597173729. No other records of protected species were identified within or adjacent to the application area for the new road.

An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates (PAA) in January 2018. No significant ecological constraints are highlighted. The potential for the site to support nesting birds (both ground nesting and others) is identified, however this can be addressed through a condition and alternative nesting provision can be provided as part of the landscaping scheme. Whilst little ringed plover are mentioned in the report, given the early stage of clearance/succession and the dominance of hardstanding, the site is unlikely to support this species regularly or in any number.

The Trust encourage the retention of trees where possible and advise that

Page 142 6 compensatory native tree planting is undertaken for any that require removal. Landscaping should be designed to benefit wildlife and include native species.

PAA did not record the Japanese knotweed highlighted on our database during the extended Phase 1 habitat surveys. The location of this previously identified stand is likely to be addressed as part of the application for the access road.

Opportunities exist to enhance the biodiversity of the site as part of the development and this could be secured through a planning condition. Should the council be minded to approve this application, we advise that the following conditions are attached:  No ground/vegetation clearance works shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a recent survey has been undertaken by a competent ecologist to assess the nesting bird activity on site during this period (including ground nesting and other species). If nesting birds are present, details of measures to protect the nesting bird interest on the site should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and then implemented as approved.  Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed lighting strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA to safeguard adjacent green infrastructure and its functionality for nocturnal wildlife. This should clearly show lux levels of lightspill around the proposed building and provide details of the type of lighting and any mitigating features such as shields, hoods, timers etc. Guidelines can be found in Bats and Lighting in the UK (BCT, 2009). Such approved measures will be implemented in full.  Prior to the commencement of development, a biodiversity

Page 143 7 enhancement strategy as outlined in the ecology report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure no net loss for biodiversity and aim for a net gain (NPPF 2012) . Such approved measures should be implemented in full and maintained thereafter. Measures should include: o A raptor box/ledge or swift boxes facing onto the nearby green corridor to the east. o An integral bat box in an appropriate location. o Permeable boundaries to the north and east for wildlife such as hedgehogs e.g. fencing raised above ground level, the inclusion of small gaps (130 mm x 130 mm), railings or hedgerows. o Ecologically beneficial landscaping, including native species. o Insect boxes within the roof garden.

Environmental The phase 2 contaminated land site 6.7 Health investigation submitted in support of the application (ARC Environmental, ref: 17- 883, dated 15th January 2018) does not relate to this site. As the proposed end use of the development is particularly sensitive to the presence of land contamination, conditions 1 is recommended.

Page 144 8 Its recommended that the noise and vibration assessment (SLR, ref: 42617-T01; dated 20th February 2018) undertaken in support of the application may be accepted. The assessment identifies a high risk of adverse effects due to noise at the site, and accordingly conditions 7 and 8 are recommended to protect the amenity of future building occupants, and the wider environment.

Its recommended that the lighting assessment (Strenger, March 2018) undertaken in support of the application may be accepted. As this is an outline application condition 9 is recommended to protect the amenity of future building occupants, and the wider environment.

Conditions: -Contaminated Land Investigation - Dust Control Measures - Construction Waste Disposal - Piling - Hours of Construction - Noise Insulation - Noise and Machinery - Lighting Details

Lead Local It is not possible to provide an informed 6.22 Flood comment until such a time that the applicant Authority has submitted further information.

· The Lead Local Flood Authority seek clarification to understand which method has been used to calculate the brownfield run-off rates and to see the calculations used for discharge rates. · Confirmation letter from STW that the combined sewer is in a condition that can still accept discharge of both surface and foul water from this site and for them to suggest a maximum discharge rate that the combined sewer will be safe to cope with.

Page 145 9 · For brownfield sites, the peak runoff rate from the development to any drain, sewer or surface water body for the 1 in 1 year rainfall event to the 1 in 100 year rainfall event must be as close as reasonably practicable to the greenfield runoff rate from the development for the same rainfall event. · When submitting the application, the applicant should provide calculations of the greenfield rate for the site and demonstrate that the proposed discharge rate is as close as practically achievable. · Surface water run-off attenuation storage should be provided to accommodate the difference between the allowable discharge rate and all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 40% climate change.

Highways I refer to the above applications that have 6.11 recently been forwarded to this Authority for highway comments together with earlier correspondence and discussions concerning development of the site.

The Transportation Assessment estimates that the number of trips generated by the previous/ extant use of the site would be around one twentieth of the peak hour traffic forecast to be generated by the proposed development when completed in entirety. However, subject to modification of the existing junction with Station Road to provide a right turn harbourage, the capacity assessment indicates that the junction would operate satisfactorily albeit with some queuing on the egress arm.

Page 146 10 The junction of Manchester Road with St Johns Road has also been assessed, this indicating that in 2023 the approach arm from the latter would be approaching capacity in the AM peak without development and exceed capacity in the same period with inclusion of development related traffic. It’s predicted that queuing on the St Johns Road approach arm would effectively treble in length from 6no. vehicles (no development) to 17no. vehicles (with development).

The Transportation Assessment makes reference to off-street parking provision and it’s assumed that you will satisfy yourself that these adequately meet your own Authority’s recommendations. Any under- provision would be likely to result in vehicles being parked on the local highway network not currently subject to restriction and potential to prejudice its safe and efficient operation. With this in mind, it’s suggested that funding is secured for further traffic management measures on the local highway network should these prove necessary within a monitoring period of 5 years post opening of the full development, e.g. investigation into and subsequent

Page 147 11 implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders.

The submitted details demonstrate introduction of a central refuge within the carriageway of Station Road approximately 75m to the east of the access road junction and creation of a formal pedestrian crossing point. Whilst introduction of the island is acceptable, it’s considered that there should be no formal pedestrian facilities associated

Page 148 12 with this.

It’s appreciated that the proposed health centre application is Outline with all matters reserved, however, the Proposed Site Plan suggests that pedestrian access between the site and Charles Road is to be retained/ re-opened. Any subsequent Full or Reserved Matters application should take into account safe pedestrian and cycle access both to and through the site (e.g. the footway adjacent to the proposed access road is currently demonstrated as ceasing at the site boundary beyond which there would be shared pedestrian and vehicular use of the car parking area with no designated route to/from the proposed building).

Comments with respect to the Framework Travel Plan are appended to this letter. It’s recommended that funding is secured under the Section 106 Agreement for future monitoring of the Travel Plan for each of the separate developments over a 5 year post opening period on the basis of £1,000 per annum per development i.e. a total of £5,000 for each of the Care Home, Health

Page 149 13 Centre and LPA Offices giving an overall total of £15,000.

However, should you be minded to approve the proposals as submitted, Highway Authority recommendations for the S106, Conditions and Advisory Notes are as follows:-

S106

It’s assumed a single Section 106 Agreement will be prepared with each of the developers signatory to it. This being the case, it’s recommended that funding is secured for:-

1. Implementation, management and maintenance of active car parking signage prior to the development being brought into use. 2. Investigation into, and implementation of, traffic management measures should these prove necessary within 5 years of the entire development being brought into use. 3. Travel Plan monitoring for 5 years post opening of each element of development. 4. Enhancement of bus stop facilities prior to any part of the development being brought into use.

Page 150 14 Conditions

Page 151 15 taken into use until space has been provided within the application site in accordance with the approved application drawings for the parking/ loading and unloading/ picking up and setting down passengers/ manoeuvring of residents/ visitors/ staff/ customers/ service and delivery vehicles (including secure covered cycle parking), laid out, surfaced and maintained throughout the life of the development free from any impediment to its designated use.  Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall not be commenced until a detailed scheme for creating/ reinstating pedestrian access with Charles Street together with a programme for the implementation and completion of the works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be brought into use until the required works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.  No part of the development shall be occupied until details of arrangements for storage of bins and collection of waste have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the facilities retained for the designated purposes at all times thereafter.  The Approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the timescales specified therein, to include those parts identified as being implemented prior to occupation and following occupation, unless alternative timescales are agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The Approved Travel Plan shall be monitored and reviewed in accordance with the

Page 152 16 agreed Travel Plan targets.

Advisory Notes

 Pursuant to Section 163 of the Highways Act 1980, where the site curtilage slopes down towards the public highway measures shall be taken to ensure that surface water run-off from within the site is not permitted to discharge across the footway margin. This usually takes the form of a dish channel or gulley laid across the access immediately behind the back edge of the highway, discharging to a drain or soakaway within the site.  Pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, no works may commence within the limits of the public highway without the formal written Agreement of the County Council as Highway Authority. Advice regarding the technical, legal, administrative and financial processes involved in Section 278 Agreements may be obtained from the Strategic Director of Economy Transport and Community at County Hall, Matlock (tel: 01629 538658). The applicant is advised to allow approximately 12 weeks in any programme of works to obtain a Section 278 Agreement.  Car parking spaces should measure 2.4m x 5.5m (larger in the case of spaces for use by disabled drivers) with adequate space behind each space for manoeuvring.  Under the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004, all works that involve breaking up, resurfacing and / or reducing the width of the carriageway require a notice to be submitted to Derbyshire County Council for Highway, Developer and Street Works. Works that involve road closures and / or are for a duration of more than 11

Page 153 17 days require a three months notice. Developer's Works will generally require a three months notice. Developers and Utilities (for associated services) should prepare programmes for all works that are required for the development by all parties such that these can be approved through the coordination, noticing and licensing processes. This will require utilities and developers to work to agreed programmes and booked slots for each part of the works. Developers considering all scales of development are advised to enter into dialogue with Derbyshire County Council's Highway Noticing Section at the earliest stage possible and this includes prior to final planning consents.

Severn Trent Foul and surface water is proposed to 6.22 connect into the public sewer, both of which will be subject to formal section 106 sewer connection approvals.

Page 154 18 proposals. Severn Trent will seek to assist you obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building.

Regeneration The proposal is for the development of a 6.4 new multi-agency healthcare campus at former Buxton Mineral Water site, Station Road, Buxton. This is in line with the key growth priorities of the High Peak Growth Strategy; • Investing in Community infrastructure • Improving the quality of life offer The proposal will provide the following outputs: • Achieving efficiencies - The proposal will replace several disparate and isolated healthcare services in Buxton, with a new, modern facility and provide efficiencies through a shared site. • Increasing footfall in the town centre - the town centre location and proximity to key transport networks means it will be easily accessible and encourage increased footfall and prolonged dwell time in the town • Parking provision - The development will generate additional car parking provision in line with estimated need .

• Jobs - Secure 180 full time and 155 part time jobs in Buxton Alliance I would not think this would cause any 6.28 Environmental issues Services (Waste) HPBC Tree I have no objections to the proposals. 6.2 Officer There are some trees on the site and retaining some of these as appropriate may be an option but its more important that a good high quality landscaping scheme is submitted with the reserved matters

Page 155 19 application.

I note the large area of car parking and hard surfacing this appears to be an opportunity to integrate a SUDS drainage scheme of tree planting in this area.

Network Rail NR owns the access road referred to in the 6.31 proposal and if any changes or works are required to the road this will require the agreement of Network Rail.

The outside party / applicant will require Network Rail agreement to works/changes to the access in addition to any planning consent from the council.

When designing proposals, the developer and LPA are advised, that any measurements must be taken from the operational railway / Network Rail boundary and not from the railway tracks themselves. From the existing railway tracks to the Network Rail boundary fence, the land will include critical infrastructure (e.g. cables, signals, overhead lines, communication equipment etc) and boundary treatments which might be adversely impacted by outside party proposals unless the necessary asset protection measures are

Page 156 20 undertaken. No proposal should increase Network Rail’s liability.

All vegetation on site should be in line with the attached matrix.

The developer/applicant must ensure that their proposal, both during construction and as a permanent arrangement, does not affect the safety, operation or integrity of the existing operational railway / Network Rail land. The works on site must not undermine or damage or adversely impact any railway land and structures. There must be no physical encroachment of the proposal onto Network Rail land, no over-sailing into Network Rail air-space and no encroachment of foundations onto Network

Page 157 21 Rail land and boundary treatments. Any future maintenance must be conducted solely within the applicant’s land ownership.

If vibro-compaction machinery / piling machinery or piling and ground treatment works are to be undertaken as part of the development, details of the use of such machinery and a method statement must be submitted to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer for agreement.  All works shall only be carried out in accordance with the method statement and the works will be reviewed by Network Rail. The Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer will need to review such works in order to determine the type of soil (e.g. sand, rock) that the works are being carried out upon and also to determine the level of vibration that will occur as a result of the piling.  The impact upon the railway is dependent upon the distance from the railway boundary of the piling equipment, the type of soil the development is being constructed upon and the level of vibration. Each proposal is therefore different and thence the need for Network

Page 158 22 Rail to review the piling details / method statement. Maximum allowable levels of vibration - CFA piling is preferred as this tends to give rise to less vibration. Excessive vibration caused by piling can damage railway structures and cause movement to the railway track as a result of the consolidation of track ballast. The developer must demonstrate that the vibration does not exceed a peak particle velocity of 5mm/s at any structure or with respect to the rail track.

With a development of a certain height that may/will require use of a tower crane, the developer must bear in mind the following. Tower crane usage adjacent to railway infrastructure is subject to stipulations on size, capacity etc. which needs to be agreed by Network Rail’s Asset Protection prior to implementation. Tower cranes have the potential to topple over onto the railway; the arms of the cranes could over-sail onto Network Rail air-space and potentially impact any overhead lines, or drop materials accidentally onto the existing infrastructure. Crane working diagrams, specification and method of working must be submitted for review and agreement prior to work(s) commencing on site.

The applicant must ensure that the proposal drainage does not increase Network Rail’s liability, or cause flooding pollution or soil slippage, vegetation or boundary issues on railway land. Therefore the proposal drainage on site will ensure that:  All surface waters and foul waters drain away from the direction of the railway boundary.  Any soakaways for the proposal must be placed at least 30m from the railway boundary.  Any drainage proposals for less than 30m from the railway boundary must ensure that surface and foul waters are carried from site in closed sealed pipe systems.

Page 159 23  Suitable drainage or other works must be provided and maintained by the developer to prevent surface water flows or run-off onto Network Rail’s property.  Proper provision must be made to accept and continue drainage discharging from Network Rail’s property.  Drainage works must not impact upon culverts on developers land including culverts/brooks etc that drain under the railway.  The developer must ensure that there is no surface or sub-surface flow of water towards the operational railway.

Network Rail requests that the developer ensures there is a minimum 2 metres gap between the buildings and structures on site and the railway boundary. Less than 2m

Page 160 24 from the railway boundary to the edge of structures could result in construction and future maintenance works being undertaken on Network Rail land. This would not be acceptable. All the works undertaken to facilitate the design and layout of the proposal should be undertaken wholly within the applicant’s land ownership footprint.

Page 161 25 vibration.  Network Rail may need to conduct emergency works on the existing operational railway line which may not be notified to residents in advance due to their safety critical nature, and may occur at any time of the day or night, during bank holidays and at weekends.  Works to the existing operational railway may include the presence of plant and machinery as well as vehicles and personnel for works.  The proposal should not prevent Network Rail from its statutory undertaking. Network Rail is a track authority. It may authorise the use of the track by train operating companies or independent railway operators, and may be compelled to give such authorisation. Its ability to respond to any enquiries regarding intended future use is therefore limited.  The scope and duration of any Noise and Vibration Assessments may only reflect the levels of railway usage at the time of the survey.  Any assessments required as part of CDM (Construction Design Management) or local planning authority planning applications validations process are between the developer and their appointed contractor.  Network Rail cannot advise third parties on specific noise and vibration mitigation measures. Such measures will need to be agreed between the developer, their approved acoustic contractor and the local planning authority.  Design and layout of proposals should take into consideration and mitigate against existing usage of the operational railway and any future increase in usage of the said existing operational railway.  Noise and Vibration Assessments should take into account any railway

Page 162 26 depots, freight depots, light maintenance depots in the area. If a Noise and Vibration Assessment does not take into account any depots in the area then the applicant will be requested to reconsider the findings of the report.

This is to prevent vehicle incursion from the proposal area impacting upon the safe operation of the railway.

The applicant / developer should liaise directly with Asset Protection to set up the BAPA.

 POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Page 163 27 Policy Context

Principle of Development.

6.4 It is noted that under Policy H2 of the plan, the site is expected to deliver c.30 dwellings, which are included within the Borough’s housing land supply. In this respect there is some limited conflict with the Plan. However, the Healthcare Campus would occupy only part of the site with the remainder being the subject of a separate application for 65 Retirement Living PLUS (Extra Care) apartments. Whilst this is considered to fall within Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions) rather than Class C3 (Dwellinghouses), it will contribute to meeting housing need, particularly as occupants of the units will vacate C3 dwellinghouses elsewhere within the Borough. Furthermore, it is noted that the relocation of healthcare facilities to the site from elsewhere within the town is likely to free up other sites for redevelopment which could compensate for the loss of C3 housing provision on the site. Finally, it is noted that Policy S7, Buxton Sub-area strategy includes, “supporting enhancements to key community services, infrastructure and connectivity to allow Buxton to consolidate its role as a self contained service centre and support growth by, inter alia, “Supporting plans to provide new health care facilities.” It is considered that compliance with this policy and the social benefits associated with the new healthcare provision would outweigh the limited conflict with Policy H2. Furthermore, the Regeneration Officer has indicated that there would be a number of economic benefits to the scheme which can also be taken into account in the overall planning balance.

6.5 It is also noted that Policy DS22 requires:

 Preparation of a comprehensive development plan and phasing programme, including a physical design assessment and viability appraisal;  Heritage Assessment;

Page 164 28  Archaeological Assessment;  Contributions towards infrastructure, services and other community needs, including:  local labour agreement employment and training scheme; highway, parking and traffic management measures; greenways and public realm;  Provision of additional parking (approximately 30 spaces) to serve Buxton Station to the north of Station Road  Transport Assessment;  Travel Plan;  Environmental Impact Assessment if required;  Ecological Survey;  Hydrological Survey;  Flood Risk Assessment, including surface water control measures via the use of SuDS.

6.6 Subject to these requirements being met, therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Impact on Residential Amenity

6.7 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy EQ6 of the adopted Local Plan requires that development achieves a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and does not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing effect, noise, light pollution or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity.

6.8 The surrounding land uses comprise the railway and station / carpark to the north and west, the vacant Nestle site to the east and an Aldi store to the south. The nearest neighbouring residential property is over 100 metres from the site on the opposite side of the railway and therefore no amenity concerns are raised.

6.9 With regard to amenity implications of construction the Environmental Health Officer has recommended a number of conditions relating to such matters as dust, piling and construction noise which will adequately address these issues. In this respect it is considered that the development would comply with Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

Contaminated Land

6.10 A contaminated land assessment has been submitted with the application. However, this relates only to the portion of the site which is subject to the Extra Care application. It does not cover the current application. However, the Environmental Health Officer has advised that the necessary investigations and remediation can be secured by condition.

Access and Highway Matters

Page 165 29 6.11 Paragraph 35 of the Framework advises that new developments that generate significant movement should be located where the need to travel will be minimized and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximized. Policy CF6 states that the Council will seek to ensure that development can be safely accessed in a sustainable manner. Proposals should minimise the need to travel, particularly by unsustainable modes of transport and help deliver the priorities of the Derbyshire Local Transport Plan. This will be achieved by, inter alia:

6.12 Third party comments raise concerns about the traffic impact of the proposals on Station Road. The Derbyshire County Council highway engineer has provided a joint response relating to all 3 current applications on this site. He has commented that the estimated number of trips generated by the previous/ extant use of the site would be around one twentieth of the peak hour traffic forecast to be generated by the proposed development when completed in entirety. Consequently, there are no objections on traffic impact grounds. However, he has recommended that improvements are made to the junction of the site access with Station Road in the form of a right turn harbourage. Drawings of the junction modifications have been provided with the application. The Highway Engineer has commented that the exit visibility sightlines of 2.4m x 43m shown on the drawings are not considered to be appropriate, it’s suggested that the recommended sightlines of 2.4m x 47m should be achievable. A revised plan and implementation of the improvements can be secured by condition.

6.13 The response also recommends Section 106 contributions towards wider traffic management and Traffic Regulation Orders in the area and a travel plan. With regard to Travel Plan monitoring Highways have recommended £1,000 per annum per development i.e. a total of £5,000 for each of the Care Home, Health Centre and Public Sector Offices giving an overall total of £15,000. Further discussion with the Highway Engineer has established that a total sum of £8,000 would be appropriate for the Traffic Regulation Orders split on the basis of £4,000 for the Health Campus and £4,000 for the Extracare. The Highway Authority has also recommended that further sums of money are secured towards the enhancement of existing bus stop shelters and Implementation, management and maintenance of active car parking signage. At the time of report preparation confirmation of the proposed amount was awaited from Highways and this will be the subject of an update to Members.

6.14 A number of issues have been raised about pedestrian connectivity through the healthcare campus site. However, it is considered that these requirements can be addressed as part of the detailed site layout and design at the Reserved Matters stage. Similarly the recommended amended plans / conditions relating to the works on Station Road itself should also be a requirement of the extracare and health care campus applications and not these enabling works.

Page 166 30 6.15 Other conditions relating to construction management and drainage / management of surface water run off, pick-up and drop-off areas, implementation of travel plan, are reasonable and subject to these conditions the proposal is considered to comply with Local Plan Policy in respect of highway safety.

6.16 In terms of sustainability, the site is conveniently located in the town centre, in very close proximity to the railway station, nearby public parking and transport links including bus stops on Station Road.

6.17 It is therefore considered that there are no highway safety objections and the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the local road network. The proposal therefore complies with the provisions of Section 4 of the NPPF and policy CF6 of the adopted Local Plan 2016 in this regard.

Ecology

6.18 Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The Framework places high value on the importance of enhancement of the natural environment, especially valued landscapes. Paragraph 109 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Policy EQ5 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to ensure that biodiversity interests will be conserved and where possible enhanced.

6.19 In respect of that proposal Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) have commented that they have checked the site against the Trust’s data sets and identified a previously recorded stand of Japanese knotweed located close to the entrance on Station Road at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference: SK0597173729. No other records of protected species were identified within or adjacent to the application area for the new road.

6.20 They comment that an extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken by Penny Anderson Associates (PAA) in January 2018. No significant ecological constraints are highlighted. The potential for the site to support nesting birds (both ground nesting and others) is identified. However this can be addressed through a condition and alternative nesting provision can be provided as part of the landscaping scheme. Whilst little ringed plover are mentioned in the report, given the early stage of clearance/succession and the dominance of hardstanding, the site is unlikely to support this species regularly or in any number. They also recommend that compensatory native tree planting is undertaken for any that require removal. Landscaping should be designed to benefit wildlife and include native species. It is considered that these requirements can be secured as part of the submission of landscaping details at the reserved matters stage.

Page 167 31 Flooding

6.22 The site is located within Flood Zone 1 which is the area at least risk of Flooding. The Environment Agency has been consulted on the application and raised no objection. Similarly no objection has been received from Severn Trent. The Lead Local Flood Authority has also been consulted and has asked for a number of points of clarification. These comments have been passed on to the developer and a response was awaited at the time of report preparation. A further update on this point will be provided to Members. Subject to the Lead Local Flood Authority raising no objection the proposal complies with Policy EQ11 of the adopted Local Plan.

Archaeology

6.23 The site was formerly part of the joint London Midland Railway and Midland Railway station and good facilities. The goods shed having survived into the 1980’s. However, all remaining traces of the railway were removed when the bottling plant was constructed and therefore the County Archaeologist has raised no objections and does not consider that further archaeological investigation or mitigation is necessary.

Design & Conservation

6.26 In terms of design principles the Document envisages that development should:

Page 168 32  establish a vibrant mix of uses across the area; and  secure high quality, place specific development.

6.28 In terms of scale the document seeks to achieve development which exploits the sloping landform of the area to enhance the town and its landscape setting - ensuring that the height, scale and massing of development is related to surrounding buildings, respects the existing skyline, does not adversely affect key views and vistas (in and out, across and within the area) and avoids obtrusive roof forms and roof top plant; • responds to the sloping topography of much of the study area and steps up the valley side to the Railway Station avoiding blank facades and large monolithic building blocks with poor permeability.

6.29 At this stage, however, the application is in outline with all matters reserved. A number of indicative plans have been provided to show how the site could be developed to accommodate the required level of accommodation. Inevitably a facility of this nature will necessitate a large building. However, whilst this is an important and prominent gateway site as a whole, the area proposed for the healthcare facility, in the north east corner, is arguably the least sensitive part of the site. It is relatively level and is set back from the road. As such it is much less prominent than the area of the site on the Station Road frontage which is currently the subject of the extra care application and will be screened to a large extent by whatever development is subsequently approved on that site. The Health care campus site is separated from surrounding development on 2 sides by the railway and accordingly a large building can be accommodated without appearing overbearing or out of scale with development immediately alongside. It is therefore considered that a facility of the nature and scale proposed can be adequately accommodated on the site.

6.27 Specifically in terms of Character the SPD envisages that design should avoid pastiche in favour of high quality contemporary architecture that responds to the distinctive building and townscape qualities of Buxton town centre; integrate local art and craft traditions to reveal and communicate the place qualities of Buxton through the incorporation of art works and details within building and public space designs. The former bottling plant site is identified as an “area of potential change”. It is therefore considered that the scheme presents an opportunity for a high quality contemporary building utilising local materials and referencing local building traditions and the character of the town without resulting in a pastiche. Such an approach would be appropriate both for the nature of the development as a modern healthcare facility and in view of the nature of the site and its context. Whilst these matters are for detailed consideration at the reserved matter stage, it is considered that a suitable design which would meet the requirements of the SPD, and local plan policies in terms of achieving good quality design and protecting the setting of designated heritage assets can be achieved.

6.28 The highway engineer and the Police Liaison Officer have referred to pedestrian permeability and a potential pedestrian access to Charles St. This can be considered as part of the layout at reserved matters stage. Similarly matters of bin storage can also be addressed as part of that process.

Page 169 33 6.28 In principle, therefore the proposal complies with policies EQ6 - Design and Place Making and EQ7 – Built and Historic Environment and the provisions of the NPPF with regard to protecting heritage assets.

Landscape and Trees

6.29 Policy EQ9 of the adopted Local Plan states that the Council will protect existing trees, woodlands and hedgerows, in particular, ancient woodland, veteran trees and ancient or species-rich hedgerows from loss or deterioration. This will be achieved by:

6.30 The area of the site concerned is predominantly hardstanding and grass verge areas with some trees and overgrown shrubs which have previously formed part of the landscaping of the site or have self-set since closure. There are no existing very mature trees of amenity value which would be adversely impacted by the proposals. The Council’s Tree Officer has considered the application and commented that there are some trees on the site and retaining some of these as appropriate may be an option but its more important that a good high quality landscaping scheme is submitted with the reserved matters application. The Tree Officer has noted that the large area of car parking and hard surfacing appears to be an opportunity to integrate a SUDS drainage scheme of tree planting in this area. All of these issued can be addressed as part of the Reserved Matters. The development therefore complies with policy EQ9.

Impact on Railway

6.31 The site is bounded on 2 sides by operational railway land. Network Rail has been consulted and has provided a lengthy response explaining that their consent will be required as the owners of the existing access road and expressing concern that their land is included within the red-line boundary. Given that the developer has served notice on Network Rail, due process has been followed and this is civil matter between the two parties.

6.32 Concerns about obstruction of the railway access by construction vehicles are also civil matters. They point to the requirement for a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) for all works to be undertaken within 10m of the operational railway under Construction (Design and Management) Regulations. As this is covered under other legislation it is not a material planning consideration. The developer can be made aware of this through informative on the decision notice along with Network Rails comments about safe construction practices, scaffolding, use of virbo-compaction and piling machinery, tower cranes, drainage, excavation, separation from railway

Page 170 34 boundaries, noise and vibration from railway operations, installation of Armco barriers and asset protection agreements.

6.33 In addition conditions are recommended relating to piling, drainage, construction management and lighting and given that this application relates solely to the healthcare campus noise and vibration concerns for new residents are not considered to be relevant to this proposal.

Other matters

6.34 A number of other matters have been raised by members of the public. In particular there is concern about the merits of relocating the town’s medical facilities to the site, including due to concerns about traffic impact. The overall strategic plan for the provision of healthcare in Buxton in the future is not a land-use planning matter, in determining this application Members must concern themselves only with whether this is a suitable site for such a facility. The traffic impact has been considered in detail above and in the absence of any objection from DCC it is not considered that a refusal on these grounds could be sustained.

6.35 The view has been expressed that the site would be better employed in use as additional land for a Peak Rail station and concern about access to the Peak Rail site. The site has been vacant and on the market for a considerable period of time and it was open to Peak Rail, who sold the site originally, to purchase it back at that time. Notwithstanding this point it is noted that Peak Rail have retained an area of land to provide a platform and station in the future if required. Concerns about rights of access are civil matters but in any event the layout of the site is a reserved matter and if required an access could be incorporated at that stage.

6.36 Points are made about the design of the proposed health care centre / extracare being out of keeping with the surrounding station and other heritage assets. These are also matters either for the separate extra-care application or the future reserved matters application for the health care site. Concerns about the suitability of the site for elderly persons accommodation given noise from nearby railway operations are also a matter for that application.

7 CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE

7.2 The site lies within the Station Road and Spring Gardens Regeneration Area, which is allocated in Policy DS3 in the High Peak Local Plan April 2016 for “Town Centre regeneration uses, including residential, office, hotel and tourist accommodation, Leisure and cultural related developments.” It is considered that healthcare uses, although not specifically listed above, would be classed as “town centre regeneration use” and can therefore be supported in principle.

Page 171 35 7.3 Given the separation to the nearest neighbouring dwellings no amenity issues are envisaged. Matters relating to contaminated land and ecology can be adequately addressed through conditions. DCC Highways have raised no objection subject to junction upgrading works on Station Road, which can be secured by condition, and Section 106 contributions to various traffic management schemes around the town. There are no archaeological concerns raised. It is acknowledged that this is a sensitive site in terms of design, being an important gateway to the town and also in terms of the setting of several heritage assets including the station and Crescent. However, the scheme is submitted in outline and therefore design matters can be fully addressed as part of the Reserved Matters. Nevertheless the submitted indicative layouts show that the required accommodation can be developed on the site in a variety of ways, and it is considered that a suitable design which would meet the requirements of the SPD, and local plan policies in terms of achieving good quality design and protecting the setting of designated heritage assets can be achieved.

7.4 The Lead Local Flood Authority has requested some additional information but subject to this being provided and found to be acceptable the proposal is considered to comply with all relevant local plan policies set out above. In the absence of any other material considerations to indicate otherwise the proposal is recommended for approval.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

A: Approve subject to provision of the outstanding drainage information, no objection being raised by the Lead Local Flood Authority, subject to Section 106 agreement to secure:

 Plan monitoring fee of £10,000.  £4,000 towards Traffic Regulation Orders  Contribution towards implementation, management and maintenance of active car parking signage (Amount TBC)  Contribution towards enhancement of existing bus stop shelters (Amount TBC).

and the following conditions:

Condition Brief description Comment number TL01 Outline Planning permission time limit TL01 Outline – Submission of Reserved Matters NSTD Outline – Commencement NSTD Reference to approved plans NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of Scheme of External Lighting and CCTV NSTD No works in breeding bird season without survey NSTD1 Submission ,approval and

Page 172 36 implementation of biodiversity enhancement strategy NSTD1 Submission, approval and implementation of contaminated land survey and mitigation. NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of Dust Control Measures

NSTD Disposal of construction waste – no lighting of fires etc NSTD Submission of piling method Statement NSTD Restriction of construction hours SNTD Noise and machinery insulation NSTD Scheme of Acoustic insulation to be submitted, agreed and implemented NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of scheme of junction improvements with Station Road. NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of construction management plan NSTD Provision of parking shown on the approved plans NSTD Reserved matters to include details of pedestrian access to Charles Street NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of details of bin storage NSTD Implementation of Travel Plan NSTD Submission, approval and implementation of scheme of drainage

B In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative

This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Page 173 37 Site Plan

Page 174 38 Agenda Item 13

AGENDA ITEM

HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to Development Control Committee

3rd December 2018

TITLE: PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS

CONTACT: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM

WARDS INVOLVED: ALL

Appendices Attached - None

1. Reason for the Report: To inform members of appeals lodged and decided since the last meeting of the Development Control Committee.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the report be noted.

3. APPEALS LODGED

None

4. APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

Application No. HPK/2016/0337

Location: 39 Buxton Road, Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire, SK23 7HT.

Proposal: Erection of a two storey building with part basement and the roof space utilised. The building will include a restaurant/cafe bar (A3) and retail unit (A1) at ground floor with basement linked to the restaurant/cafe bar. The first floor and roof space will contain five self contained apartments (part retrospective)

Page 175 Level and Date of Decision: Committee 30th October 2017

Recommendation: Approval

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Appeal dismissed on 14th November 2018

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Main Issues: Whether or not acceptable living conditions are provided to the occupiers of the apartments in terms of outlook and outdoor amenity space and whether the contribution sought towards affordable housing is reasonable and necessary.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 Apartments 1 and 4 have windows along the front elevation of the building and have a satisfactory outlook and living conditions for the residents.  Apartment 2 and 3 however have no windows on the front elevation of the building. Other than the side bathroom window to apartment 3, the windows within the apartments look out onto a tall railway embankment which is in close proximity to the windows. This feature is dominant in the outlook from the living space and bedrooms and is oppressive and overbearing, and has a harmful and significant effect on the living conditions of occupiers of these apartments. The provision of balconies between the building and embankment adds to my concern given the confined nature of the space within which they are located. Whilst they are large enough for furniture to be placed upon them, they would be unlikely to be pleasant spaces to sit out upon, significantly diminishing their value as outdoor space serving the respective apartments.  Apartment 5, on the second floor, has a more acceptable outlook to the side from the living room, with restricted views of the highway and bridge. However I find the single bedroom window looks directly toward the adjacent building at close proximity, which dominates views from that habitable room, and heavily restricts the outlook from that window. I find that this causes significant harm to the living conditions of the residents of this apartment as a result of this poor outlook. Although the balcony is large enough to place outdoor seating or small items, there is a high probability that occupiers of this apartment would be unlikely to enjoy this area of outside space because of its close proximity to the tall railway embankment and poor outlook from it.

Page 176 Application No. HPK/2016/0337

Location: Fairhaven, Albion Road, New Mills, Derbyshire, SK22 3EX.

Proposal: the removal of condition 27 (affordable housing) of planning permission HPK/2016/0422

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated 30th October 2017

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Appeal allowed on 23rd November 2018

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Main Issues: Whether condition 27 is reasonable and necessary for the provision of affordable housing in relation to the approved scheme.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 Policy H4 of the High Peak Local Plan (adopted 2016) (the LP) states that developments should achieve a proportion of residential units as affordable housing, namely 30% affordable housing on sites of 25 units or more, and 20% affordable housing on sites of 5- 24 units (0.16ha or larger). The policy then goes on to state the alternative provisions that can be made in certain circumstances.  The Council have supplied me with the Inspector’s report on the examination of the High Peak Local Plan (March 2016). Paragraphs 44-48 deal with the issue of affordable housing and a positive conclusion is reached in Paragraphs 81-87. It is clear that this policy was considered sound at the time of adoption as a result of the findings in West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin).  However, this decision was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal. Elements of the Written Ministerial Statement (the WMS) that was the subject of the above case and subsequent Court of Appeal ruling have now been directly incorporated into the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This is the most recently published national planning policy on housing. It reflects the unequivocal position set out in the WMS that affordable housing should not be sought from residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the site is located within a designated rural area.

Page 177  The Council and Parish Council consider that there remains a high and demonstrable need for affordable housing. The Local Plan does not and cannot address the full affordable housing requirement, but has incorporated this into its overall housing aspirations of 350 units per year. The Council note that they would need to provide more than 100% of their total annual housing requirement as affordable housing in order to meet their needs.  This is not disputed. However, in this, High Peak are not unique. Many areas of the country also have very high affordable housing needs, and also plan to meet only a proportion through the delivery of their general housing requirement, subject to viability assessment. The Government would have been well aware of this when considering the revised Framework and its stipulations with regard to affordable housing thresholds.  In this particular case, I find that the application of a condition to secure affordable housing is unnecessary. It is also clear that the disputed condition conflicts with the advice in the Guidance.

Costs Decision

 The Appellant made an application for award of costs on the basis that, in their view, Council, in making their decision, has not taken into account of the Court of Appeal Decision in relation to the Written Ministerial Statement (the WMS) and the subsequent updated PPG, as well as previous appeal decisions in similar cases.  The Inspector concluded: o it is clear from the evidence that the Council reached a rounded view in taking its decision and considered the matters cited above. o There is nothing inherently unreasonable in deciding to retain the disputed condition. The Council considers that there is a high and demonstrable need for affordable housing, and rely upon Policy H4 of the High Peak Local Plan, supported by the Inspector’s examination report. It is the Council’s judgement that the requirements of the adopted development plan are such that the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary. o In my decision I have placed greater weight upon national planning policy in relation to affordable housing, as a material consideration sufficient to outweigh the adopted development plan. This is, however, ultimately a matter of planning judgement. The appellant, and I, may have reached a different judgement to the Council but that does not make its position unreasonable.

Officer Comment

Introduction

Page 178  The Planning Practice Guidance states that there are specific circumstances where contributions for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations should not be sought from small scale development – this follows the order of the Court of Appeal dated 13 May 2016, which give legal effect to the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) of November 2014 and should be taken into account. In particular contributions should not be sought from development of 10 units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 square metres The WMS was subject to judicial review by West Berkshire DC and Reading BC. The Councils’ challenge was initially successful but this was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.

 The Planning Inspectorate has previously confirmed that Government policy exempting small housing schemes from affordable housing contributions does not automatically override local policy. The development plan remains the starting point for decision making. The correct approach is therefore to consider development proposals against the housing policies in the development plan, as well as evidence submitted of housing need. Only if the proposals conflict with the development plan must the decision maker consider the weight to be attached to the WMS as a material consideration. The WMS should be weighed against the development plan as per section 38 (6) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. The PINS statement said that the effect of the WMS was not to reduce the weight that should be given to the statutory development plan or automatically to outweigh relevant development plan policies. Local policies still have weight as the starting point and the WMS comes into play as a material consideration which post dates the plan, and which has to be balanced against the plan and evidence base supporting the LPA’s application of the policy. The decision maker therefore has discretion in applying his or her judgement as to where the balance should lie, drawing on the evidence presented. The PINS statement states that the correct approach would be for an Inspector to start with the development plan and any evidence presented by the LPA supporting the need for an affordable housing contribution, establish whether the proposal is in conflict with those policies if no contribution is provided for and, if there is conflict, only then go on to the address the weight to be attached to the WMS as a national policy that post dates the development plan policies.

 Given the very high and demonstrable need for affordable housing in High Peak officers concluded in both of the above cases that greater weight should be given to the Council’s Local Plan.

 The new NPPF was published in July 2018 following refusal of the application. Para 63 states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential development that are not major

Page 179 developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). Whilst the NPPF guidance is clearly a material consideration to be given weight, the LPA considers that the high and demonstrable need for affordable housing in the Borough, as discussed below, should be treated as an exception to the national policy.

Basis of Local Plan Thresholds.

 Local Plan Policy H4 requires residential developments to achieve 20% affordable housing on sites of 5-24 units. Where the provision of affordable houses proposed is below the requirements set out above, the Council will require applicants to provide evidence by way of a financial appraisal to justify a reduced provision.

 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) “demonstrated that the quantitative need for affordable housing in High Peak is considerable. In particular, affordability and the supply of both market and affordable housing must be tackled to prevent the problem from becoming more acute”. Due to the high level of affordable housing need identified, the SHMA suggested that a 30% threshold should be the absolute minimum sought on viable sites, and that a higher figure should be considered by the Council subject to viability testing on delivery.

 The Affordable Housing Viability Assessment (2010) recommended the affordable housing thresholds in the adopted Local Plan having regard to the need for affordable housing and viability.

 The Local Plan Viability Test Report (April 2014) provided an assessment of the viability of development in High Peak in the context of policies, including for affordable housing and proposed thresholds. The study concluded that although the policy may render some schemes unviable if applied rigidly, the flexibility provided by way of a financial appraisal to justify a reduced provision, addresses this issue.

Evidence Base For Affordable Housing

 In High Peak the evidence base for the Local Plan is very recent having been endorsed by the Secretary of State through the Local Plan adoption process in 2016. The Inspector considered that there was a sound basis for the affordable housing thresholds set out in Policy H4. (See Appendix C, Paras 47 and 81-85). High Peak has a very high and demonstrable need for affordable housing amounting to 526 units per annum over five years to meet significant backlog and emerging needs as identified in the Council’s Housing Needs Survey and Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2014). This figure was calculated through the use of net household formation projections.( See Appendix D, para 12.8 onwards).

Page 180  The net need of 526 affordable units per annum is higher than the overall objectively assessed need for housing and Local Plan requirement (350 per annum). High Peak would therefore need to provide more than 100% of its total annual housing requirement to comprise affordable housing if it was to meet all of its affordable housing need.

Affordable Housing Update

 Affordable housing completions are monitored annually by the Council and the findings published in the Annual Monitoring Reports. The number of affordable housing completions (rent and intermediate including shared ownership and DMS) in High Peak since 2014 are 190 units and Right To Buy completions are 95 units.

 Given that there is a demonstrable need for affordable housing in the Borough amounting to 526 units per annum it is clear that the rate of completions over recent years is not keeping pace with demand.

 There continues to be a high demand for affordable housing in the Borough – the number of households registered on the Council’s Choice Based Lettings System Home Options is 1,294.

 Taking account of the local circumstances in High Peak it was considered that greater weight should be given to the Council’s Local Plan policy H4 where there are no viability issues identified by the applicant in delivering the affordable housing or an affordable housing contribution.

 The purpose of the WMS was to boost housing supply by reducing the burden on small scale development and improving the viability of development. There is provision in LP Policy H4 to address development viability through the submission of a viability appraisal. However, it was no part of the Appellant’s case that the condition requiring affordable housing would make this scheme unviable.

Conclusion

 The evidence base for the High Peak Local Plan is therefore very recent having been endorsed by the Secretary of State through the Local Plan adoption process in 2016. There is a very high and demonstrable need for affordable housing amounting to approximately 500 units per annum to meet backlog. Taking account of the local circumstances in High Peak it was considered by Officers that greater weight should be given to the Council’s Local Plan where there are no viability issues identified by the applicant in delivering the affordable housing. A condition to require

Page 181 the provision of affordable housing was therefore considered necessary and reasonable.

 All of the above unequivocal evidence of affordable housing need in the Borough was presented to the Inspector in the above cases, and therefore it is particularly disappointing that despite the Inspectorate’s own guidance that the starting point for consideration remains the development plan, and that it is not automatically overridden by Government policy which must be balanced against the evidence base for the policy the Appeal was allowed.

 In the light of these decisions the Council will clearly have to reconsider it’s approach with regard to the application of it’s affordable housing policies in it’s Local Plan.

 The Council can, however, take encouragement from the conclusion of the costs decision that despite placing greater weight upon national planning policy in relation to affordable housing, as a material consideration sufficient to outweigh the adopted development plan, this is, ultimately a matter of planning judgement and that as a result the position of the Council was not considered to be unreasonable.

Page 182