REPORT to the PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD to BE HELD on the 7TH APRIL, 2011 the Following Applications Are Submitted for Your Cons

REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE TH 7 APRIL, 2011

The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be recorded as indicated.

INDEX PAGE 1 RB2010/1395 Erection of residential development comprising 24 No. two Page 14 storey dwellinghouses, 13 No. two storey dwellinghouses with rooms in roofspace, 9 No. three storey dwellinghouses, 15 No. garages and associated boundary treatments & landscaping at land at Wharf Road, Kilnhurst for Ben Bailey Homes. 3 RB2010/1672 Details of the erection of 12 No. two storey dwellinghouses Page 26 and a two storey building comprising 4 No. apartments (reserved by outline RB2010/0585) at former Listerdale Nursing Home, Bawtry Road, Wickersley for Harron Homes Ltd. 4 RB2011/0036 Outline application for the erection of a bungalow including Page 42 details of the layout & access (renewal of permission RB2007/0757) at rear of 144 Bawtry Road, Wickersley for Dr. R. Bird. 5 RB2011/0257 Change of use from shop (use class A1) to café (use class A3) Page 52 at 28A Laughton Road, Dinnington for Mrs. Payne. 6 RB2011/0270 Application for prior approval of the siting and appearance Page 58 regarding the erection of 12.5m high telecommunications pole, 1 No. equipment cabinet and minor ancillary works at land at Wickersley Old Village Cricket Club, Northfield Lane, Wickersley for Telefonica O2 Ltd./Vodafone Ltd.

REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE TH 7 APRIL, 2011

The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be recorded as indicated.

RB2010/1395

Erection of residential development comprising 24 No. two storey dwellinghouses, 13 No. two storey dwellinghouses with rooms in roofspace, 9 No. three storey dwellinghouses, 15 No. garages and associated boundary treatments & landscaping (Amendment to layout previously approved under RB2006/0322) at land off Wharf Road, Kilnhurst for Gladedale (South Yorkshire) Ltd.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

1. Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: a) Development Plan

Regional Strategy

POLICY H1: ‘Provision and distribution housing’ indicates that the region’s housing stock should be improved and increased to provide appropriate accommodation for all households wanting homes, taking account of strong economic growth in the Leeds City Region, regeneration and increasing economic growth in South Yorkshire.

POLICY H2: ‘Managing and stepping up the supply and delivery of housing’ indicates that housing development on brownfield land is a priority.

POLICY H4: ‘The provision of affordable housing’ indicates that the region needs to increase its provision of affordable housing. Plans, strategies, programmes and investment decisions should ensure the provision of affordable housing to address the needs of local communities.

POLICY H5: ‘Housing mix’ indicates that plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes should ensure the provision of homes for a mix of households that reflects the needs of the area, including homes for families with children, single persons, and older persons, to create sustainable communities.

Local Planning Policy

UDP Policy

EC3.2 ‘Land Identified for Business Use’ indicates that development proposals should not have an adverse impact on residential amenity or on the character of the area and there should be adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles.

ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ indicates that development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality and site features. b) Other relevant material planning considerations

PPS3 ‘Housing’ indicates that schemes should have a mix of types and tenures of residential units and seek good design.

PPG24 ‘Planning and Noise’ seeks to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business.

PPS25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ indicates that flood risk should be taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall.

2. For the following reasons:

The principle of residential development in this location has previously been established under outline permission RB2005/0755 and the subsequent reserved matters approval RB2006/0322, both of which have been partially implemented. The Transportation Unit have indicated that the revised layouts are acceptable in highway safety terms. There are no new Affordable Housing issues raised as the Affordable Units are not in an area affected by the revised layout. There are no objections to the reduced density of the scheme or the higher proportion of housing within the scheme. The design of the revised layout is considered to reflect the character and appearance of the previously approved reserved matters scheme RB2006/0322.

In terms of overall noise impact, the remainder of the original approval could be physically implemented and this represents a fallback position. On balance, therefore, it is considered that the revisions would not result in any material increase of noise levels to the residential properties than the originally approved scheme. Taking into account that Universal Recycling does not have planning permission to operate its unit 24 hours a day, and that there is a fall-back position that could physically be implemented, it is not considered that a refusal to the amended site layout could be justified on noise grounds.

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

Conditions Imposed : 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 02 [PC97] The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Drawing numbers 2191/01 rev JJ, 2191/31 rev B, 2191/GB rev A)(received 28/02/2011) 03 [PC 24] Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either; a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. 04 [PC27*] Before the development is brought into use the car parking area shown on the approved plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. 05 [PC29] Before the development is commenced road sections, constructional and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 06 [PC94] Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how the use of sustainable/public transport will be encouraged. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. 07 [PC38C] Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary: -The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. -The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. -Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. -Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. -The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. -A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. -A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works. -The programme for implementation. -Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme.

The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 08 [PC38D] Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. 09 [PC44*] No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the occupation of the first dwelling. 10 PC52] No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11 The devlopment permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by Opus Joynes Pike, dated December 2010, and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 18.678 mAOD (page 9 of the FRA states that this level corresponds to 600 mm above the 1 in 100 year plus climate change water level for the River Don, or the equivalent water level from the 1 in 150 year return period plus 600 mm). 12 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 13 The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details (additional glazing for plots 113-122, 127-130, 131-133, 141-144, 155 and 156) in the revised noise assessment (reference Kirby Charles Associates, dated February 2011 received 28/02/2011). 14 The acoustic barrier comprising of a 3m high bund and 4m high acoustic fence shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans (Drawing numbers 2191/01 rev JJ, 2191/31 rev B, 2191/GB rev A)(received 28/02/2011). The acoustic barrier shall be completed before the occupation of the first dwelling and retained for the duration of the development.

Reasons for Conditions: 01 [PR99] In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 [PR97] To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 03 [PR24B] To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site, road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 04 [PR27] To ensure the provision of satisfactory garage/parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 05 [PR29] No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval. 06 [PR94] In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 07 [PR38C] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 08 [PR38D] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 09 [PR44] In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 10 [PR52] To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 11 To reduce the risk and impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants. 12 To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. 13 In order to provide satisfactory levels of amenity to future occupiers. 14 In order to protect the residential amenity of future occupiers.

Background

This site has approval to erect a total of 72 apartments and 126 houses under reserved matters application RB2006/0322, previously granted under outline application RB2005/0755.

Members will recall that in late 2009 an application to amend the layout of the northern part of the site was approved under application RB2009/1251. This involved selling part of the site to Universal Recycling to the north of the site (RB2009/1252). This proposed transaction has now fallen through.

Gladedale have indicated that due to an unprecedented downturn in market demand for apartments, the 3 blocks of three storey apartments (48 in total) that lie in the far north of the site cannot be implemented in the current housing market. Accordingly, a revision to the originally previously approved scheme involving the removal of the apartment element has been proposed with an amendment to the configuration of the cul-de-sac and alignment with the boundary to be considered in this application.

EIA Screening Opinion

The proposed development falls within the description contained at paragraph 10 (b) of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table in that Schedule. However , the Borough Council as the relevant local planning authority, having taken into account the criteria set out in Schedule 3 to the 1999 Regulations, is of the opinion that the development would not be likely to have significant effect s on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location.

It is not considered that the scale of the development proposed is of more than local importance; it is not located in a particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable location and would not have any unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects. Accordingly the authority has adopted the opinion that the development referred to is not EIA development as defined in the 1999 Regulations.

Site Description & Location

The site relates to a strip of land that is approximately 1.1 hectares in area between the Universal Recycling premises and the partially implemented Gladedale residential scheme off Wharf Road in Kilnhurst (RB2006/0322).

The site area has an irregular shape. The ground levels are relatively flat and are part of an area of land that currently has an extant permission to develop the site for a 48 apartments as part of a wider residential scheme approved in 2006 under application RB2006/0322. This part of the approved scheme has not been developed since the previous industrial buildings were demolished approximately 4 years ago.

Proposal

The applicant is Gladedale Homes who propose to amend the road and housing layout of the northern section of previously approved application RB2006/0322.

The changes to RB2006/0322 can be summarised as follows:-

• The three apartment blocks in the northern section of the site have been removed (plots 109-144). • Plots 101-104 remain approximately in the same position. • Plots 105-108 (amended design) have been re-located nearer the lake and the access road and turning head has been moved closer to these properties. • Plots 107a, b and c are in approximately the same position but now at the middle of the turning head and are now plots 109-111. • Plots 112-133 are now located where the apartment blocks were previously located and now comprise of housing. • Plots 134-155 (previously plots 155-184) involve a substitution of plot types from two storey apartments to two storey houses. The plots are broadly located in the same location with a similar road layout, though there is now no rear access to these plots. • No changes to plots 145-154 (same plot number) which is outside of the current site area.

No alterations to the S .106 agreement have been proposed. The public open space contribution of £50,000 was paid upon commencement of the development. The railway bridge contribution of £15,000 was paid upon commencement of the development. The Affordable housing units will comprise of 2 two bedroom houses on Plots 59 and 66 for shared ownership, 1 three bed Chatsworth town house Plot 58 for discounted sale in perpetuity, 6 two bedroom apartments, block 85-90 for shared ownership. None of these properties are affected by this current proposal.

In December 2010 a revised noise assessment was submitted with this application. This can be summarised as follows:-

• Noise monitoring was carried out on Thursday 25 November and Friday 26 November 2010 between plot 129 and 130. • The mean noise level was 57dB (daytime) and 65dB (night) ranging from an absolute minimum of 52.7 to an absolute maximum of 65.9 which were both in the ‘night’ period. • Noise levels at the nearest proposed residential dwellings are within the BS8233:1999 and World Health Organisations recommended guidelines for outdoor living spaces and bedrooms, providing the KCA August 2010 Report (KCA270904/2137AA) recommended noise reduction measures were implemented.

Due to concerns raised by Environmental Health regarding noise to the northernmost properties, the site layout has been further amended and a second revised noise assessment was received on 28 February 2011.

The revisions can be summarised as follows:-

• Units 129 and 130 omitted, so that all plots to the northern boundary are behind the building line of the apartments on the previously approved scheme. • The height of the acoustic barrier has been increased from 5 to 7 metres. This now includes a 4m high acoustic fence on top of a 3m high bund. • The steeply sloping northernmost footpath link has been omitted and an additional two plots have been inserted (plot 114 and 115). • The revised Noise Assessment indicates that plots 113-122, 127-130, 131-133, 141-144, 155 and 156 shall have glazing to all habitable windows with a minimum specification 6mm glass x 16mm air gap x 6.8mm glass with ventilation provided by acoustic trickle vents. • Double plasterboard ceilings (2 x 15mm plasterboard) to bedrooms of plots 113- 122, 127-130, 131-133, 141-144, 155 and 156.

The proposals also include a revised Floor Risk Assessment as the previously approved application dates from 2006 and was prior to the June 2007 floods.

The revisions can be summarised as follows: • Finished floor levels are set no lower than 18.678 m AOD (the FRA states that this level corresponds to 600 mm above the 1 in 100 year plus climate change water level for the River Don, or the equivalent water level from the 1 in 150 year return period plus 600 mm).

Development Plan Allocation and Policy

a) Development Plan

Regional Strategy

The position regarding the status of the Regional Strategy (RS) has been challenged and in the light of a recent decision of the High Court the decision of the Secretary of State to revoke RS has now been quashed. The effect is that the decision of the Secretary of State itself is now of no effect, and therefore the RS remains part of the statutory development plan for the time being.

However, Government has signalled its clear intention to bring forward legislation to withdraw the RS as soon as possible, and the Secretary of State has invited local planning authorities to have regard to that intention as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications (letter dated 10th November, 2010).

It follows that whilst the application must be determined in accordance with the policies of the development plan (which includes the RS) unless material considerations indicate otherwise, the weight to be given to such policies must be tempered by the fact that Government intends to withdraw the RS as soon as practicable.

POLICY H2: ‘Managing and stepping up the supply and delivery of housing’ indicates that housing development on brownfield land is a priority.

UDP Policy

Other relevant material planning considerations

National Policies

PPS3 ‘Housing’ indicates that schemes should have a mix of types and tenures of residential units and seeks good design.

Publicity

All relevant neighbours were informed by letter on 22 October 2010 and a site notice was erected on 03 November 2010. The application has also been advertised in the local press. No representations have been received.

Consultations

Access Officer – no objections Transportation Unit – no objections Drainage – no objections Neighbourhood and Adult Services – latest comments received on 24 March 2011 indicate that there are no objections to the revised proposals. Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections British Waterways – no objections Landscape Design – detailed landscaping unsatisfactory and recommend that conditions from the previous approval be re-imposed Environment Agency – no objections to revised data SYPTE – no objection subject to conditions

Appraisal

The principle of this residential development has been previously approved under RB2006/0755. In late 2009 Gladedale proposed to shorten the area available for housing with the proportion of land available to the neighbouring landowner Universal Recycling increasing (RB2009/1251). However, as this transaction has now fallen through, the applicant has the option of either continuing to implement the original reserved matters approval (RB2006/0322) or submitting a revised proposal to amend the layout of the northern area of the site.

This application seeks approval for an amended road layout and the re-positioning of 24 of the residential units in the northern section of the site. The omission of the apartments in the northern section of the site results in the number of units of the overall site being reduced from 198 to 162. There are no changes to the S .106 agreement and the existing S .106 agreement remains valid. As such there are no additional issues regarding Affordable Housing provision. The main considerations are as follows:-

• Design of the amended layout. • Impact from noise on amended residential properties with the existing Universal Recycling industrial unit to the north • Flood Risk • Highway safety • Revised proportions of housing and apartment units

Design of amended layout

From a design perspective it is considered that the amendments broadly reflect the design of the originally approved scheme (RB2006/0322). The road layouts have also not changed significantly since the approval of the previously amended scheme RB2009/1251 with the main difference being the replacement of the apartment blocks with housing on the northern elevation. It is considered that the overall housing designs and layouts proposed reflect the overall type and appearance of those previously approved in the original scheme. The proposals conform with the Council’s normal spacing standards and it is considered that this element of the scheme is acceptable.

Impact from noise

The northernmost residential units of the amended scheme will be located approximately 48 metres from Universal Recycling building which is the same spacing distance as the apartment units previously approved under RB2006/0322.

Since the previous approval Universal Recycling has increased its hours of operation to 24 hours a day for which it does not have planning permission. The last relevant planning permission on this site dates from 1994 (RB1994/1336) of which condition 03 states that “the premises shall only be used between the hours of 0800-1900 Monday to Friday, 0800-1200 Saturdays, with no Sunday or Bank Holiday working.” This breach of condition is currently being investigated though the Council’s Planning Enforcement Unit and the Environmental Health Unit.

Neighbourhood and Adult Services (Environmental Health) indicated that they were concerned in respect of the initial scheme that was submitted on this application.

However with the mitigation methods recommended in the latest revised noise assessment (dated February 2011) which indicates increased glazing and double plasterboard ceilings for plots 113-122, 127-130, 131-133, 141-144, 155 and 156 and bearing in mind the deletion of the two closest units to the northern boundary which abuts the commercial operation it is considered that the scheme now meets the requirements of BS4142/BS8233. Accordingly, subject to these measures being implemented, there is unlikely to be any adverse effect on residential amenity and a refusal could not be justified on these grounds.

It is further noted that the planning approval RB2006/0322 is still live and has been partially implemented. Indeed, the remainder of the original approval could also be physically implemented and the erection of apartment blocks in virtually the same location. This clearly represents a fallback position. The applicant indicates that the reason for its non-implementation is due to the financial difficulties of selling apartments in the current housing market on a site that already has a poor sales margin. The latest revised proposal includes increasing the height of the overall acoustic barrier from 5 to 7 metres and can be argued that these revisions would result in a slight improvement in overall noise reduction levels and amenity standards compared to the previously approved scheme.

Taking into account that Universal Recycling does not have planning permission to operate its unit 24 hours a day, that there is a fall-back position that could physically be implemented and the revised bunding and layout measures to be introduced, it is not considered that a refusal to the amended site layout could be justified on noise grounds.

Flood Risk

The Environment Agency has reviewed the amended FRA and have indicated that there are no objections subject to conditions which are recommended in the FRA. The findings indicate that there will be no additional flood risk created by the revised scheme. It is therefore considered that the proposals comply with the guidance of PPS25 ‘Planning and Flood Risk.’

Transportation and Highway safety

The Transportation Unit have indicated that there are no highway safety issues with the amended layouts. The principal highway configurations are broadly similar to the earlier approvals and this element of the revised application is considered to be acceptable.

Mix of residential units

The wider scheme results in a net reduction from 198 to of 162 residential units, with the loss of 60 apartments and an increase of 34 houses. The amended scheme retains a total of 12 apartments which are currently being constructed. The increased proportion of housing is considered to better represent market demand and local preference. The overall scheme retains a mix of 2-5 bedroom units and the alteration in the mix is not considered to detrimentally affect the general character of the scheme and is considered to reflect the advice contained within PPS3 ‘Housing.’

Conclusion

In terms of noise, the remainder of the original approval could be physically implemented and this represents a fallback position. On balance, therefore, it is considered that the revisions would not result in any material increase of noise levels to the residential properties than the originally approved scheme. Taking into account that Universal Recycling does not have planning permission to operate its unit 24 hours a day, and that there is a fall-back position that could physically be implemented, it is not considered that a refusal to the amended site layout could be justified on noise grounds.

RB2010/1672

Details of the erection of 12 No. two storey dwellinghouses and a two storey building comprising 4 No. apartments (reserved by outline RB2010/0585) at former Listerdale Nursing Home, Bawtry Road, Wickersley for Harran Homes Ltd.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO APPROVE RESERVED MATTERS

1. Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: a) Development Plan - Local Planning Policy

HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ states that: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment…”

HG4.8 ‘Flats, Bed-sitting Rooms and Houses in Multiple Occupation’ states that the Council will permit the creation of flats, bed-sitting rooms and houses in multiple- occupation, provided that a concentration of these forms of accommodation does not seriously interfere with the amenities of existing residents and adequate provision is incorporated into any development to accommodate off-street parking for residents.”

Policy ENV1.4 ‘Land adjacent to the Green Belt’ states: -“In areas adjacent to the Green Belt, development should be sympathetic to the visual amenity and environmental quality of the Green Belt.”

ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ states that: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping, together with regard to the security of ultimate users and their property.”

ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ states “In considering the scale, appearance, nature and location of development and infrastructure proposals, the Council will seek to minimise adverse impact on the environment, including water resources, and to conserve and improve its quality. It will permit development which results in a significant loss of trees, woodlands, hedgerows or field boundary walls only when there is compelling justification for doing so.”

ENV3.3 ‘Tree Preservation Orders’ states: “The Council will protect individual and groups of trees by the declaration of Tree Preservation Orders where it is important in the interest of visual amenity or there is reason to believe that trees are under specific threat by development or the detrimental use of land.”

T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ states that: “In considering the location of new development, the Council will have regard to the increasing desirability of reducing travel demand…” b) Other relevant material planning considerations:

Supplementary Planning Guidance.

The Council’s Interim Parking Standards (adopted in June 2002) advises that the maximum spaces required for residential developments are three spaces per unit where the dwelling has more than four bedrooms. As regards flatted developments this should be one space per unit with a further visitor space per two flats.

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Housing Guidance 3: Residential Infill Plots sets out guidance on space standards between dwellings and suggests that there should be 20 metres between principal elevations or 12 metres between a principal elevation and an elevation with no habitable room windows. It also suggests that any elevation less than 10 metres from a boundary should contain no habitable room windows at first floor level, nor should it contain a window or door to any habitable room at ground floor level unless there is adequate screening to prevent loss of privacy. This guidance was specifically prepared to relate to development on corner plots but is considered to be applicable to all types of residential development.

SPG Housing Guidance 5: Landscape Design in New Housing Areas, sets out guidance in respect of retaining existing landscaping and consideration for replacement planting.

The guidance suggests that the incorporation of existing features such as trees and hedgerows within the overall design is invaluable, and the retention of boundary planting associated with existing road frontages, for example, can help to integrate new developments into their surroundings by creating an attractive setting and provide shelter and screening, thus enhancing environmental quality and defining character.

National Policies.

Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.

The reissued PPS3: ‘Housing’ still reinforces the message from PPS1 in that development should be well integrated with and complement neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally.

PPS3 has removed the requirement for Councils to have regard to the national minimum density for housing and to focus densities which are characteristic of the locality and further goes on to advise that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. If done well, imaginative design and layout of new development can lead to a more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the local environment.

Planning Policy Guidance 13 ‘Transport’ seeks to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level; to promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and reduce the need to travel, especially by car.

2. For the following reasons:

The principle of residential development of this site is established by the outline permission (reference RB2009/0585) which was granted conditionally on 06 September 2010. The current application seeks approval for details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the development.

In general, the layout of the development accords with the Council’s normal standards which seek to prevent a loss of privacy and overshadowing to existing and new residential properties and demonstrates that attention has been paid to the form and relationship with surrounding dwellings. The layout, scale and appearance of the proposed development is considered to accord with UDP Policies ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ and (SPG) Housing Guidance 3: Residential Infill Plots.

It is considered that the layout of the development respects the topography of the site, and is of sufficient distance from the adjacent Green Belt to accord with UDP Policy ENV1.4 ‘Land adjacent to the Green Belt’. Furthermore the mixture of building heights and stepped facades relate well to the surrounding properties/locality according with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’.

In respect of landscaping, it is considered that the submitted landscaping and management specifications will enable the development to integrate into the existing locality whilst new planting proposals will provided an enhanced landscape environment in accordance with UDP Policies HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and SPG Housing Guidance 5: Landscape Design in New Housing Areas.

Additionally the proposals will not impact upon the future vitality of the trees around the perimeter of the site which are the subject of a recent Tree Preservation Order. Whilst the proposal will lead to the loss of trees on the site, replacement planting is proposed such that the development is in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.3 ‘Tree Preservation Orders’.

In terms of highway considerations it is considered that the proposal accords with UDP Policy T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ and PPG13. Furthermore, it is considered that adequate provision is made for parking within the confines of the site in accordance with the Council’s interim parking standards and that the proposed development will not result in a situation hazardous to highway safety.

3. The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve reserved matters. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents.

Conditions Imposed:

01 (PC97) The approval hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (Drawing number 2237/4 Rev D received 23/03/11; Drawing number 2237/5 Rev A received 23/03/11; Drawing number 10-046-01-Rev L (and associated house types) received 22/03/11; Drawing number 2237/3 Rev C received 22/03/11; Landscape Management Specification & Tree Schedule (Plots 8-10) received 23/03/11). 02 [PC52] No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 03 [PC44*] No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the units are occupied. 04 Before the development is brought into use the car parking area for the proposed flats as shown on the approved site plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. 05 Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D , E and F and Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the dwellings at plots 2 – 10 shall not be extended or altered externally; nor shall any incidental building, structure or enclosure be erected within the rear garden areas; or means of enclosures erected without obtaining further planning permission. 06 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority details indicating the position and construction of soakaways to plots 2 - 10 and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 07 No work or storage on the site shall commence until all the trees/shrubs to be retained have been protected by the erection of a strong durable 2.3 metre high barrier fence in accordance with B.S.5837: 2005 Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction. This shall be positioned in accordance with the submitted Trees in Relation to Development detail from Popplewell Associates Dwg No 2237/3 Rev C. The protective fencing shall be properly maintained and shall not be removed without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the development is completed. There shall be no alterations in ground levels, fires, use of plant, storage, mixing or stockpiling of materials within the fenced areas. 08 [PC41] All tree works shall be carried out in accordance with B.S.3998: 1989. The schedule of all tree works shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work commences and no tree work shall commence until the applicant or his contractor has given at least seven days notice of the intended starting date to the Local Planning Authority. 09 The approved development shall be implemented in accordance with the tree protection details within the submitted Arboricultural Survey Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement by Sylvanus Arboricultural Consultants dated December 2009 and December 2010 and the schedule of tree surgery works by Popplewell Associates dated 22 March 2011, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 10 Prior to commencement of development, a revised landscape scheme shall be submitted that addresses the comments set out below and shall include:-

• The topsoil depth referred to on drawing 2237/5A (Rear Garden Design) should be 450mm (as per the amended depth for drawing 2237/4D). • Details relating to the implementation and maintenance of shrub planting to plot 7 and of the meadow mix within the root protection areas of protected trees and proposals for weed control within the existing tree belts shall be submitted to and agreed. • The approved landscape scheme shall be carried out during the first available planting season after commencement of the development. • Any future works to the existing protected trees will be subject to an application being submitted to the LPA for consideration and approval in accordance with the Tree Preservation Order Regulations. In the event of replacement tree planting being necessary, details of this shall be agreed with the Council's arboriculturalist.

The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme. 11 [PC38D] Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31 st December of that year.

Reasons for Conditions:

01 To define the approval and for the avoidance of doubt. 02 [PR52] To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 03 [PR44] In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 04 [PR23] In the interests of road safety. 05 To ensure that the future vitality and viability of protected trees are not compromised and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.3 ‘Tree Preservation Orders.’ 06 To ensure that the future vitality and viability of protected trees are not compromised and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.3 ‘Tree Preservation Orders.’ 07 [PR40] To ensure the trees/shrubs are protected during the construction of the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’ 08 [PR41] To ensure the tree works are carried out in a manner which will maintain the health and appearance of the trees in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’ 09 To ensure that the future vitality and viability of protected trees are not compromised and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.3 ‘Tree Preservation Orders.’ 10 [PR38B] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’ 11 [PR38D] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows.’

Informatives:

01 Access for fire appliances should be in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document B volume 1 part B5 section 11. 02 The applicant is advised that in respect of discharging the requirements of condition 6, no soakaways shall be provided within the identified root protection areas of protected trees which exist upon the site.

Background

The site of application has been the subject of the following applications: -

1988/1711 - Conversion of former maternity home into home for the elderly and mentally infirm - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 19/01/89

RB2000/0302 - Conservatory for use of elderly and disabled persons (application under regulations 3 & 9 of the T &CP General Regs 1992) - GRANTED 15/05/00

RB2010/0585 - Outline application for the demolition of nursing home and erection of 16 no dwellings including details of access (Application under Regulations 3 & 9A of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992) GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 06/09/2010

The proposed development falls within the description contained at paragraph 10b (Urban Development Projects) of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table in that Schedule (as the area of development exceeds 0.5 hectares). The Council has formed the view that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. As such the Local Planning Authority has adopted the opinion that the development is not EIA development as defined in the 1999 Regulations.

Tree Preservation Order No. 10, 2010 was confirmed without modification on the 18 November 2010 and relates to the majority of existing trees located on the boundaries of the site.

Site Description & Location

The site of application relates to the former Listerdale Nursing Home, now closed, and is located to the southern side of Bawtry Road and accessed via a feeder lane off the dual carriageway. The overall site area comprises of some 0.9 hectares and is roughly rectangular in shape and slopes in a north/south orientation, with the land falling approximately 10 metres from Bawtry Road to open fields at the rear which are used for agricultural purposes and are within the Green Belt.

The buildings which currently remain on site are primarily two storey in height constructed of two linked ‘Y-shaped’ wings with a central single storey projecting wing to the front and a modern large flat roofed wing to the rear. The materials of construction are indicated as being primarily brick and slate roof.

The site is bounded to the west by an existing detached two storey property (no. 66) set in an extensive plot, whilst to the east is located the residential properties at Moorlands which comprise of detached properties set in large plots and contain a mix of house types including two storey dwellings, single storey bungalows and dormer bungalows.

The site is heavily screened to all of its boundaries by significant mature planting and trees (which are now covered by Tree Protection Order no. 10: 2010). Those properties on Moorlands to the east further have boundary treatments consisting of primarily timber fencing ranging 1.8 to 2.0 metres in height.

Proposal

The application seeks reserved matters approval for layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for a residential scheme subsequent to the approved outline planning permission which was granted on 06 September 2010.The details of access were considered at the outline stage.

The application proposes 12 no. detached dwellings set around a centralised estate road in a predominantly ‘U-shaped’ configuration and comprises of 4 and 5 bedroom detached properties a further block of 4 no. apartments is proposed to the north of the site and comprises of 2 bedroom flats. A condition on the outline permission required 25% of housing provision to be affordable housing and the applicant has confirmed that this provision has been identified to be the apartments to the north of the site (plots 13 - 16).

In respect of the proposed height distribution of the development, given the sloping nature of the site from Bawtry Road to the open fields at the rear, the dwellings and apartment block have been designed to reflect the topography of the site and are primarily two storeys in height. In respect of plot 1 this has been designed to give the appearance of a split level dwelling ranging in between 1½ to 2 storeys in height.

In terms of the proposed materials of construction the development is indicated to be of a modern design, utilising predominantly brick to ground floor external walls with render and timber ‘mock Tudor’ panels to the upper floors, roofing materials are indicated as flat concrete tiles.

The proposed means of access to the site off Bawtry Road remains unchanged in respect of its alignment and width, a revised plan submitted during the course of the application has amended the internal access arrangements to include improved sightlines at the site access, enhanced visibility splay (22 metre visibility) in relation to the first and second bends in the proposed new highway and alterations to the alignment of the proposed parking area to the flats. The initial section of access road into the site is to be made up to adoptable standards at a width of 5.5 metres with a 2 metre footway on both sides, beyond which the road narrows slightly to provide a shared pedestrian/ vehicular surface culminating in a cul-de-sac at the southern end of the site.

Parking arrangements for the proposed development consist primarily of integral double garages to the majority of the plots and in the case of plot 1 a treble garage, with driveways capable of accommodating a further two vehicles off the highway. For the remaining plots nos. 5 & 8, parking accommodation is proposed in the form of detached double garages with additional drives capable of accommodating an additional two vehicles. In respect of the proposed apartment parking provision, this is indicated as four spaces (i.e. a 1:1 ratio) with an additional two no. visitor spaces being provided. Cycle parking is further indicated to the north of the proposed parking area.

As regards the extent of proposed amenity areas, with the exception of the 4 no. apartments at plots 13 - 16 which have little or no external amenity areas, each dwelling is to be provided with private rear gardens ranging in area from 188 sq metres to 494 sq metres and between 11 – 15 metres in depth and are proposed to be enclosed by a 1.8 metre high close boarded fences to the site perimeters with adjacent land. Other boundary treatments proposed at the site include a mix of 1.5 metre and 1.8 metre high feather edge fencing separating the proposed plots; 1.8 metre high weldmesh fencing to the southern boundary with the open fields and 0.9metre high ball top railings to the front of plot 1 and the proposed apartments.

On the matter of landscaping, the scheme proposes a native hedgerow planted along the southern boundary on the inside of the plot in front of the proposed weldmesh fencing which will assist in supplementing the existing gappy hedgerow which currently exists. Other planting proposed involves mixes of cherry and silver birch trees pepper potted throughout the site with low to medium growing shrubs separating the proposed highway from front gardens in order to provide ground cover planting.

In respect of the protected trees, the application has been submitted with a Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Method Statement and schedule of tree surgery works and the plans have been amended to move house plots further from the trees on site in an attempt to demonstrate that the proposed development will not impact upon the existing trees which are contained on the site and provides justification for those trees which are required to be removed as part of the proposals. In terms of those proposed for removal this equates to 4 protected and 6 unprotected trees.

Development Plan Allocation and Policy

Local Planning Policy:

T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ states that: “In considering the location of new development, the Council will have regard to the increasing desirability of reducing travel demand…”

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Guidance:

SPG Housing Guidance 5: Landscape Design in New Housing Areas, sets out guidance in respect of retaining existing landscaping and consideration for replacement planting.

National Policies:

Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ sets out the Government's overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.

The reissued PPS3: ‘Housing’ still reinforces the message from PPS1 in that development should be well integrated with and complement neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally.

Publicity

The application has been advertised by way of press and site notice and individual neighbour notification. To date 3 letters of representation have been received in respect of the originally submitted drawings from the occupiers of 66 Bawtry Road, 61 Moorlands and 17 Dovedale Road raising the following issues:-

• Would like to know who would be responsible for the maintenance of the new trees which are proposed to be planted to the north east of plot 1. i.e. the thin strip between Plot 1, the new road & Bawtry Road. • Would like clarification over proposed boundary treatments to properties which border the site. • Side boundaries on the site are not ‘true.’ • Concerns over the impact of car parking upon the potential occupiers of plot 1 as there are only 6 parking spaces for the 4 flats. • Concerned over impact of development and positioning of plots / windows and potential for overlooking. • Design of plot 1 appears alien and out of character with proposed properties. • Removal of plot 1 will facilitate better access arrangements.

Wickersley Parish Council whilst broadly supportive of the scheme have re-iterated their previous comments from the outline application:-

• As the existing buildings and its location are not remarkable consideration should be given to some form of eco design given the isolated position from other residential areas and sloped away from the road and landscaping. • Houses should be positioned better to take account of distant views. • Given the legacy of the maternity hospital and its community contribution, a permanent plaque celebrating its use and history be installed at the finished development. • In the absence of affordable housing contribution, the developer should consider a community contribution for an activity or amenity managed by the Council to offset car usage.

At the time of compiling this report, no letters of representation have been received in respect of the amended drawings or the additional information received.

One objector has requested a Right to Speak at the Planning Board.

Consultations

Transportation Unit – With regard to the revised site layout, the revisions are acceptable and therefore no objections to the granting of planning permission in a highways context are raised.

South Yorks Fire Safety Officer advises that access for fire appliances should be in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document B volume 1 part B5 section 11.

Streetpride (Trees and Woodland Section) - Comments that the revised information and drawings submitted overcome previous concerns in terms of impact upon protected trees and that subject to the recommended conditions in respect of provision of soakaways outside tree root protection areas and removal of permitted development rights for alterations / extensions, ancillary buildings and fencing no objections are now raised. Notes that whilst 10 trees are identified as being removed, including 4 protected by TPO No. 10, 2010 these trees have been identified as being of lesser quality and/or defects and overall their loss in the general scheme of the development would be negligible.

Streetpride (Landscape Unit) - Advises, in the main the submitted landscaping details are satisfactory and subject to the recommended conditions to ensure adequate planting along the rear boundary, implementation and maintenance of shrub planting and clarification over the extent of ‘meadow mix’ planting within the root protection areas of protected trees, no objections to the revised proposals.

The Council’s Sustainable Communities Manager comments in respect of the proposed affordable housing provision that the offer of 4 x 2 bed apartments is acceptable subject to no further increase in numbers and that further detail in relation to tenure etc is a requirement under discharging pre commencement condition no.3 attached to the outline planning permission (ref RB2010/0585).

Appraisal

Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..in dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations - S.70 (2) TCPA 1990.

If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004.

The principle of residential development of this site is established by the outline permission (reference RB2010/0585) which was granted conditionally on 06 September 2010. Therefore, the main issues in the determination of this application include the layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping of the development, the impact on the character of the area and surrounding environment and whether the details fall within the ambit of the outline planning permission for the site and the conditions attached to it. Other matters in relation to highway safety considerations and the impact of the development upon existing trees are further considered.

Layout

The outline planning application included a Design and Access statement (D & A Statement) and indicative layout drawing designed to demonstrate that the number of dwellings proposed could be accommodated upon the site. The submitted proposals follow the principles of that layout in that it sets out a form of detached dwellings and apartment block set around a centralised access point and has been amended during the course of the application at officers request in order to resolve the issues of proximity to protected trees, and to resolve drainage matters.

The views expressed by objectors in respect of the lack of variety of house types to be constructed at the site are acknowledged, though it is considered that the development as now proposed with 4 different house types, and the inclusion of apartments, is acceptable in this location.

Additionally, the layout as submitted is considered to accord with the Council’s normal standards which seek to prevent a loss of privacy and overshadowing to existing and new residential properties and demonstrates that attention has been paid to the form and relationship with surrounding dwellings.

Overall given the size of site, the mix of dwelling types has been achieved which contributes to the creation of mixed communities objectives to which PPS3 ‘Housing’ advocates. As such it is further considered that the proposals accord with UDP Policies ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ and SPG Housing Guidance 3: Residential Infill Plots.

Appearance

This element covers matters of materials to be used in the construction of the development, and concern has been raised in respect of the ‘mock Tudor’ design, though this it is not an uncommon feature of developments previously constructed in the Borough.

The palette of proposed materials, which includes the predominant use of red brickwork, concrete tiled roof and rendered / timbered first floor panels, can be viewed on developments opposite the site on Marcliffe Close and other properties further north on Sledgate Lane and therefore on this matter it is considered that the development would integrate well into the general Bawtry Road street scene and accords with UDP Policies HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ and ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’.

Scale

The D & A Statement submitted with the outline application indicated a potential range of building heights of between 1½ and 2 storeys in height to be the most appropriate for this sloping site. The submitted drawings follow the topography of the site by introducing a mix of building heights ranging between 6.6 metres at plot 1 and 8.5 - 8.7 metres for the remaining properties / apartments as well as the use of stepped facades and the breaking up of elevation and roof lines via the use of projecting gable features and the use of varied eaves levels. The apartment block is further set down at a lower level than Bawtry Road and its overall impact is considered negligible. It is not considered therefore that the scale of the development would make a significant impact upon the visual amenity of the street-scene and it is considered that the stepped scale of the development is visually interesting and thereby accords with the objectives of UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’.

In respect of the impact of the development upon the Green Belt to the rear, it is considered that the combination of the scale of the proposed buildings which range in height by approximately 8.5 – 8.7 metres as well as the layout which sets the buildings off this boundary by some 13 – 15 metres to be sufficient to accord with the provisions of UDP Policy ENV1.4 ‘Land adjacent to the Green Belt’.

Landscaping

The revised landscaping and landscape management specifications as now submitted indicate that the development will be planted with trees on the approach into the site from Bawtry Road with additional trees planted in rear gardens particularly on the southern boundary in order to off set those trees proposed to be removed. Additional low level ground coverage planting and further trees are proposed to be located within the front gardens to the majority of plots. Additional revisions have included a double planting of hedgerow along the rear (southern) boundary with the Green Belt and this is to be interwoven with a 1.8 metre high green ‘weldmesh’ fence to provide security to the proposed occupants. Overall it is considered that the proposals accord with UDP Policies HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and SPG Housing Guidance 5: Landscape Design in New Housing Areas.

Impact upon protected trees

Linked in with the layout considerations considered above has been the issue relating to the position of dwellings within close proximity to both crown spread and root protection areas of the protected trees on the site. The submitted revised layout plans indicate that no part of the development will be within these identified areas of concern and this has involved the repositioning of plots 8, 9 and 10 within their retrospective plots along with removal of single storey sitting room projecting elements to plots 9 and 10 and the reduction in footprint to the rear element at plot 8. The advice received from the Council’s Trees and Woodland Section is that, subject to the recommended condition requiring further details in respect of the position of boundary fencing, the location of soakaways and the removal of permitted development rights for extensions and alterations and ancillary buildings to specific plots, accordance with ENV3.3 ‘Tree Preservation Orders’ is achieved.

Highway issues

The issue of access onto Bawtry Road was considered acceptable in the determination of the outline planning permission subject to the imposition of conditions. This matter cannot therefore be revisited as part of this reserved matters application.

In terms of the internal access arrangements the site has been designed around an initial access road being capable of providing two-way traffic with pedestrian pavements to a point just below the first plot and the proposed flats, after this point it reverts to a shared pedestrian / vehicular highway with turning facility capable of accommodating service and emergency vehicles. The access is to be adopted and car parking provision is considered to accord with the Council’s Maximum Car Parking Standards and is considered to be acceptable.

Members may recall condition 10 of the outline permission required: - “a potential vehicular and pedestrian link to access the adjacent site at no.66 Bawtry Road” however this matter has not been pursued as part of the current scheme as this was not deemed to be a pre-requisite to the development of the site. This issue has further been clarified with the applicant and it has been discounted purely for the reason that: “The provision of an access through to the adjacent site also will constrain unnecessarily the development of the site and can see no planning reason to require access to the site.” The Council’s Transportation Unit have commented that whilst in highway terms this link would be desirable, as the adjacent land is only suitable for potentially one additional dwelling and that access could be derived from the existing access suitably improved or via the adjacent site further to the west which has received outline planning permission under application RB2009/0217. Therefore no objections are raised to this element of the scheme.

Conclusion

In general, the layout of the development accords with the Council’s normal standards which seek to prevent a loss of privacy and overshadowing to existing and new residential properties and demonstrates that attention has been paid to the form and relationship with surrounding dwellings. The layout, scale and appearance of the proposed development is considered to accord with UDP Policies ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ which require development to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design, scale and relationship with the locality and which enhance the quality of the residential environment whilst providing increased accessibility for everyone.

In view of the above it is recommended that the reserved matters be approved.

RB2011/0036

Outline application for the erection of a bungalow including details of the layout & access (renewal of permission RB2007/0757) at land to rear of 144 Bawtry Road, Wickersley

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

1. Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below:

a) Development Plan:

Local Planning Policy

Policy HG4.3: Windfall Sites states “The Council will determine proposals for housing development not identified in Policies HG4.1 and HG4.2 in light of their: (i) location within the existing built up area and compatibility with adjoining uses, and (ii) compatibility with other relevant policies and guidance.”

Policy HG4.4 ‘Back land and Tandem Development’ states “The Council will resist the development of dwellings in tandem except in cases of low density where further development would not be detrimental to the amenities and character of the area. In these exceptional circumstances, the Council will impose criteria relating to building height, space around the building, privacy, safety and vehicular access.”

Policy HG5: The Residential Environment states “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.”

Policy ENV3.1: Development and the Environment states “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.”

b) Other relevant material planning considerations:

SPG ‘Housing Guidance 3: Residential infill was prepared in response to the increasing number of applications to build additional dwellings within corner properties whose back gardens have road frontages. The Guidance notes that: “Typically such plots have greater width than depth and the proposed dwellings are small bungalows or dormer bungalows, specially designed to fit the site. The main consideration in decisions is whether the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of any existing dwelling or to the street scene in general.”

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) re-enforces the message from PPS1. It states that development should be well integrated with and complement neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally in terms of scale, density, layout and access.

Greater flexibility for planning permissions: DCLG Guidance (October 2010).

2. For the following reasons:

Planning permission has previously been granted for the proposed development and the current application relates to an extension of time for implementation of that permission. The local planning authority in making its decision should focus its attention, on “development plan policies and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission.”

Since outline planning permission RB2007/0757 was granted on 7 February 2008 there are no development plan policies or other material considerations which have changed significantly to warrant refusing the current application.

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

Conditions Imposed:

01 [PC97] The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Drawing number 2006:260 A)(received 21/5/07) 02 [PC00] Before the commencement of the development, details of the scale, appearance, and landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 03 [PC12] Details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any off-site work, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until such approved details are implemented. 04 [PC 24] Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either; a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. 05 [PC44*] No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the development is brought into use. 06 [PC52] No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 07 The details submitted pursuant to this permission shall indicate a single storey dwelling only and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, at no time shall any dormer windows or rooflights be added without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 08 [PC38] The detailed plans to be submitted in accordance with this outline permission shall include a detailed landscape scheme. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary: - The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. - The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. - Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. - Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. - The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. - A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. - A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works. - The programme for implementation. - Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 09 [PC38D] Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year.

Reasons for Conditions:

01 [PR97] To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 02 [PR00] No details of the matters referred to having been submitted, they are reserved for the subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority. 03 [PR12] To ensure that the development can be properly drained in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 04 [PR24B] To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site, road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 05 [PR44] In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 06 [PR52] To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 07 To protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 08 [PR38] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 09 [PR38D] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’.

Background

RB2006/1501 Outline application for the erection of a bungalow including details of the siting and means of access WITHDRAWN 13/09/07

RB2007/0757 Outline application for the erection of a bungalow including details of the layout & access GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 07/02/08

RB2008/0807 Change of use from residential to private (non NHS) dental practice and external alterations to include canopy, fenestration alterations and modifications from hipped to a gable roof GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 07/07/08

The previous application (RB2007/0757) was granted on 7 February 2008, the current application was submitted prior to the 3 year expiration date of the previous application.

Furthermore, it should be noted that measures to allow applicants to submit applications to extend the time limits for implementing planning permissions have recently been introduced to make it easier for developers to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the current economic downturn, so that they can be more quickly implemented when economic conditions improve. It is a temporary measure and only applies to applications granted permission before the 1 st October 2009.

Site Description & Location

The application site occupies approximately 0.03 Ha to the rear of a Dentist Surgery of 144 Bawtry Road, Wickersley, a corner plot which lies to the south of Bawtry Road and west of Gorseland Court. The site was previously part of the garden of 144 Bawtry Road which was a dwellinghouse prior to its change of use to a Dentist Surgery in 2008. The site measures a maximum of 25 metres by 13 metres. It is enclosed by a variety of hedges and fences and comprises mainly lawn.

The existing access to 144 Bawtry Road is from a slip road which runs parallel to Bawtry Road on the northern boundary of the existing curtilage. Surrounding properties comprise a wide variety of house types on Bawtry Road, with a similar variety of plot sizes, whilst Gorseland Court is a development of 24 apartments (six blocks of four apartments) dating from the early 1980s. The surrounding gardens, particularly that of 142 to the west, are characterised by boundary hedgerows and trees. A new dwelling has been constructed in the rear garden of no. 142 Bawtry Road to the west of the site. This dwelling is a dormer bungalow for which retrospective planning permission was granted under Delegated powers in March 2011.

Proposal

This application is a renewal of outline planning permission for the erection of a single storey dwelling to the rear of 144 Bawtry Road. Layout and means of access are to be considered at the outline stage, the proposed access is from Gorseland Court, and will be 2 metres from the southern boundary of the site.

The main details of the proposal can be summarised as follows:-

• The proposal is for an “L” shaped building, the long arm of the “L” running east west across the site and the short arm on the western boundary of the site with142 Bawtry Road. • The proposed bungalow will be sited a minimum of 7 metres from the southern end of the site. • The main garden area for the new unit will be at the northern end of the site, adjacent to the proposed new rear garden boundary with 144 Bawtry Road. The dimensions of the garden are approximately 13 metres x 10 metres. • The western wall of the new bungalow will be located close to the garden boundary with the adjacent property 142 Bawtry Road. • It is proposed that a copper beech hedge will be planted on the new garden boundary between the plot and 144 Bawtry Road.

Development Plan Allocation and Policy

Local Planning Policy:

Policy HG4.3: Windfall Sites states “The Council will determine proposals for housing development not identified in Policies HG4.1 and HG4.2 in light of their:-

(i) location within the existing built up area and compatibility with adjoining uses, and (ii) compatibility with other relevant policies and guidance.”

Other Material Considerations

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Housing Guidance 3, ‘Residential infill plots”, was prepared in response to the increasing number of applications to build additional dwellings within corner properties whose back gardens have road frontages. The Guidance notes that: “Typically such plots have greater width than depth and the proposed dwellings are small bungalows or dormer bungalows, specially designed to fit the site. The main consideration in decisions is whether the proposal would cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of any existing dwelling or to the street scene in general.” It adds that:

“The Council will have regard to the following criteria:

(i) normal inter-house spacing should be observed (that is, 20 metres minimum between principal elevations or 12 metres minimum between a principal elevation and an elevation with no habitable room windows);

(ii) any elevation situated less than 10 metres from a boundary with another residential curtilage (including the “host property”) should contain no habitable room windows at first floor level, nor should it contain a window or door to any habitable room or kitchen at ground floor level unless there is adequate screening to prevent loss of privacy;

(iii) the maximum ground area covered by the dwelling (excluding garage) should be approximately 33% of the site area;

(iv) The maximum height of the dwelling (to the ridge) should relate to the height of the adjacent dwellings, to minimise overlooking and impact on adjacent dwellings;

(v) Where there is potential for loss of amenity to the adjacent dwellings, the dwelling should be either single storey with a double pitched roof or should only have rooms in the roof with roof lights;

(vi) There should be a garage or garage space, with a six metres drive in front;

(vii) The provision, as appropriate of screening at sensitive boundaries, particularly where the dwelling would stand close to the boundary with the back garden of another dwelling.

(viii) The desirability of locating the dwelling forward on the plot (say within two metres of the front boundary) in order to maximise back garden space, provided the garage is still set back six metres.”

Also within PPS3, the Government has changed the definition of previously developed land (known as brownfield land) in PPS3 to exclude the private residential gardens in built up areas. Such gardens are therefore now classed as greenfield. PPS3 sets a national target of at least 60% of new dwellings to be built on brownfield land. There is no specific target for the Rotherham Borough, there will be no Borough target until it is set in the LDF, but Rotherham has exceeded the national targets for a number of years.

Publicity

The application has been publicised by neighbour notification. Three individual letters of objection were received from neighbouring properties and an objection letter has been received from the Management Company of the flats on Gorseland Court representing 24 properties on Gorseland Court. The objections are summarised as followed:-

• The development is inappropriate for the area. • Is not in keeping with the surroundings/incongruous and incompatible. • The development would overlook 24 and 25 Gorseland Court reducing their privacy. • The development would adversely affect the light available to 24 and 25 Gorseland Court • Privacy of 2 to 5 Gorseland Court would be affected by proposed access. • Adverse noise effect on 22 to 25 Gorseland Court caused by garage construction. • Plot is not large enough to accommodate a dwelling. • Detrimental to environment due to removal of trees and hedges. • Part of the application site is not owned by the applicant. • Subsidence in the area warrants investigation. • Impact on road safety. • Legal difficulties with regard to ownership and maintenance of drainage systems. • Materials used in construction should match Gorseland Court. • Contribution should be made to Gorseland Court Residents Association for annual maintenance fee. • If bungalow is freehold they would not have to abide by restrictions placed on leaseholders of Gorseland Court which is a concern to the residents of Gorseland Court.

Consultations

The Council’s Transportation Unit have no objections to the renewal of planning permission in a highway context subject to all relevant conditions being retained.

South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue have stated that access for fire appliances should be in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document B volume 1 part B5 section 11.

Appraisal

The Government’s guidelines “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” provides guidance on applications to extend time limits for implementing planning permissions.

The development proposed in an application for extension will by definition have been judged to be acceptable in principle when originally granted. The Government guidance adds that “local planning authorities should, in making their decisions, focus their attention on development plan policies and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission.”

In this instance the only changes to the circumstances on this site are the change of use of the dwellinghouse of 144 Bawtry Road to a Dentist Surgery in 2008 and the erection of a dormer bungalow at the rear of 142 Bawtry Road, adjacent to this site.

Whilst the change of use of the dwellinghouse of 144 Bawtry Road to a Dental Surgery was granted since the previous approval for this dwelling, it is considered that the use as a Dental Surgery would not impact on the use of the land to its rear as a housing plot and the granting of that permission took into account the impact on the site at the rear of 144 Bawtry Road and the potential for a dwelling to be built thereon.

With regard to the erection of the dormer bungalow to the rear of no. 142 Bawtry Road, at the time of the granting of the original outline permission in 2008, planning permission for the erection of a bungalow at the rear of no. 142 Bawtry Road had been granted (RB2006/2177). As this dwelling was not built in accordance with the approved plans (a dormer bungalow instead of a single storey bungalow) retrospective planning permission was sought for this dwelling and was granted in March 2011. The granting of that permission took into account the impact on the site at the rear of 144 Bawtry Road, subject to the current application, and the potential for a dwelling to be built thereon.

Furthermore, the proposed development has not changed since the original approval in 2008 and there have been no changes to development plan policies in this interim period. The only material change to Government Policy or advice in this period between the previous approval and this current application relates to the altered definition of ‘Brownfield’ land within PPS3 ‘Housing’.

The Government has changed the definition of previously developed land (known as brownfield land) in PPS3 to exclude the private residential gardens in built up areas. Such gardens are therefore now classed as greenfield. PPS3 sets a national target of at least 60% of new dwellings to be built on brownfield land. There is no specific target for the Rotherham Borough, there will be no Borough target until it is set in the LDF, but Rotherham has exceeded the national target for a number of years.

While the change in the guidance has changed the status of private residential gardens, it has not introduced a presumption that the development of gardens is inherently unacceptable. The brownfield/greenfield status of a site is a material consideration, but it is one among many, and the need to meet the overall housing requirement is an important consideration in all cases. At this time both greenfield and brownfield land will be required to meet future housing needs.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the current proposal is still acceptable subject to the imposition of the same conditions attached to the previous approval under RB2007/0757.

Conclusion

To conclude, planning permission has previously been granted for the proposed development and the current application relates to an extension of time for implementation of that permission. Members have to primarily consider Development Plan Policies and the material planning considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission. The report indicates that no such circumstances arise in this instance and it is recommended that the extension to the time limits for implementing the permission be granted subject to the imposition of the same conditions as RB2007/0757.

RB2011/0257

Change of use from shop (use class A1) to café (use class A3) at 28A Laughton Road, Dinnington, for Mrs. Payne.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

1. Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: a) Development Plan:

Local Planning Policy

Policy RET1.2 ‘Prime Shopping Streets’ states that; “in prime shopping streets, the Council will limit ground floor use to Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987 (as amended) unless a proposed use contributes to the vitality and viability of the centre and does not undermine its retail character and function. In secondary locations in town centres, proposed uses will be acceptable in accordance with Policy RET1.”

ENV3.7: Control of Pollution states that: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the future, to noise … where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative measures at the time the development takes place.” b) Other relevant material planning considerations:

PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control states that “any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from development, possibly leading to an impact on health, is capable of being a material planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from any land use.”

PPG24 ‘Planning and Noise’ states: “Commercial developments such as fast food restaurants, discos, night clubs and public houses pose particular difficulties, not least because associated activities are often at their peak in the evening and late at night. Local planning authorities will wish to bear in mind not only the noise that is generated within the premises but also the attendant problems of noise that may be made by customers in the vicinity. The disturbance that can be caused by traffic and associated car parking should not be underestimated.”

2. For the following reasons:

It is considered that the proposed change of use of the vacant premises from a former retail use (Use Class A1) to a café use (Use Class A3) would provide an additional service that is currently not present within this part of Laughton Road which in turn would improve the retailing and service offering of this part of Dinnington town centre. As such, the proposals would not harm the vitality and viability of the Prime Shopping Street of Laughton Road and would be in accordance with Policy RET1.2 ‘Prime Shopping streets’ of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan.

In addition it is considered that the change of use would not lead to disamenty to the surrounding area in terms of noise, or public health or pose any concerns for highway safety. Therefore the proposals accord with Policy ENV3.7: ‘Control of Pollution’ and guidance in PPS23 and PPG24.

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

Conditions Imposed:

01 [PC99] The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reasons for Conditions:

01 [PR99] In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background

RB1981/0571: Outline for 3 shop units with 3 flats over & service yard to rear - WITHDRAWN 19/04/84

RB1986/1582: Four shop units - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 30/03/87

Site Description & Location

The site of application is a shop unit, currently vacant, though formally a hairdressers, located at the end of a row of three shop units located at right angles to Laughton Road, Dinnington. It was originally a row of four shops, though the two central units have been converted into a single larger off licence use. The shops are adjacent to the site of the former cooperative supermarket, which has now been demolished. Planning permission has recently been granted for the redevelopment of the site for the erection of an Aldi supermarket. The surrounding area is commercial with a variety of shops, banks and professional service uses. The site is within a purely retail and commercial area and there are no residential properties immediately neighbouring the site.

Proposal

The proposal is for the change of use of the shop closest to the former Co-op site from a general retail use (Use Class A1) to a café for the sale of hot and cold drinks, cakes, sandwiches and ice cream. The premises would not be used as a hot food takeaway. The applicant is a local business woman who wishes to run the café herself. The hours of opening would be 09:00 to 16:00 Monday to Saturday with the premises closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Development Plan Allocation and Policy

The site is allocated for Retail Use in the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan and Laughton Road is designated as a Prime Shopping Street in the Rotherham UDP. Whilst the row of four shops are at right angles to Laughton Road and do not front the Prime Shopping Street it is considered that development proposals relating to these shops should be assessed against Policy RET1.2 ‘Prime Shopping Streets’, and in this instance against Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’.

Policy RET1.2 ‘Prime Shopping Streets’ states that: “In prime shopping streets, the Council will limit ground floor use to Class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987 (as amended) unless a proposed use contributes to the vitality and viability of the centre and does not undermine its retail character and function. In secondary locations in town centres, proposed uses will be acceptable in accordance with Policy RET1.”

ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states that: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the future, to noise … where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative measures at the time the development takes place.”

Other material planning considerations:

Publicity

Neighbouring businesses were notified of the proposals in writing and a site notice was erected near to the site advertising the proposals. Ten separate representations have been received by the Council. All the objections were based on the competition from another unit selling food and drink in Dinnington town centre.

A petition has also been submitted objecting to the proposed change of use, with 54 names. The petition does not specify the reasons for objecting to the proposals.

Consultations

Transportation Unit: No objections to the proposed change of use.

Appraisal

The main issues to take into account when assessing this application are the following:

• Principle of the development and whether or not the change of use of this shop unit from a general retail use (Use Class A1) to a café use (Use Class A3) would be harmful to the vitality and viability of Laughton Road as a Prime Shopping Street. • Highway safety. • Impact on residential amenity. • Comments raised by objectors.

Principle of development: The main issue with regard to considering the principle of the change of use of this shop unit to a café is the impact on the vitality and viability of this Prime Shopping Street which is identified in the Rotherham UDP.

A site survey noted that two of the three shop units that comprise this block are vacant. The survey of the Laughton Road shopping area also notes that there is a predominance of general retail units (Use Class A1) with a bank and estate agent (Use Class A2) located to the south of the site fronting Laughton Road. From the site survey it was noted that there are no cafes (Use Class A3) within the immediate vicinity of this unit, though it is noted that there are other cafes located within Dinington town centre.

In light of the predominance of A1 uses and the fact that there are no specific A3 units within the immediate area, it is considered that the change of use of the vacant A1 unit to an A3 café use would in fact enhance the vitality and viability of the area. As such, it is considered that the proposed change of use would not undermine the retail character or function of this Prime Shopping Street and therefore accords with Policy RET1.2 ‘Prime Shopping Streets’ of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan.

Highway Safety

The Council’s Transportation Unit raise no objections to the proposed change of use in highway terms.

Impact on residential amenity

It is considered that as the premises are located within an entirely commercial area, the proposed change of use of the premises to a café would not have any impact on residential properties.

Comments raised by objectors:

The only ground for objection relates to competition which is not a material planning consideration when determining this application.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is considered that the proposed change of use of the vacant premises from a former retail use (Use Class A1) to a café use (Use Class A3) would provide an additional service that is currently not present within this part of Laughton Road which in turn would improve the retailing and service offering of this part of Dinnington town centre. As such, the proposals would not harm the vitality and viability of the Prime Shopping Street of Laughton Road and would be in accordance with Policy RET1.2 ‘Prime Shopping streets’ of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan.

In addition, Policy ENV3.7: ‘Control of Pollution’ and guidance in PPS23 and PPG24 all require that new developments, including changes of use should not lead to a detrimental impact on public health and unacceptable levels of noise. In this instance it is considered that a café opening from 09:00 until 16:00 Monday to Saturday would not lead to loss of amenity for the surrounding area in terms of excessive noise generation or in terms of smell nuisance from the use of the premises.

It is also considered that the proposed change of use does not raise any concerns in terms of highway safety.

In view of the above it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

RB2011/0270

Application for approval of the siting and appearance of a 12.5m high telecommunications pole, 1 No. equipment cabinet and minor ancillary works on land at Wickersley Old Cricket Club, Northfield Lane, Wickersley for Telefonica O2 Ltd./Vodafone Ltd.

RECOMMENDATION: That Approval is Granted.

Background

Under the telecommunications prior approval procedure set out within Shcedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, before installing certain telecommunications apparatus under permitted development rights, a code system operator must apply to the Local Planning Authority.

The Local Planning Authority has 56 days in which to decide whether the application requires prior approval, and if so, to approve or refuse the application. A decision must be made and notified to the applicant within this 56 day period. The applicant would automatically receive deemed approval if the decision were to be made and notified to the applicant outside this time limit. The expiry date (of 56 days) for this application is 21 April 2011.

Planning permission has effectively been granted for the development and the principle of the development is not, therefore, at issue. The Local Planning Authority can only look at the siting and appearance of the proposal.

A prior notification may be determined in one of three ways, these being:

1. The prior approval of the Local Planning Authority as to the siting and appearance of the proposal is not required or,

2. The prior approval of the Local Planning Authority as to the siting and appearance of the proposal is required and is granted or,

3. The prior approval of the Local Planning Authority as to the siting and appearance of the proposal is required and is refused.

Option 1 allows the applicant to proceed with the development in accordance with the details submitted . Option 2 in accordance with the additional details, which may be specified by the Local Planning Authority. Option 3 prevents the development proceeding in accordance with the submitted details.

In this instance it has been decided that prior approval is required and the details of the siting and appearance are to be considered under this application.

The application has been submitted as part of the roll out of 3 rd generation, or 3G, technology. This allows use of the newer phones, such as the i-phone, to access the internet and send electronic data. The majority of the existing masts in the Borough have been upgraded to provide 3G coverage, but the area covered by the 3G technology is less than for the older 2 nd generation, or 2G, technology. As such, more masts are needed to provide the appropriate 3G coverage.

There is no relevant planning history relating to the site itself. However, two applications relating to the nearby telephone exchange site off Bawtry Road are relevant:

RB2002/0220 - Application for the siting and appearance of a 15m high multipole and equipment housing - refused on detrimental impact on visual amenities of area.

RB2002/1531 Application for the erection of a 12m timber monopole with 3 antennae and 2 dishes together with associated equipment cabin and fencing – recommended for approval but refused by Planning Board as being detrimental to the visual amenities of residents of nearby dwellings.

Site Description & Location

The application site is an enclosed area of Urban Greenspace which forms Wickersley Cricket Ground and consists of a cricket pitch, a pavilion to the northern end and a scoreboard/maintenance building and a large steel storage container to the southern end. The site as a whole is located at the southern end of Northfield Lane.

The immediate surrounding area is predominantly residential with residential properties on The Grove to the south-west, and on Willow Court to the south-east. Wickersley Northfield Primary School is located to the north of the site. The brick built scoreboard/maintenance building is located in the southern corner of the site and is approximately 5.9m high. To the rear of this is a metal storage container and a 1.8m high close boarded fence to the rear boundary of the adjacent residential properties, with trees beyond of varying heights from 8m – 12m.

Proposal

This application is a Prior Notification for the installation of a 12.5 metre high galvanised steel telecommunications pole coloured brown of which the upper 1.4m contains the actual 6 no transmission antenna. The pole is to be located adjacent to the existing scoreboard building. The associated equipment cabinet is constructed of galvanised steel coloured green and is some 1.9m in length x 1.5 metres in height x 0.9m in depth and is proposed to be located to the rear of the proposed pole. The ancillary works are indicated as below ground service ducts and connection points.

The supporting statement which accompanies the application sets out the need for a new mast in this location to provide 3G coverage and this has further been expanded upon by the submission of technical plot coverage maps which identify the shortfall in signal coverage in Wickersley. The statement further goes on to advise that the mast is proposed to be used by two operators and thereby utilises site sharing to prevent the need for two separate installations.

Several alternative sites have been considered and discounted as follows:-

• The retail parade at The Tanyard on Bawtry Road has an existing installation which is for a single user and would need to be replaced with a taller more substantial structure in order to provide the structural integrity to support 3 operators. There is insufficient room to accommodate this structure. • The roof top area of the retail parade on Bawtry Road is not structurally suitable for the siting of telecommunications equipment and insufficient height would be provided to meet the technical requirements. • Wickersley Telephone Exchange has previously had a refusal for a telecommunications installation at this site. • The Three Horseshoes Public House, the design and construction of this building with an overhanging pitched roof and first floor accommodation is not conducive to the siting of telecommunications equipment. • Wickersley St. Albans Primary School, the design and construction of this building is not conducive to the siting of telecommunications equipment, it is also too low lying to meet the coverage requirements. This site is also located in the Conservation Area. • Wickersley Northfield Primary School, the design and construction of this building is not conducive to the siting of telecommunications equipment, it is also too low lying to meet the coverage requirements. • Gilder Volkswagen Car Showroom, there is insufficient space to locate a free standing mast at this location without impacting on the parking and movement of vehicles within the site.

Development Plan Allocation and Policy

UDP Policy:

Policy UTL3.2 Telecommunications Development states that: “The Council will normally grant planning permission for telecommunications development where no satisfactory alternative exists and there is no reasonable possibility of sharing existing facilities, provided that they satisfy relevant planning and highway criteria and do not seriously detract from the character of the surrounding area. Any development will need to be sited and designed so as to minimise its visual impact, subject to technical and operational considerations.”

Other Material Considerations

PPG8 ‘Telecommunications’ gives guidance on planning for telecommunications development - including radio masts and towers, antennas of all kinds, radio equipment housing, public call boxes, cabinets, poles and overhead wires.

Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development gives general guidance on best practice when considering proposals for telecommunications equipment.

Publicity

Neighbouring properties were notified of the proposal on 24 February 2011 and several site notices were posted on 7 March 2011. At the time of writing this report 23 individual letters of objection have been received from neighbours and from the adjacent primary School , any additional representations received will be reported at Planning Board. The objections raised can be summarised as follows:-

• The mast will be located 2m from the rear boundary of adjacent residential properties and will overshadow the perimeter. • The mast will be an eyesore and will reduce property values. • It will have a detrimental effect on the view from adjacent gardens. • The proposal is causing stress to adjacent occupiers. • The mast will be positioned close to their property and will affect their amenity. • Location, height and design would be detrimental to visual amenity • Proposal is contrary to UDP Policy UTL3.2. • Two previous applications for mobile masts in the vicinity have both been refused. • The site is too close to schools and could potentially be harmful to health. • The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that all reasonable alternative sites have been considered, better alternative sites are available such as the highway verge. • Research into health issues is inconclusive; effect of long term exposure to electromagnetic radiation has not been established. • The two companies (O2 and Vodaphone) are directly linked and therefore they are not ‘mast sharing’ • The siting of the mast will affect the most vulnerable members of the public; the elderly residents on Willow Court and the children living nearby and attending adjacent schools. • Government advice to local authorities as contained in Stewarts report states that mobile phone masts should not be sited within 400m of schools; this mast is approx 150m away from adjacent school and pre-school. • The siting of a mast at a sports ground will undermine the pursuit of health and fitness.

In addition to the above a letter of objection has been received from Wickersley Parish Council objecting to the application on the following grounds:-

• The location, height and design of the proposed mast would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area. • The proposal is contrary to UDP Policy UTL3.2 Telecommunications Development. • Two previous applications for mobile phone masts in the vicinity of the current application were both refused by the Council as being contrary to UDP Policy UTL3.2 (ref RB2002/0220 for a 15m mast and RB2002/1531 for a 12m mast – both at Wickersley Telephone Exchange) • The proposal is contrary to the policy of the Parish Council regarding phone masts, in that the proposed siting is near a school site, recreation land and close to an aged person’s development.

Consultations

Transportation Unit – have no objections to the proposal in terms of highway safety (visibility and/or obstruction).

Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services (Environmental Health) – have examined the proposal and envisage no loss of amenity by virtue of noise, air quality or land pollution impact and provided that the installation complies with ICNIRP emission guidelines, there are no objections raised.

Appraisal

The primary issues to be considered in the determination of this notification application are matters in respect of siting and appearance, including the consideration of alternative sites. However of additional material consideration are matters relating to health considerations and other matters raised by objectors.

Siting and Appearance

Appendix One of PPG8 provides guidance on prior approval procedures for telecommunications permitted development. In relation to considering the siting and appearance of such installations it provides the following advice:

“Factors to be considered concerning the appearance of the mast and ancillary apparatus include materials, colour and design. The use of appropriate materials and colouration may allow a mast to blend more easily into its surroundings. Features of design which an authority may wish to consider include dimensions; overall shape; and whether the construction is solid or forms an open framework. They should also consider with the developer the availability of alternative designs which might be more suited to the local environment.

Factors concerning siting may involve:

• the height of the site in relation to surrounding land; • the existence of topographical features and natural vegetation; • the effect on the skyline or horizon; • the site when observed from any side, including from outside the authority's own area; • the site in relation to areas designated for their scenic or conservation value; • the site in relation to existing masts, structures or buildings, including buildings of a historical or traditional character; • the site in relation to residential property; • and any other relevant considerations.

In considering the siting and appearance of a mast together with its associated development, the scope for landscaping and screening to reduce the impact of the development on its surroundings will be an important consideration.”

The proposed mast is a telecommunications pole which is 12.5 metres in height, and located in the southern corner of the existing cricket ground at Wickersley. The site is level in relation to its immediate surroundings, and in close proximity to the site there are a number of trees along the rear boundary of the adjacent residential properties which range in height from approximately 8 – 10m. The proposed pole and ancillary equipment cabinets are to be located adjacent to the existing scoreboard/maintenance building which is approximately 5.9m high.

When considering the siting of the proposed structure it is clearly important to take account of whether it is appropriate in the context of the surrounding environment. The pole is 12.5 metres in height and consists of a single pole type structure and associated equipment cabinet (which is considered to be of a small scale being only slightly over 1 metre in height). In this instance it is located at the rear of the cricket ground which is set well back from the adjacent highway on Northfield Lane. The boundary to Northfield Lane is screened by a row of mature trees and weldmesh fencing. The existence of surrounding features including the scoreboard/maintenance building and the backdrop of mature trees are considered to create an environment where the slimline pole would not appear as a prominent or visually intrusive feature in the street scene or surrounding area. Whilst the proposed mast is taller than the existing trees and adjacent buildings it is not considered that it would appear as an alien feature in the streetscene.

In terms of the surrounding residential properties, the closest residential properties are located on The Grove and Willow Court at a distance of approximately 20 metres. The boundaries of these properties are screened by mature trees and on this basis, whilst views of the mast would be visible from these residential properties, it would be largely screened by the mature trees and the existing building on site as such it is not considered that it would have a harmful impact on residential amenity sufficient to warrant refusing this application.

Alternative Sites

On the issue of availability of alternative sites the applicant has submitted technical evidence and concluded that all have site constraints, such as they would render any installation visually intrusive, or create technical coverage issues requiring potentially more or larger masts. It is considered that there are no obviously preferable locations for the telecommunications pole developments of the type required within the locality.

The use of mast sharing between these operators is welcomed as it further reduces the need for individual masts per operator and whilst this requires in some locations the erection of a slightly larger mast, it is not considered in this instance that the slimline pole would appear visually obtrusive within the locality.

With reference to the previously refused applications for similar masts in the vicinity of the Telephone Exchange, the first proposal for a 15m mast (RB2002/0220) was recommended for refusal by officers as it was considered to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area being close to residential properties on Willow Court and being clearly visible within the Bawtry Road streetscene. The subsequent application (RB2002/1531) was for a 12m pole with the antennae taking it to 15m overall, this amended proposal was considered to address the previous reason for refusal by relocating the pole further away from the residential boundary and by proposing a shorter, thinner pole. However, the recommendation was overturned by Planning Board and the application was refused. The current application site is considered to be further away from the residential properties themselves and to have substantially more screening on the boundary such that only the top portion of the pole will be visible from adjacent properties.

Taking on board the above information with regard to the siting and appearance of the proposal, the alternative sites that have been considered and reasons for discounting these, and the identified need for a site shared pole in this location it is considered that the proposal complies with UDP Policy UTL3.2 and national planning advice contained in PPG8.

Perceived Public Health

Paragraph 29 of PPG8 states, “Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.”

Paragraph 30 of PPG8 states, “However, it is the Government’s firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government’s responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government’s view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.”

The Code of best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development notes that all applications for planning permission or prior approval should be accompanied by a signed declaration that the equipment and installation has been designed to be in full compliance with the requirements of the radio frequency (RF) public exposure guidelines of the ICNIRP.

T- Mobile (UK) Limited v First Secretary of State (2004) EWCA Civ 1763 clarified the position where an ICNIRP compliance certificate exists. Health concerns can only be taken into account in exceptional circumstances, and very good reasons would have to be given by the decision maker as to why the ICNIRP certificate was not good enough to meet health fears,

In this case the comments made in respect of perceived public health matters to the proximity of residential properties and the local school are noted. However, whilst there is some sympathy for those who fear the effects of the proposal, the application is accompanied by an ICNIRP certificate which confirms that the emissions fall within the required guidelines.

In conclusion the objectors’ concerns raise no exceptional circumstances. The application is accompanied by an ICNIRP certificate and in accordance with case law and Government guidance it is the view of officers that the objectors’ concerns about health impacts cannot weigh decisively against approval of the application.

Other matters raised by objectors

In regard to the comments raised in respect of the matter of devaluation of properties, PPG8 para 56 notes that: “it is not for the planning system to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. Although in a particular case considerations of public interest may serve to protect private interests, the material question is not whether a particular development would cause financial or other loss to owners and occupiers of the neighbouring property, but whether the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the locality generally, and on amenities that ought, in the public interest, to be protected.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, the applicant has clearly demonstrated an overall need for a shared mast within this location. The evidence provided demonstrates that the proposed shared mast of this design is a suitable solution for this area given the lack of alternative sites within the immediate surrounding area.

The height and overall visual impact of the proposed mast and equipment, in comparison to the existing building on site and vegetation including mature trees in the locality is considered to be marginal. The mast is to be located at the rear of the cricket field where it is considered that the introduction of this structure at 12.5 metres in height would be of a minor impact upon the character of the streetscene and wider setting of the site. Any visual impact is considered to be outweighed by the need to provide and/or improve network coverage, and to limit demand for other new facilities elsewhere in the vicinity, by sharing a single mast structure between operators.

There is no evidence submitted to demonstrate that the mast would be detrimental in terms of perceived health matters or highway safety and those matters raised in relation to loss of value etc cannot be considered as material considerations to the determination of this application.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy UTL3.2 of the Rotherham UDP and the advice set out in PPG8 ‘Telecommunications’ and it is recommended that the application is approved.