TO:- Planning Committee Councillor Terry Mason , Councillor Bob Cope , Councillor Jeff Ashley , Councillor Meg Barrow , Councillor Len Bates , Councillor Joyce Bolton , Councillor Barry Bond , Councillor Mary Bond , Councillor Anthony Bourke , Councillor Nigel Caine , Councillor Jo Chapman , Councillor Val Chapman , Councillor David Clifft J.P , Councillor Brian Cox , Councillor Brian Edwards MBE , Councillor Lisa Emery , Councillor Matt Ewart , Councillor Paul Fieldhouse , Councillor Isabel Ford , Councillor Rita Heseltine , Councillor Lin Hingley , Councillor Alan Hinton , Councillor Steve Hollis , Councillor Diane Holmes , Councillor Keith James , Councillor Janet Johnson , Councillor Michael Lawrence , Councillor Roger Lees J.P. , Councillor Peter Lever , Councillor Henryk Lobuczek , Councillor Dave Lockley , Councillor Robert McCardle , Councillor John Michell , Councillor Roy Moreton , Councillor Kath Perry , Councillor Ray Perry , Councillor Christine Raven , Councillor John Raven , Councillor Robert Reade , Councillor Robert Spencer , Councillor Wendy Sutton , Councillor Ken Upton , Councillor Bernard Williams , Councillor David Williams , Councillor Henry Williams , Councillor Kath Williams , Councillor Reg Williams , Councillor Roy Wright
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held as detailed below for the purpose of transacting the business set out below.
Date: Tuesday, 18 September 2018 Time: 18:30 Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire, WV8 1PX
D. Heywood Chief Executive
A G E N D A
Part I – Public Session
1 Minutes 3 - 6 To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 21 August 2018
2 Apologies
To receive any apologies for non-attendance.
3 Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of interest.
4 Determination of Planning Applications 7 - 218 Report of Chief Planning Officer
Page 1 of 218
RECORDING Please note that this meeting will be recorded.
PUBLIC SPEAKING Please note: Any members of the public wishing to speak must confirm their intention to speak in writing or e-mail to Development Management no later than 1 working day before the Committee i.e. before 12.00 p.m. on the preceding Monday.
E-mails to [email protected]
Please see Speaking at Planning Committee leaflet on the website for full details. Failure to notify the Council of your intention to speak may mean you will not be allowed to speak at Committee.
Page 2 of 218 3 September 2018
Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee South Staffordshire Council held in the Council Chamber Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire, WV8 1PX on Tuesday, 21 August 2018 at 18:30
Present:- Councillor Jeff Ashley, Councillor Len Bates, Councillor Joyce Bolton, Councillor Barry Bond, Councillor Mary Bond, Councillor Jo Chapman, Councillor Val Chapman, Councillor David Clifft, Councillor Brian Cox, Councillor Brian Edwards, Councillor Paul Fieldhouse, Councillor Isabel Ford, Councillor Rita Heseltine, Councillor Lin Hingley, Councillor Alan Hinton, Councillor Steve Hollis, Councillor Keith James, Councillor Janet Johnson, Councillor Roger Lees, Councillor Peter Lever, Councillor Dave Lockley, Councillor Terry Mason, Councillor Robert McCardle, Councillor Roy Moreton, Councillor Kath Perry, Councillor Ray Perry, Councillor Christine Raven, Councillor John Raven, Councillor Robert Reade, Councillor Robert Spencer, Councillor Wendy Sutton, Councillor Ken Upton, Councillor Bernard Williams, Councillor David Williams, Councillor Henry Williams, Councillor Kath Williams, Councillor Reg Williams
16 MINUTES RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17 July 2018 be approved and signed by the Chairman
17 APOLOGIES Apologies for non-attendance were submitted on behalf of Councillors A Bourke, N Caine, M Ewart, Mrs D M Holmes and H Lobuczek
18 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest
19 DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Committee received the report of the Chief Planning Officer, together with information and details received after the agenda was prepared.
17/00845/FUL – 3 LOCKSIDE DRIVE, KINVER, STOURBRIDGE, DY7 9NQ – APPLICANT – MR AND MRS P BLACKMORE – PARISH – KINVER
Mr A Williams (agent) spoke for the application.
Rosie Malony spoke against the application
Councillor Henry Williams moved a motion for refusal on grounds of being contrary to Policies EQ 11, CP2 and CP4. Motion seconded by Councillor Lin Hingley who was concerned about the car parking spaces and sewage problems. The motion was lost.
RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended with the following additional conditions:
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended approved drawings: Proposed Site Plan Dwg. No. 2166-03-01F received 02.05.2108, Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations Dwg. No. 2166-20B, drawings dated 22/03/2018, and Garage Details Dwg. No. 2166-12 dated 14/03/2017.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
Page 3 of 218 3 September 2018
11. Before any development takes place, a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied/brought into use until the approved scheme has been completed.
Reason To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimize the risk of pollution, in accordance with policy EQ7 of the adopted Core Strategy.
12. Prior to any construction works being undertaken, details of the parking of site operatives and vehicles on the site during the construction period shall be submitted in writing to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Construction vehicles shall not be parked outside the site area.
Reason: To ensure that the construction of the property does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
13. Any external construction work on the site or deliveries to the site shall not take place outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday: 08.00 – 19.00 hours Saturdays: 08.00 – 13.00 hours
There shall be no such work or deliveries on Sundays or Public Holidays
Reason: To ensure that the construction of the property does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Pro Active Statement
In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.
Councillor Edwards asked that it was recorded that he had abstained.
17/00959/FUL – THE TOFT FARM, LEVEDALE ROAD, LEVEDALE, STAFFORD, ST18 9LH – APPLICANT – MR MARK HOLT – PARISH – ACTON TRUSSELL, BEDNALL & TEDDESLEY HAY
Mr I Pick (agent) spoke for the application
Mrs C Sutton spoke against the application.
Councillor L Bates motioned that the application be refused on the grounds that the application was in conflict with the authorities adopted Core Policy OC1, EQ4 and EQ9 (detrimental to the local community through noise, odour and visual intrusion). The motion was seconded by Councillor J Raven.
The motion was lost.
RESOLVED: that the application was approved as recommended with amended/additional conditions as follows:
AMENDMENTS TO CONDITION 5
CONDITION 5 All HGV's associated with the proposed development shall access and egress the site via the route indicated in Figure 1 of the submitted Transport Management Plan from the Hurlestone Partnership dated December 2017.
REASON In the interest of highway safety and to comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 4 of 218 3 September 2018
AMENDMENTS TO CONDITION 7
CONDITION 7 No development shall take place until an odour, manure and waste management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved plan shall be adhered to through the operation of the any of the poultry farm buildings permitted under this permission.
REASON To ensure that the use of the premises does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
AMENDMENTS TO CONDITION 15
CONDITION 15 Before the proposal is brought into use, details of an odour filtration system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. If odours are subsequently produced by the facility, which the Local Planning Authority consider are a statutory nuisance, resulting from duties to monitor relevant aspects of the environment under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the odour filtration system shall be installed within three months of the Local Authority advising the operator in writing that a statutory nuisance has occurred.
REASON To ensure that the use of the premises does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
ADDITIONAL CONDITION 16
CONDITION 16 Prior to the commencement of operations, and in addition to the routing plan referred to in condition 5, measures to control the routing of heavy goods traffic visiting the site, insofar as they are capable of being controlled by the operator, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The site shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved measures, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON In the interest of highway safety and to comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
AMENDMENT TO PROACTIVE STATEMENT
In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner by agreeing amendments to the application and in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.
17/00750/FUL – THE POPLARS, STRAWMOOR LANE, OAKEN, WOLVERHAMPTON WV8 2HY – APPLICANT – MRS J ANSLOW – PARISH – CODSALL
Mr P Burrows spoke against the application.
RESOLVED: that the application be refused as recommended.
18/0000126/FUL – ABBEY FARMS, CANNOCK RAOD, PENKRIDGE, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE – APPLICANT – MR RICHARD CORBETT – PARISH – PENKRIDGE
Mr I Pick (agent) spoke for the application.
RESOLVED: Delegated approval to Development Management Manager, clarifying the meaning of Condition 1 (this will be done by an informative).
18/00333/FUL – 6 LANDSDOWNE AVENUE, CODSALL, WOLVERHAMPTON WV8 2EN – APPLICANT – MRS THERESA ROWE – PARISH - CODSALL
Page 5 of 218 3 September 2018
Councillor Bob Spencer moved a motion for refusal on grounds of being contrary to Policies EQ9 and EQ11. Councillor Val Chapman seconded refusal. Councillor Brian Edwards queried the amount of parking provision. The motion was carried.
RESOLVED: that the application be refused on the following grounds:
1. The siting of the development would be likely to prejudice the character of the area and the amenity of the adjoining properties, contrary to policies EQ9 and EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
18/00484/FUL – PUMPING STATION, DIMMINGSDALE ROAD, LOWER PENN, WOLVERHAMPTON, WV4 4XT – APPLICANT – SEVERN TRENT WATER LTD – PARISH – LOWER PENN
RESOLVED: that the application be approved as recommended.
18/00489/COU – 59A LONG LANE, NEWTOWN, WALSALL - APPLICANT – MRS B WATTON – PARISH – ESSINGTON
Councillor D Clift moved a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that the application was in conflict with the authorities adopted Core Policy EQ9 (having a detrimental effect on the residential amenity). The motion was seconded by Councillor P Lever. The motion was carried.
RESOLVED: that the application be refused on the following grounds:
1. The siting of the development would be likely to prejudice the amenity of the adjoining properties, contrary to policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
20 PLANNING COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN 2018/19 - QUARTER 1 REPORT The Committee received the joint report of the Chairman of the Planning Committee and Chief Planning Officer setting out the Planning Committee’s performance against the measures contained within the Planning Committee Action Plan 2018-19
RESOLVED: that the performance in Quarter 1 of the Action Plan be noted.
The Meeting ended at 20.15
CHAIRMAN
Page 6 of 218 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18.09.2018
DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
REPORT OF CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER
PART A – SUMMARY REPORT
1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
To determine the planning applications as set out in the attached Appendix.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That the planning applications be determined.
3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives? The reasons for the recommendation for each POLICY/COMMUNITY Yes application addresses issued pertaining to the Council’s IMPACT Plan. Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed? Determination of individual planning applications so No not applicable- see below for equalities comment. SCRUTINY POWERS No APPLICABLE KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ N/A DELIVERY DATE Unless otherwise stated in the Appendix, there are no FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct financial implications arising from this report.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 LEGAL ISSUES Yes Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 Planning and Compensation Act 1991 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Page 7 of 218 Equality and HRA impacts set out below. OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & Yes OPPORTUNITIES
IMPACT ON SPECIFIC As set out in Appendix Yes WARDS
PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
4. INFORMATION
All relevant information is contained within the Appendix.
Advice to Applicants and the Public
The recommendations and reports of the Director of Planning and Strategic Services contained in this schedule may, on occasions, be changed or updated as a result of any additional information received by the Local Planning Authority between the time of its preparation and the appropriate meeting of the Authority.
Where updates have been received before the Planning Committee’s meeting, a written summary of these is published generally by 5pm on the day before the Committee Meeting. Please note that verbal updates may still be made at the meeting itself.
With regard to the individual application reports set out in the Appendix then unless otherwise specifically stated in the individual report the following general statements will apply.
Unless otherwise stated any dimensions quoted in the reports on applications are scaled from the submitted plans or Ordnance Survey maps.
Equality Act Duty
Unless otherwise stated all matters reported are not considered to have any adverse impact on equalities and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 has been considered. Any impact for an individual application will be addressed as part of the individual officer report on that application.
Human Rights Implications
If an objection has been received to the application then the proposals set out in this report are considered to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation to approve the application aims to secure the proper planning of the area in the public interest. The potential interference with rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol has been considered and the recommendation is considered to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the occupants of neighbouring property and is therefore proportionate. The issues arising have been considered in detail
Page 8 of 218 in the report and it is considered that, on balance, the proposals comply with Core Strategy and are appropriate.
If the application is recommended for refusal then the proposals set out in the report are considered to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation to refuse accords with the policies of the Core Strategy and the applicant has the right of appeal against this decision.
Consultations Undertaken
The results of consultations with interested parties, organisations, neighbours and Councillors are reported in each report in the Appendix.
CONSULTEES
CH – County Highways CLBO – Conservation Officer CPO – County Planning Officer CPRE – Campaign to Protect Rural England CPSO – County Property Services Officer CA – County Archaeologist CS – Civic Society EA – Environment Agency EHGS – Environmental Health Officer ENGS – Engineer FC – The Forestry Commission HA – Highways Agency LPM – Landscape Planning Manager HENGS – Engineer NE – Natural England PC – Parish Council OSS – Open Space Society STW – Severn Trent Water SWT – Staffordshire Wildlife Trust
5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
N/A
6. PREVIOUS MINUTES
Details if issue has been previously considered
7. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Background papers used in compiling the schedule of applications consist of:-
Page 9 of 218 (i) The individual planning application (which may include supplementary information supplied by or on behalf of the applicant) and representations received from persons or bodies consulted upon the application by the Local Planning Authority, and from members of the public and interested bodies, by the time of preparation of the schedule.
(ii) The Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, as amended and related Acts, Orders and Regulations, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Practice Guidance Notes, any Circulars, Ministerial Statements and Policy Guidance published by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government.
(iii) The Core Strategy for South Staffordshire adopted in December 2012 and Supplementary Planning Documents
(iv) Relevant decisions of the Secretary of State in relation to planning appeals and relevant decisions of the courts.
These documents are available for inspection by Members or any member of the public and will remain available for a period of up to 4 years from the date of the meeting, during the normal office hours. Requests to see them should be made to our Customer Services Officers on 01902 696000 and arrangements will be made to comply with the request as soon as practicable. The Core Strategy and the individual planning applications can be viewed on our web site www.sstaffs.gov.uk
Report prepared by: Andrew Johnson, Chief Planning Officer
Page 10 of 218
App no Applicant/Address Parish Recommendation Page
Applications 18/00131/FUL Mr Chris Rogers Kinver APPROVE 13 - 38 Kinver High School Enville Road Kinver Stourbridge South Staffordshire DY7 6AA 18/00140/FUL Mr Keith Vincent Bobbington APPROVE 39 - 48 Vincent Interiors Ltd Gospel Ash Methodist Church Gospel Ash Road Bobbington Stourbridge South Staffordshire DY7 5EF 18/00230/FUL Mr Nigel Farmer Acton Trussell, REFUSE 49 - 60 KGL (Estates) Ltd. Bednall & Yew Tree Farm Teddesley Hay Pottal Pool Road Penkridge Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 5RN 18/00307/OUT Mr Andy Wilkins Penkridge APPROVE 61 - 124 Land Off Cherrybrook Drive Penkridge South Staffordshire 18/00322/FUL Mrs Lesley Birch Kinver APPROVE 125 - 162 Land At The Burgesses Kinver South Staffordshire 18/00450/REM Miss Jackie Edwards Essington APPROVE 163 - 188 Land On The South East Side Of Hobnock Road Essington South Staffordshire 18/00472/OUT Mrs T Parker-Brown Dunston And APPROVE 189 - 202 Land Adjacent The Old Coppenhall Vicarage Old Vicarage Lane Dunston South Staffordshire ST18 9AD
Page 11 of 218 18/00590/FUL Mrs Carol Parkes Penkridge APPROVE 203 - 212 Lower Drayton Farm Lower Drayton Lane Penkridge Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 5RE 18/00603/FUL Mr K Kelly Brewood And APPROVE 213 - 218 93A Tinkers Lane Coven Brewood South Staffordshire ST19 9DD
Page 12 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00131/FUL Mr Chris Rogers KINVER Cllr Brian Robert Edwards Cllr Lin Hingley Cllr Henry Williams
Kinver High School Enville Road Kinver Stourbridge South Staffordshire DY7 6AA
Erection of new school and community sports centre to provide a 6 badminton court sports hall, changing facilities, gym, climbing wall, studio, 3 classrooms and community room to include additional parking and landscaping. Demolition of existing sports hall.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site description
1.1.1 The site is located on the north eastern side of Enville Road, within the main service village of Kinver. Brindley Heath Junior School can also be found to the west of the High School and the two schools share the site entrance off Enville Road. There is a turning circle to the front of both schools with separate access drives leading from here to each school. The site is within the Green Belt and overlooks open fields down towards the Mill Brook and the Bridgnorth Road beyond. Castle Street bounds the site the east and Hyde Lane to the west. The perimeter of the school is largely bound by mature vegetation, and the playing fields to the rear contribute to its extensive landscaping with trees sporadically planted around the main school buildings.
1.1.2 There are a number of residential properties surrounding the site, and Enville Road is an eclectic mix of style and size of dwellings. There is a large two storey brick built teaching block fronting Enville Road with the rest of the school buildings tucked in behind. Overall the site is looking sad and desperately needs the improvement works that are currently underway. Permission was granted in 2016 for a new modern science block that has recently been completed.
1.2 Relevant Planning History
2010, Extension and refurbishment of the Design and Technology facilities to create two additional class bases, storage and additional staff room, Approved (10/00556/COM) 2016 Erection of a 2 storey teaching block consisting of 13 general teaching rooms, science room, ICT room, Learning resource centre, staffroom and sanitary provision. Demolition of existing teaching block. Refurbishment with minor elevation changes to existing school building with internal works. Approved (16/00863) 2017 Minor Material Amendment. Main changes are: building size increased due to wall thickness increasing; various minor internal amendments; reduced height of highest part of building by 300mm; changes to materials; Approved (17/00984)
Page 13 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 The application proposes a new sports hall for the school. It will be sited to the rear of the existing sports hall after negotiations were had about the impact of the building. New tennis courts and sports pitches will also be provided.
2.1.2 The building is of modern design with a curved roof. It will provide around 200 sqm of floor area and will have a first floor. At its highest point the building reaches to around 11m and is approximately 49m by 42.5m at its widest point. Inside the building will be a sports hall, changing facilities, climbing wall along with various other ancillary rooms at ground floor. At first floor there will be space for classrooms, toilets and a large open plan area.
2.2 Agents Submission
Design and Access Statement Protected species survey Arboricultural survey Community use statement Sports consultation report Drainage strategy
3. POLICY CONTEXT
Within the West Midlands Green Belt
Core Strategy Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environ EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting, Expanding and Enhancing Natural Assets Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: Landscaping Core Policy 10: Sustainable Community Facilities and Services Policy EV9:Provision and Retention of Local Community Facilities and Services Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport Policy EV11: Sustainable Travel Policy EV12: Parking Provision Core Policy 14: Open Space, Sport and Recreation Core Policy 15: Children and Young People
Page 14 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] 2018 2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 12. Achieving well designed places 13. Protecting Green Belt land 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
COMMENTS IN RELATION TO ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
No Councillor comments (expired 07/06/2018)
Kinver Parish Council (received 07/06/2018) Recommend Refusal on the grounds that:-
The location of the proposed new sports hall building is an unacceptable development within the Greenbelt due to its much increased size and mass.
There is no positive evidence that this building will benefit the local community.
The sports hall could easily be built anywhere else on the site and the visual impact of the sports hall has not been considered fully. The building could easily be relocated to lessen its visual impact from the street scene, Kinver Edge and neighbours.
Sports England (Received 05/06/2018) Sport England has sought to consider the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (particularly Para. 74) and against its own playing fields policy. Unfortunately there is insufficient information to enable Sport England to adequately assess the proposal or to make a substantive response. Please therefore could the following information be provided as soon as possible:
1. The proposal will result in the loss of a undersized rugby pitch and it is unclear if a pitch is to be provided elsewhere on the playing field (prior to the provision of the full sized Rugby AGP) which could have an impact on football clubs who currently use the site. It is therefore requested that plans are submitted displaying the current and post development summer/winter pitch layouts. It would also be beneficial for the Academy to confirm the current community use of the playing fields.
2. In reviewing the design of the sports hall against Sport England's Sports Hall Design and Layout Guidance there are some areas where the layout deviate from the guidance which should be reviewed such as: - insufficient urinals and w/c within the changing rooms (the latter applying to female and girls). - insufficient changing room spaces for the male and female changing accommodation.
Page 15 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
- insufficient storage space for the sports hall and no storage for chairs or tables should the hall be utilised for examinations purposes as stated in the Design and Access Statement.
3. Clarity is sought as to whether the applicant would agree to a community use agreement planning condition.
Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance document, which includes the type of information required in order for us to evaluate a planning application against our policy, can be viewed via the below link: www.sportengland.org/playingfieldspolicy (see Annex B)
Sport England's interim position on this proposal is to submit a holding objection. However we will happily review our position following the receipt of all the further information requested above. As I am currently unable to make a substantive response, in accordance with the Order referred to above, the 21 days for formally responding to the consultation will not commence until I have received all the information requested above.
County Highways (received 25/05/2018) There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:-
1. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an on-site Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Construction Management Plan shall include the demolition phase and provide the following details; Routeing of construction vehicles including measures to mitigate the impact on the local highway network. The measures shall indicate that no HGV's associated with the development shall arrive or depart from the site outside the hours of 09:30 and 15:30 Monday to Friday during school terms. Parking facilities for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors. Location of any crushing plant. Measures including designated wheel washing areas to prevent the deposition of deleterious material on the public highway. The Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to for the duration of the demolition and construction phase.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking, servicing and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
County Flood Team (received 06/06/2018)
Thank you for consulting us on the planning application above, and for the additional drainage information sent by email.
As the Drainage Strategy is not complete I cannot really comment on the details.
Page 16 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
I would need some additional information, including: o Details of existing drainage network and point of discharge. o Infiltration testing results (BGS data suggests the subsurface is likely to be suitable for free-draining infiltration SuDS, but this would need to be quantified on site). o Proposed Drainage Strategy drawing with supporting calculations. o Proposed SuDS Management train - demonstrate adequate water quality treatment eg CIRIA SuDS Manual Simple Index Approach.
Friends of Kinver Open Spaces (received 11/06/2018)
We believe the Application is seriously flawed for many reasons. Primarily, it runs counter to important Planning Policies. Thus:- 1.EQ1 Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Ripping up a significant area of Green Belt (a complete rugby pitch) is clearly contrary to the Policy. The applicant also states that there is low ecological impact. It is a fact, however, that badgers, grass snakes and bats are regular visitors to neighbouring gardens 2.EQ4 Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape. Currently, residents enjoy an uninterrupted open aspect across the playing fields to the wooded area beyond. The proposer admits that 'the sports centre is located on a prominent site within the grounds and will be clearly visible from Enville Road.'(p.6) Further, 'The scale of the building helps elevate its prominence'(p.30). It 'should be a 'landmark building when viewed from the road'(p.32). It is indeed an increase of over 60% in its footprint. As such, it is a totally inappropriate development in the Green Belt.Neither do 'Special Circumstances' apply 3.EQ 9 Protecting residential amenity The proposal states that this 'prominent' location is to 'aid way-finding within the school'(p.6). it clearly impinges upon local amenity. 4.EQ11 Wider Design implications It is argued extensively that this is a necessary siting for the new Hall. However, there is ample room within the existing hard core areas to accommodate the proposed 2,000m2. There is unused space behind the existing Hall, and space will become available when the old Science Block is demolished. Even if it is accepted that the old building needs to be demolished, rather than refurbished, (and this is not proven by any means) there is no reason why the old footings cannot be retained. To say that the old building must be kept in use while the new one is being erected is disingenuous. The Invictus group can easily accommodate exam facilities and indoor sports use elsewhere for the limited time necessary. EQ12 Landscaping The proposal fails to demonstrate optimal use of brownfield available space EV 9 Provision and Retention of Local Community Facilities and Services It is a matter of regret that the school has progressively over the years withdrawn sports facilities from the Community. The public has no access to the tennis courts. The fitness suite was closed several years ago.
Page 17 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
The proposal states that existing staff levels will remain unchanged at 30. So it is difficult to see how that accords with weekend and evening usage, the only times the public could benefit. But the age profile of Kinver is such that our 'elderly' community are more interested in Yoga, Tai chi, Table tennis and the like. In fact, there are already more than enough facilities in the Village, with two church Halls, a Senior Citizens club, the Senior Citizens club, the 'free' facilities at the new Fire Station, and most importantly, the Community Centre (KSCA), which is loss-making. In summary, there is no evidence that the school has had any real interest in the Community, and the current posturing is surely to tick some boxes as required by the Funding agency. Should the application be approved, then the Council should have prior enforceable formal agreements in place to ensure the Community has suitable, affordable access. 5.EV12 Parking It is noted that an extra 41 parking places will be provided. But in effect these are provided directly as the result of destroying green belt! Additionally, a whole site inspection would show that at least 41 further parking spaces could be provided by better use of brownfield land on the site. More importantly, if it is to be assumed, as stated, that the new facility will attract significant new users from outside areas, then the provision of a few extra parking spaces would not address the serious lack of infrastructure. Already, the building of a large number of new houses near Potters Cross is causing major concern. Highways would need to address the complications that additional traffic flow would create, although so far no numbers have been provided by the Applicant. 6. HW81 Protection of Open Space and Recreation Facilities It is self- evident that this proposal contravenes the Policy. To argue that the area lost is not quite a full-sized rugby pitch is once again disingenuous. There is no need for ANY loss.
Further Considerations 1.Need for enhanced Sports facility. Improvements can always be made. However, it is worth noting that the SSDC website includes a 2011 report from Sport England showing that demand for facilities are 95% met in South Staffs vs. only 90.5% for the balance UK. 2.Funding/Timing Constraints The funding will come from the Education Funding Agency. They have 3 categories--- improvement of existing footprint (N/A);improve and add 10% (N/A); Expand. The criteria for this 3rd category which this proposal falls under, are:- need for additional places, or address overcrowding in a high-performing school. There is no evidence that the school is oversubscribed. Indeed, such is the limitation of the 6th form syllabus, it attracts only a miserly 32 pupils. More significantly, when the school applied for the funding, it had not yet had its first Ofsted report as an Academy. This was subsequently undertaken on the 14/15th March 2018. It concluded 'OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS' REQUIRES IMPROVEMENT So by no means a'high-performing school' as required by the funding agency. It is 'below national average'. Moreover, 'The majority of funds allocated are expected to be completed by 31st March 2018'. Larger projects (?) can extend by a further year, but no more. Thus, there is great pressure to cobble together plans and build at speed.
Page 18 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Indeed they have already jumped the gun by demolishing a significant stand of trees in the proposed building site. Final comment It is a great pity that this funding is restricted to school use. The sums involved would more than cover that needed for the refurbishment of the Community Centre. This is where the 'Community' can properly benefit from enhanced overall facilities, not just sporting. Sadly, any attempt to attract users away from there to the proposed new construction on school premises could well lead to the demise of that vital Community asset.
COMMENTS IN RELATION TO AMENDED SCHEME
No Councillor comments (expired 01/08/2018)
Kinver Parish Council (received 30/07/2018) Kinver Parish Council withdrew their original objection and commented: It was noted the location of the sports hall has been moved to lessen its impact and on these grounds the Committee recommend approval.
Arboricultural Officer (expired 04/07/2018)
County Highways (received 25/05/2018) There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:- 1. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an on-site Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Construction Management Plan shall include the demolition phase and provide the following details; -Routeing of construction vehicles including measures to mitigate the impact on the local highway network. The measures shall indicate that no HGV's associated with the development shall arrive or depart from the site outside the hours of 09:30 and 15:30 Monday to Friday during school terms. -Parking facilities for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors. -Location of any crushing plant. -Measures including designated wheel washing areas to prevent the deposition of deleterious material on the public highway. -The Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to for the duration of the demolition and construction phase. 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking, servicing and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
County Flood Team (received 01/08/2018) No objections
County Ecologist (received 04/06/2018) I have not visited the site but have viewed aerial photographs, application photographs and data held by Staffordshire Ecological Record. Assessment of Submitted Documents and Plans
Page 19 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
The ecological assessment submitted with this application found the school setting to be of low interest. The tree survey indicates that the tree closest to the building to be demolished will be retained. As a precaution, given local records of badger, a method statement for protection of badgers during demolition and construction should be required by condition. This should include measures such as exclusion of badgers from the construction site and ensuring that badgers will not become trapped in excavations. Specialised bird boxes for swift and house sparrow are recommended; these can be incorporated into building design or attached externally. Woodcrete low maintenance bat boxes should also be provided, located on mature trees preferably on or close to the woodland edge Conclusions and Recommendations Conditions are recommended for: -Protection of badgers during works -Protection of breeding birds -Measures for enhancement for species by landscape planting and bird and bat box installation on the new building. Policy and Legislative context in relation to this application The National Planning Policy Framework s.109 states: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment ….by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. s.118 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principle: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. In accordance with this, the South Staffordshire adopted Local Plan Core Strategy policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets states that permission will be granted for development that would not cause significant harm to species that are protected or under threat and that wherever possible, development proposals should build in biodiversity by incorporating ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity within the development scheme. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); along with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, provide the main legislative framework for protection of species. In addition to planning policy requirements, the LPA needs to be assured that this legislation will not be contravened due to planning consent. In addition to these provisions, section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Section 41 refers to a list of habitats and species of principal importance to which this duty applies. Natural England Standing Advice which has the same status as a statutory planning response states that survey reports and mitigation plans are required for development projects that could affect protected species, as part of obtaining planning permission.
Page 20 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Sports England (received 17/07/2018) Summary: Sport England raises no objection to this application which is considered to meet exception 5 of our adopted Playing Fields Policy, subject to conditions relating to a community use agreement and sports pitches and courts reorganisation.
Sport England - Statutory Role and Policy
It is understood that the proposal prejudices the use, or leads to the loss of use, of land being used as a playing field or has been used as a playing field in the last five years, as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595). The consultation with Sport England is therefore a statutory requirement.
Sport England has considered the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (in particular Para. 97), and against its own playing fields policy, which states:
'Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of: o all or any part of a playing field, or o land which has been used as a playing field and remains undeveloped, or o land allocated for use as a playing field unless, in the judgement of Sport England, the development as a whole meets with one or more of five specific exceptions.'
Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and Guidance document can be viewed via the below link: www.sportengland.org/playingfieldspolicy
The Proposal and Impact on Playing Field The proposal is for the erection of a new sports centre (to provide a 6 badminton court sports hall, changing facilities, gym, climbing wall, studio, 3 classrooms and community room. The siting of the new sports centre will encroach on two tennis/netball courts, an under sized rugby pitch and a football pitch. It is proposed that the tennis/netball courts will be re provisioned on the undersized rugby pitch with the wider playing field being reorganised to accommodate the existing playing pitch markings.
Assessment against Sport England Policy
This application relates to the provision of a new indoor/outdoor sports facility or facilities on the existing playing field at the above site. It therefore needs to be considered against exception 5 of the above policy, which states:
Page 21 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
'The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor facility for sport, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss, or prejudice to the use, of the area of playing field.'
I have therefore assessed the existing and proposed playing fields against the above policy to determine whether the proposals meet exception 5.
The planning application as detailed in the design and access statement has been submitted to make a step change in the school's sports offering and to provide a facility to re-engage with the local community. The sports centre will replace an existing 4 court sports hall which is said to be in poor state of repair (too costly to refurb) and lacks a number of key components of a modern school and community sports hall. The proposed sports centre has specifically been designed for community use with separate accesses being created for community and school use. The sports centre will have a 6 court hall which will be 9 metres in height, meeting the requirements set out in Sport England's Sports Hall Design and Layout Guidance thus enabling a number of sports to be undertaken within the hall such as trampolining, badminton, indoor cricket nets, full size basketball court, practice basketball courts, five a side football, futsal, handball, hockey pitch, volleyball courts and short mat bowls. In addition to this a climbing wall, fitness studio, gym and community room for the benefit of both the school and community. It is noted that the storage requirements, changing facilities and w/c are not strictly in accordance with Sport England's Sports Hall Design and Layout Guidance.
The proposal will also increase the number of tennis/netball courts by one with four courts being relocated on to land that was marked out for an undersized rugby pitch, the dimensions of the court will be enhanced to ensure compliance with Sport England's guidance and will be floodlit. As a result of the proposal the remaining playing field will be reorganised to ensure that all of the existing pitches are retained to their original size apart from the rugby pitch which will be increased in size.
The South Staffordshire Sports Facilities and Playing Pitch Strategy 2013-18 (SFS) identifies that modelling suggests that by 2028 there is a need for 4 further badminton court spread across the district, with no specific requirement for a new sports hall providing that the provision in the adjoining authorities are maintained. The SFS states that the priority for court provision across the District is to make better use of the existing facilities by increasing the capacity of the current network and to improve the existing facilities. The SFS continues that whilst not a priority, a new sports hall would help to improve the sports hall network in the area, relieving pressure on the hall at Cheslyn Hay. In terms of increasing capacity of existing facilities the SFS states that this could be through the addition of studio/fitness space, or artificial grass pitch provision in order to move some of the current activities out of the sports halls and freeing space for other activities. The SFS specifically identifies that improvements are required for Kinver Leisure Centre sports hall and changing to support and encourage more community use (SFS identifies that community use is through club bookings with users of the grass pitches having no access to changing facilities), which should be secured by new legally binding long term joint use agreement. The SFS also identifies that for Kinver, that there is a priority to deliver
Page 22 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 health and fitness provision within the area with there being no such provision identified at the time. Further to this the SFS identifies that there is a gap of provision for indoor cricket facilities in South Staffordshire and that there was club bookings of the tennis courts and sport pitches.
The applicant has submitted plans displaying the current and proposed sport pitch layout. It is noted that latest proposed sports pitch layout states that there would be a rugby league pitch but this should instead be a rugby union pitch. To inform this response the following national governing bodies were consulted with the following comments received:
RFU
We have no known community use at this site. The impact will be on the schools ability to continue to play rugby union. As mentioned on the previously MOU request, the schools runs a very successful rugby development programme in conjunction with the local RFU team
There are no minimum pitch sizes in rugby union (outside of the international game). The two plans would demonstrate that the proposed rugby union pitch is going to increase in size compared to the existing. This is a positive step forward. However the drawings seem to indicate that the new pitch will overlap the site boundary (indicated green line). Accordingly, the RFU would recommend that the following conditions are added to the planning application: A. In line with RFU guidance note 2 (Grass Pitches for Rugby) that the area surrounding a pitch (perimeter area) should be not less than 5m where practicable. Where it is less than 5m the applicant should risk assess to ensure that the safety of the participants is not compromised
Football Foundation (responding on behalf of the FA)
1. The Football Foundation, on behalf of The FA, can confirm the proposed pitches do not currently conform with The FA's recommended pitch sizes and guidance listed below. In addition, whilst the layout appears acceptable (subject to the correct pitch sizes being accommodated) it is noted that there is an athletics track and cricket wicket/outfield overlaid on some of the proposed pitches. The Football Foundation assumes this will be to support predominantly curriculum activity during the summer months but would seek confirmation so to avoid any negative impact of the football pitches during the competitive season. Recommended sizes - All pitch sizes should comply with FA recommended sizes.
Recommended sizes: Mini-Soccer U7 and U8 (5v5) 37 x 27m (43 x 33m including safety run-off area ) Mini-Soccer U9 and U10 (7v7) 55 x 37m (61 x 43m including safety run-off area) Youth U11 and U12 (9v9) 73 x 46m (79 x 52m including safety run-off area ) Youth U13 and U14 (11v11) 82 x 50m (88 x 56m including safety run-off area) Youth U15 and U16 (11v11) 91 x 55m (97 x 61m including safety run-off area) Youth U17 and
Page 23 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
U18 (11v11) 100 x 64m (106 x 70m including safety run-off area) Over 18 and Adult (11v11) 100 x 64, (106 x 70m including safety run-off area)
Run-off: A minimum safety run off 3m must be provided. Run off areas must be free from obstructions and of the same surface as the playing area. The site operator must undertake a risk assessment to ensure the run off area are safe and do not pose a risk of injury to a player or spectator.
2. The Football Foundation, on behalf of The FA, have consulted with Staffordshire, Birmingham and Worcestershire County FAs respectively. Birmingham FA has confirmed 3 x youth teams are registered to use the site as a venue for the coming season. Given the dimensions of the undersized Rugby pitch the teams will not be affected as The FA recommends those teams play on larger pitches. As such, the assumption and recommendation would be that they continue to use alternative pitches at the site. 3. The Football Foundation, on behalf of The FA and following consultation with Staffordshire and Birmingham County FA's respectively, believe the remaining playing field can be utilised by new and existing local clubs and/or leagues subject to pitch sizes conforming with The FA's recommended pitch sizes (inclusive of a run off).
ECB Note that the relocated cricket wicket and nets are appropriately located on the playing field. In relation to indoor nets within the sports centre the ECB have commented that the light quality of the hall (750 lux average), flooring, line markings and nettings should be in accordance with ECB document "Developing Your School Site". Further to this the ECB commented that the access requirements are for the batting end to be closest to the entrance but not directly in front of doors or circulation routes.
LTA No comment received.
Sport England will assess the potential benefit of the new or extended sports facility by taking into account a number of considerations. As a guide, these may include whether the facility: o meets an identified local or strategic need e.g. as set out in a local authority or NGB strategy (rather than duplicating existing provision); o fully secures sport related benefits for the local community; o helps to meet identified sports development priorities; o complies with relevant Sport England and NGB design guidance; o improves the delivery of sport and physical education on school sites; and o is accessible by alternative transport modes to the car.
Proposals will also need to demonstrate that the loss of any area of playing field will not have an unacceptable impact on the current and potential playing pitch provision on the site. For example, it is unlikely that a loss would be acceptable if:
Page 24 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
o it would result in the main user (e.g. a school or a club) being unable to meet their own minimum requirements for playing pitches (the Department for Education provide area guidelines for playing fields at existing schools and academies). o other users would be displaced without equivalent replacement provision; o it would materially reduce the capability and flexibility of the playing field to provide for a range of sports and natural grass playing pitches; or the area of playing field is significant in meeting local or strategic needs.
Whilst the proposal is not a refurb of the existing sports centre, it will help meet the needs identified within the SFS providing a new facility which will help alleviate pressure on existing sports hall facilities within the District; provide health and fitness provision within Kinver; provide an indoor cricket facility and be designed for both community and school use in accordance with the SFS. The proposed sports centre will also enable a number of other sports to be undertaken in the sports hall for the benefit of the school and community. Given the above comments by the NGB's it is viewed that the existing community and school use of the playing pitches can continue with the current pitch dimensions being maintained, though a risk assessment should be undertaken for the run off areas. Further to this courts will be replaced and will continue to be floodlit. The reorganisation of the playing field pitch and court layout should be implemented prior to any impact on the existing sports provision to ensure the continuation of use by the school and the community. The new sports centre and playing pitches should be secured by a community use agreement enabling the community access to the facilities in accordance with the SFS.
Conclusions and Recommendation
Given the above assessment, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application as it is considered to broadly meet exception 5 of the above policy. The absence of an objection is subject to the following condition(s) being attached to the decision notice should the local planning authority be minded to approve the application:
Sports Pitches and Courts Prior to the commencement of development a detailed programme of works relating to the reorganisation of the sports pitches and courts (including floodlighting) shall be submitted for consideration by the Local Planning Authority (following consultation with Sport England). The works as detailed in the submitted programme shall only be implemented as approved and must be carried out prior to any impact as a result of the development hereby approved on the existing sports pitches and courts (drawing number P10394-00-002-105).
Reason: to ensure that the existing sports pitch availability can be retained for use by the school and the community.
Informative: In line with RFU guidance note 2 (Grass Pitches for Rugby) that the area surrounding a pitch (perimeter area) should be not less than 5m where practicable.
Page 25 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Where it is less than 5m the applicant should risk assess to ensure that the safety of the participants is not compromised. The site operator must also undertake a risk assessment for the football pitches to ensure the run off area are safe and do not pose a risk of injury to a player or spectator. The floodlit courts should accord with Sport England's "Outdoor Sports Lighting" briefing note published in 2012.
Community Use Agreement
Use of the development shall not commence [or no development shall commence or such other timescale] until a community use agreement prepared in consultation with Sport England has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and a copy of the completed approved agreement has been provided to the Local Planning Authority. The agreement shall apply to the Sports Centre, tennis/netball courts and playing pitches and include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-[educational establishment] users [/non-members], management responsibilities and a mechanism for review. The development shall not be used otherwise than in strict compliance with the approved agreement." Reason: To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility/facilities, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport and to accord with Development Plan Policy **. Informative: Guidance on preparing Community Use Agreements is available from Sport England. http://www.sportengland.org/planningapplications/
Should conditions recommended above not be imposed on any planning consent, Sport England would consider the proposal to not meet exception 5 of our playing fields policy, and we would therefore object to this application.
If you wish to amend the wording of the recommended condition(s), or use another mechanism in lieu of the condition(s), please discuss the details with the undersigned. Sport England does not object to amendments to conditions, provided they achieve the same outcome and we are involved in any amendments.
Should the local planning authority be minded to approve this application against the recommendation of Sport England; then in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 the application should be referred to the Secretary of State via the National Planning Casework Unit
Sport England would also like to be notified of the outcome of the application through the receipt of a copy of the decision notice.
The absence of an objection to this application, in the context of the Town and Country Planning Act, cannot be taken as formal support or consent from Sport England or any National Governing Body of Sport to any related funding application, or as may be required by virtue of any pre-existing funding agreement.
Kinver Civic Society (expired 04/07/2018)
Page 26 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Friends of Kinver Open Spaces (received 01/08/2018) (summary) Basis of continued objection 1. Local Plan; Core Policy 1. The amended plan avoids the gross siting of the new build slap in the middle of the open space to the rear of the Turning Circle for the Coaches, but still requires the ripping up of a rugby pitch. Bizarrely, the new siting would necessitate also demolishing existing tennis courts, only to reinstate them on the ripped up rugby pitch.!! 2. Flood Risk; (Core Policy 4c) The applicant needs to respond to the request from the Council for additional information. It is ironic that any worsening of flooding downstream as a result of the loss of green belt would impact on the playing fields by the KSCA, thus destroying, albeit temporarily, an important community amenity!! 3. The obvious alternative siting It is extraordinary that the applicant does not simply site the development partially on the existing location, it having been demolished, and partially on the land which will shortly have become available after the demolition of the old science block. It can only be supposed that they misunderstood this possibility because of the faulty drawing initially submitted. The Council will surely take note of its own caveat under Core Policy 1 'Development will be expected to make efficient use of land, and prioritise the use of Previously Developed Land (brownfield land)' 4. Exceptional Circumstances NPPF guidance allows that there may be exceptional circumstances which might allow for destruction of Green Belt. The applicant may refer in this instance to a paragraph which was used to support an earlier application, namely 'the replacement of an existing building where the new building is not materially larger than the building it replaces.' However, the proposed structure is more than double in floorspace with a 60% greater footprint. Ie SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. Basically, the guidance regarding exceptional circumstances means there should be no other alternative if an otherwise desirable development is to take place. As demonstrated above, there is a much preferable alternative 5. Why does the applicant not want to rebuild on the existing site? His argument is easily dismissed. First, he claims that the old building must remain because it is used for exams. One retired, and one partially retired Ofsted Inspector have confirmed that either classrooms can be used, or candidates bussed elsewhere. And in any case, exams take place mainly in the summer, by which time the new build is planned to be ready! Second, he worries about temporary loss of amenity by the pupils. But the outdoor facilities remain, or indeed, given that the school is one of several in the Academy, alternative indoor facilities can be found. Or a marquee be provided. 6. EQ 9 Protecting Residential Amenity The policy states 'All development proposals should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents with regard to ---pollution (INCLUDING LIGHT POLLUTION)---.' However, this latest proposal involves laying down of hard surface tennis courts in place of the rugby pitch. This in turn will mean erection of floodlights which will now significantly impact on the Turning Circle and environs. The previous head was sympathetic and had a screen of Leylandii interposed between the current courts (which lay further back) and the roadway. Earlier this year these Leylandii were suddenly chopped to the ground!
Page 27 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
7. Community usage The applicant avers that it is intended that the new facility will be fully accessible to the general public. This is largely irrelevant to the issue, as we fully support the idea of an updated building, PROVIDED IT IS LOCATED ON THE CURRENT SITE. However, it may be that this highly suspect claim is designed to support a 'Special Circumstances' argument. We have previously noted (see Objection to first application) that, theoretically, the current building and tennis courts should be available already, but that lack of staffing means that this does not occur. The fitness suite was closed several years ago. Finally, the applicant needs to respond to Sport England, who quite rightly question the need to lose a rugby pitch. Sport England also would insist on a properly drawn up contract for Community Usage, which so far has not been forthcoming.
7 neighbour objection letters received during course of application reasons: - Green Belt - Traffic - Wildlife - Why can't they do up existing facilities - Impact on amenity - Bad design - Lack of on-site security - Increase in anti-social behaviour - Impact on existing clubs and users of the site - Previous community facilities closed due to lack of interest - Over development - Money should be spent on existing community centre - Already provision of gym and sports facilities in surrounding area - School should use facilities at Wombourne - Discrepancies on plans - Lack of community consultation - Questions regarding the funding and revenue stream - Impact on drainage and surface water run off
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application is to be determined by Planning Committee as it is contrary to GB1.
5.2 Key Issues
- Principle of development - Case for very special circumstances - Impact on landscape and visual amenity - Impact on highways - Flooding - Ecology - Use by the community - Impact on neighbours
Page 28 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.3 Principle of development
5.3.1 The site is within the Green Belt, where under local policy GB1 the construction of new buildings other than for agricultural or forestry purposes is generally considered to represent inappropriate development. It is evident that GB1 is silent on the issue of sites within the Green Belt that are previously developed (brownfield land); i.e. land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole curtilage should be developed). However, the supporting text to policy GB1 states that development within the Green Belt will normally be permitted where it is acceptable "within the terms of national planning policy". It therefore follows that for any development to be acceptable any proposal must comply with the provisions of the NPPF. In addition to this where the local plan is silent, then the NPPF becomes a material consideration.
5.3.2 In this light, part g) of paragraph 145 of the NPPF specifies that
limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development would be an exception.
5.3.3 Does section g) of paragraph 145 therefore apply to Kinver High School? In that the application site consists of large buildings and a large expanse of hard standing, I consider that it does comprise a site that has been previously developed. As the proposal involves demolition, rebuilding and new construction, it is for the partial redevelopment of the site. Therefore I consider that section g) is engaged.
5.3.4 That is not the end of the matter, however. Before the exception principle is met, it has to be demonstrated that "the redevelopment would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development".
5.3.5 There are currently a number of buildings on site that are a mix of two storey and single storey, as well as a school yard, parking and the new science block. Although the scheme does initially propose the retention of the existing sports hall, this is on a temporary basis and after the new facility is completed, this will be demolished. This existing sports hall is flat roofed with an overall height of around 8m; this proposed building has a roof height of around 11m, a 38% increase. The floor area also has an uplift of 800 sqm. I consider that these increases represent a material increase of built development, which will ultimately have a harmful impact on the Green Belt. The development is therefore considered to be inappropriate. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Page 29 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.4 Case for very special circumstances
5.4.1 As in paragraph 144 of the NPPF, very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
5.4.2 The school have undertaken a full survey of the existing building and have found that it would not be financially viable for it to be refurbished. The existing buildings on site are not of today's standards (both for sport and health and safety) and the school is trying to improve the provision of facilities on site for both its existing and future pupils. With the exception of the two storey building fronting Enville Road, the buildings are starting to deteriorate and it is likely that asbestos would have been used at the time of their construction, which is now not considered as suitable building material. The sports hall is a rather ugly building and the design would almost certainly be considered 'of its time'. The new sports hall will provide the pupils with modern sports facilities and also provide ancillary teaching accommodation and an improved hall for exam time.
5.4.3 EV9 of the Core strategy states that the Council will support the provision and enhancement of essential community facilities and services, and their retention, particularly where these are the sole or last remaining facility such as a village shop, post office or public house, where these make an important contribution to the vitality of the place and quality of life/wellbeing of local communities and the maintenance of sustainable communities. Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states great weight will be given to the need to create, expand or later schools through decisions on applications. It is important to ensure the long term future of the provision of a High School in Kinver, which undoubtedly represents an essential community facility. The provision of modern facilities will go some way in securing the school's desirability for pupils both in compulsory education and attracting those to the site for further education in sixth form. This will help secure the schools crucial role in educating the future generations of Kinver. Core Policy 15 states that the Council will support proposals and initiatives to improve access to services for children and young people and the provision, improvement and enhancement of facilities for children's play and youth development.
Paragraph 91 of the NPPF states:
Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy inclusive and safe places which… c) enable and support healthy lifestyles, especially where this would address identifies local health and well-being needs…
5.4.4 Overall, on balance, I consider that the need to provide more modern facilities to improve the health and well-being of the children and young people of Kinver and the surrounding areas, whilst also helping to secure the future of the school clearly outweighs the potential harm to the Green Belt in this instance.
Page 30 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.5 Design, Impact on landscape and visual amenity of the Green Belt
5.5.1 Core Policy 2 and Development policies EQ4 and EQ12 of the Core Strategy all seek to protect, conserve and enhance the District's natural assets. CP2 goes on to state that particular support will be given to initiatives which improve the natural environment where it is poor and will increase the overall biodiversity of the District. This is echoed in part 15 of the NPPF. Throughout the District, the design and location of new development should take account of the characteristics and sensitivity of the landscape and its surroundings and should not have a detrimental effect on the immediate environment and on any medium and long distance views. The original submission proposed to locate the building in a far more prominent position than it is now. This would have had a detrimental impact on the views out towards the open fields beyond the school boundary. In negotiations with the school and agent it has been agreed to move the building more towards the existing cluster of buildings and to site the tennis courts and playing fields to the original location. This will leave this area open and ensure the views mentioned earlier are retained in accordance with EQ4 and EQ12.
5.5.2 EQ11 states the design of all developments must be of the highest quality and the submission of design statements supporting and explaining the design components of proposals will be required. Proposals should be consistent with the design guidance set out in the adopted Village Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (or subsequent revisions) and be informed by any other local design statements. Development proposals must seek to achieve creative and sustainable designs that take into account local character and distinctiveness, and reflect the principles set out below. The Council will encourage innovative design solutions.
5.5.3 The existing sports hall building is not particularly aesthetically pleasing, and the proposed building offers an alternative to this dowdy and out-dated utilitarian block. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposed building may not be to everyone's taste in terms of design, it has to be recognised that some thought has gone into the scheme. The use of appropriate materials will be key however and I consider it reasonable and necessary to require their approval at a later date via a condition. I also consider it prudent to require the submission and approval of a landscape scheme.
5.5.4 Overall, I consider the proposal is in accordance with the aims of EQ11. In summary, I consider the development would retain the visually pleasant and attractive part of the village as it will be viewed within the context of the existing school complex and leave maintain the sense of openness and safeguards distance views beyond the perimeter of the school.
5.6 Impact on highways
5.6.1 Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport seeks to ensure that new development must include provision for sustainable forms of transport to access sites as well as
Page 31 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 within any development. The development is proposing the provision of additional car parking at the site. This will however not alleviate the concerns of local residents as parents will still not be able to access the site at peak drop and collection times. The traffic generated round schools at these times is an inconvenience to local residents and I believe the school is looking at ways of improving this for the wider community. Notwithstanding this however, the provision of a new sports facility for the school will have no material impact on the existing situation.
5.6.2 A number of residents have also raised concerns around the community use of the building and the likely increase in traffic. I understand from discussions with the agent that the school will allow those using the building for community uses to utilise the parking provided on site. I do not see how people using the facility outside of peak collection and drop off times as mentioned earlier will cause a nuisance in terms of congestion or inconsiderate parking off site. The County Highways engineer has no objections to the proposal subject to a number of conditions.
5.7 Impact on flooding
5.7.1 Core Policy 3 requires development to be designed to cater for the effects of climate change, making prudent use of natural resources, enabling opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency and helping to minimise any environmental impacts. This will be achieved by giving preference to development on previously developed land (brownfield land) in sustainable locations. It goes onto say that proposal should guide development away from known areas of flood risk as identified in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Surface Water Management Plan and ensure the use of sustainable drainage (Sustainable Drainage Systems). After submitting initial concerns, the County Flood Team have withdrawn their holding objection and consider the proposed drainage strategy acceptable. As noted earlier the proposal represents the partial development of a previously developed site and is located within the village of Kinver. I therefore consider the proposal is in accordance with the aims of CP3.
5.8 Ecology
5.8.1 Development Policy EQ1 states that permission will be granted for development which will not cause significant harm to sites and/or habitats of nature conservation, geological or geomorphological value and species that are protected. Locally important sites such a Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) will be protected and enhanced. Protected species are a material consideration when making a decision with regard to a planning application. Whilst I note there are a number of neighbours who are concerned the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the existing wildlife at the site, the application was supported by an ecological survey that has been reviewed by the County Ecologist. She has no objections and has recommended a number of mitigating conditions.
5.9 Use by the community and Sports England comments
5.9.1 Core Policy 10 states that
Page 32 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
the Council will support proposals and activities that protect, retain or enhance existing community facilities and services or lead to the provision of additional facilities that improve the wellbeing and cohesion of local communities and ensure that communities are sustainable.
5.9.2.Core Policy 14 reiterates this and states the following priorities will be supported:
- improving access to school sports facilities through secured community use agreements - in particular to sports halls and swimming pools - encouraging a broader range of sports opportunities on school sites to include: archery and athletics - maintain and replace/refurbish swimming pools and sports halls in the District to ensure the facilities are fit for purpose.
5.9.3. All community groups who currently use the site will be able to continue to use the facilities and there will be a caretaker on site whenever the school is open to the public. Sports England have requested the school enter into a Community Use agreement, this can be secured by condition.
5.9.4 Sports England has worked with the applicants to achieve a scheme that is satisfactory to both parties and have subsequently withdrawn their initial holding objection. In light of this I consider the development broadly in accordance with Core Policy 10 and 14.
5.10 Impact on neighbours
5.10.1 Policy EQ9 states that new development should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents, particularly with regard to privacy, noise, pollution, odours and daylight. The closest properties to the proposed building are 20 - 12 Enville Road. The building would however be well over 120m from the rear of the dwellings and as such there would be no harm from over bearing or loss of light. There may of course be some disturbance to local residents during the construction phase so I consider that County Highways suggested condition requiring the submission and approval of a construction management plan is reasonable and necessary, should Members agree with my recommendation to grant planning permission. There could also be the potential for any external lighting to give rise to disturbance, so I will also require the submission and approval of a lighting scheme.
5.10.2 A number of objections were submitted against the proposal, including impact of Green Belt, highways and wildlife the majority of which have been addressed in this report. Others, such as the funding mechanisms are not material planning considerations.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Page 33 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
6.1 Drawing all the matters together, I have concluded that the site is brownfield land in accordance with the definition given in the NPPF; however the building would be considered to be inappropriate development due to the increase in height and floor area. I have afforded this matter significant weight. I would however consider that the need to provide more modern facilities to improve the health and well- being of the children and young people of Kinver and the surrounding areas, whilst also helping to secure the future of the school, clearly outweighs the potential harm to the Green Belt in this instance in accordance with GB1 of the Core Strategy and Section 13 of the NPPF.
6.2 The revised location of the building ensures the retention of the distant views into the open countryside from Enville Road. I consider the design of the building acceptable but deem it necessary to require the submission of and approval of a landscape scheme and the materials to be used on the external elevations.
6.3 The County Ecologist, Flood Team and Highway engineer do not consider there would be any detrimental impact on ecology, flooding nor the highway.
6.4 Therefore, in conclusion. I consider the proposal in accordance with the relevant polices of the Core Strategy and NPPF and recommend that Members approve the proposal , subject to a number of conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans:
P10394-00-002-002-D01 P10394-00-002-101-D07-0F-GA P10394-00-002-103-D02-GA P10394-00-002-104-D02 P10394-00-002-106-D00 P10394-00-002-200-D04 P10394-00-002-201-D01 P10394-00-002-202-D01 received 11/07/2018
3. Before the development commences details of the facing materials to be used for the external elevations shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out in the approved materials.
Page 34 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
4. Before the development commences a landscape scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved scheme shall be implemented concurrently with the development and completed within 12 months of the completion of the development. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the scheme has been completed. Any failures shall be replaced within the next available planting season and the scheme shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The planting shall be retained and maintained for a minimum period of 10 years by the property owner from the notified completion date of the scheme. Any plant failures that occur during the first 5 years of the notified completion date of the scheme shall be replaced with the same species within the next available planting season (after failure).
5. The permission hereby granted does not grant or imply consent for the installation of any means of lighting on the site or the building. Any lighting of the building, road/access way or parking areas shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before installation.
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an on-site Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Construction Management Plan shall include the demolition phase and provide the following details:
Routeing of construction vehicles including measures to mitigate the impact on the local highway network. The measures shall indicate that no HGV's associated with the development shall arrive or depart from the site outside the hours of 09:30 and 15:30 Monday to Friday during school terms. Parking facilities for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors. Location of any crushing plant. Measures including designated wheel washing areas to prevent the deposition of deleterious material on the public highway. The Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to for the duration of the demolition and construction phase.
7. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking, servicing and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
8. The building shown to be demolished on plan P10394-00-002-003-D00 shall be demolished and all resulting material removed from site within 2 months of the occupation of the building hereby approved.
9. No ground works shall commence until mitigation measures for the protection of badgers during works on site and the provision of bird boxes has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. No works to likely nesting bird habitat shall take place between the months of March and September inclusively.
Page 35 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
10. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed programme of works relating to the reorganisation of the sports pitches and courts (including floodlighting) shall be submitted for consideration by the Local Planning Authority (following consultation with Sport England). The works as detailed in the submitted programme shall only be implemented as approved and must be carried out prior to any impact as a result of the development hereby approved on the existing sports pitches and courts (drawing number P10394-00-002-105).
11. Use of the development shall not commence [or no development shall commence or such other timescale] until a community use agreement prepared in consultation with Sport England has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and a copy of the completed approved agreement has been provided to the Local Planning Authority. The agreement shall apply to the Sports Centre, tennis/netball courts and playing pitches and include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-[educational establishment] users [/non-members], management responsibilities and a mechanism for review. The development shall not be used otherwise than in strict compliance with the approved agreement.
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
6. To ensure that the use of the premises does not detract from the reasonable enjoyment of surrounding residential properties in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
7. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
8. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
Page 36 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
9. In order to protect any protected species on the site in accordance with EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy.
10. To ensure that the existing sports pitch availability can be retained for use by the school and the community.
11. To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility/facilities, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport and to accord with Policy CP14 and HWB1.
12. In line with RFU guidance note 2 (Grass Pitches for Rugby) that the area surrounding a pitch (perimeter area) should be not less than 5m where practicable. Where it is less than 5m the applicant should risk assess to ensure that the safety of the participants is not compromised. The site operator must also undertake a risk assessment for the football pitches to ensure the run off area are safe and do not pose a risk of injury to a player or spectator. The floodlit courts should accord with Sport England's "Outdoor Sports Lighting" briefing note published in 2012.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner by agreeing amendments to the application and in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.
Page 37 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Kinver High School, Enville Road, Kinver, Stourbridge, South Staffordshire DY7 6AA
Page 38 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00140/FUL Mr Keith Vincent BOBBINGTON Cllr Robert James McCardle
Gospel Ash Methodist Church Gospel Ash Road Bobbington Stourbridge South Staffordshire DY7 5EF
Former Methodist Church - change of use into private dwelling, with 2 storey rear extension to provide 3 bedrooms
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The application relates to a former Methodist Church in Gospel Ash Road, Bobbington. To the rear of the site is Wolverhampton Halfpenny Green Airport and there are residential properties to the East and South of the site.
1.1.2 The application site is tarmacked and the boundaries are fairly open in nature, with a combination of rail/mesh fencing and hedging.
1.2 Planning History
2003, Extension to provide disabled toilet, improved kitchen and toilet and access map, approved (03/00617/FUL)
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Pre- application advice
No pre-application advice has been sought
2.2 The Proposal
2.2.1 The application proposes to convert the building into a three bed dwelling.
2.2.2 As part of the conversion a two storey rear extension is proposed which will be set 0.5m lower and project 10m in depth.
2.2.3 The extension will be constructed from standing seam metal cladding - grey.
2.2.4 It is proposed to reduce the amount of tarmac and create front parking/courtyard garden and a private back garden.
2.3 Agent’s Submission
2.3.1 The application is accompanied by:
Page 39 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
- Planning application design statement - Structural report - Bat emergence and re-entry surveys
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 Within the Green Belt
3.2 Core Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: Landscaping Policy EV9: Provision and Retention of Local Community Facilities and Services Policy EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 5 Parking Standards Appendix 6 Space about Dwellings
3.3 National Planning Policy Framework 2018 13. Protecting green belt land 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
3.4 Supplementary Guidance Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD South Staffordshire Design Guide 2018
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Comments received
Councillors: [expired 20/03/18] No comments received
Parish Council [15/03/18]: No objections to the above application, assuming that all greenbelt regulations have been complied with.
Conservation Officer [28/08/18] I can confirm that I have no objections in regards to the design of the proposed extension. The materials will be key in ensuring the success of the proposals, and will need to be covered by conditions.
Wolverhampton Airport [expired 20/03/18]: No comments received
Page 40 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
County Highways [02/03/18]: There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:-
1. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
Reasons. 1. In the interest of highway safety.
To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Severn Trent Water [22/02/18]: As the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system I can advise we have no objections to the proposals and do not require a drainage condition to be applied.
Neighbours [expired 20/03/18]: No comments received
A site notice was published and expired on the 21/03/18.
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application has been referred to planning committee as the proposal is contrary to Policy GB1.
5.2 Key Issues - Principle of development - Change of use - Extensions - Very special circumstances - Impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt - Design - Impact on neighbouring amenity - Space about dwelling standards - Highways/parking
5.3 Principle of development - Change of use
5.3.1 Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Framework provides that the re-use of a building within the Green Belt is acceptable providing that the proposed use of any building (taking into account the size of any extensions, rebuilding or required alterations), would not harm the openness of the Green Belt or the fulfilment of its purposes. The structural report submitted confirms that the building is suitable for conversion without the need for any significant rebuilding.
5.3.2 Policy EV9 provides that proposals for redevelopment or change of use of premises currently used or last used to provide essential facilities or services which
Page 41 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 support the local community, whether of a commercial nature or not, will only be permitted where the Council is satisfied that the use is no longer economically viable and the building cannot be readily used or converted to any other community facility or that the facility or service lost will be adequately supplied or met by an accessible existing or new facility in the local area or village concerned.
5.3.2 The applicant has provided that the chapel was no longer economically viable due to low attendance and attempts were made to sell the building for another community use. In addition, the service lost is met by an existing facility in Wombourne. I therefore find no conflict with Policy EQ9.
5.4 Principle of development - Extensions
5.4.1 Policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy and Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that extensions to existing buildings in the Green Belt are acceptable providing that they are not disproportionate to the size of the original building. The Councils Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD advise that an increase of between 20-40% of the original floor area is likely to be acceptable. The SPD goes on to further state that…'all cases will be dealt with on an individual basis and the Council will make a judgement, as part of the decision making process, as to whether the extension is disproportionate or not'.
5.4.2 The building has an existing/original floor area of 117sqm and the proposed extensions combined with the existing would amount a further 157sqm, i.e. a 134% increase over the size of the original building.
5.4.3 The existing church is a bulky building predominately of a two storey height [albeit there is no habitable first floor]. Having regard to this it would be more useful to use overall volume then floor space. The applicant has provided that the existing chapel has a volume of some 454m3 and the proposed extensions would amount to around a 50% increase in volume. Whilst this is more of reasonable increase compared to solely relying on floor space, the proposal would still be considered disproportionate to the size of the original building, resulting in inappropriate development.
5.4.4 Inappropriate development in the Green Belt is harmful by definition and contrary to policy GB1 of the Core Strategy and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, as noted in paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
5.5 Very special circumstances
5.5.1 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure substantial weight is given to any harm in the Green Belt. 'Very Special Circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Page 42 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.5.2 The Councils Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD states at paragraph 4.6 that
‘If, however, an applicant or agent considers that additions deemed disproportionate by the Council are absolutely necessary for the function of the building, or have a limited effect on the openness of the Green Belt, or will bring community or economic benefit, then a case to demonstrate 'Very Special Circumstances' will be required…This element will then be weighed up, including the quality of the design, in the planning balance and will form part of the decision making process.’
5.5.3 Paragraph 192 of the NPPF states that
‘in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation…’
5.5.4 The existing building is a non designated heritage asset dating back to 1883.Whilst the proposed extensions would be deemed as being disproportionate, it is important that this building finds a sustainable use rather than being left vacant and the building deteriorating in time. It has been evidenced that an economic use cannot be found and a certain amount of extensions would be required in order to create a habitable dwelling fit for modern standards. The extension has been designed in conjunction with the Councils Conservation Officer and retains the original elevation of the chapel with the extension being a subordinate, contemporary addition at the rear.
5.5.5 The proposal also provides the removal of the existing outbuilding and the replacement of extensive tarmac carpark surfacing with soft landscaping.
5.5.6 It is finely balanced but overall I consider the proposal demonstrates very special circumstances as it ensures the preservation of an important non designated asset.
5.6 Impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
5.6.7 The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Openness is a matter of its physical presence rather than its visual qualities. Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy state that developments which conflict with preserving the openness of the Green Belt will not be permitted.
5.6.8 The extension would have some impact on the openness of the Green Belt given its bulk and scale; however I consider the harm to be on the lesser side of the scale. The extension will be read in connection with the existing building and will be more or less in line with the rear building line of the neighbouring dwelling. Furthermore the proposal would result in the removal of a large area of hardstanding and the demolition of the outbuilding.
Page 43 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.7 Design
5.7.1 Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy requires that in terms of scale, volume, massing and materials, developments should contribute positively to the street scene and surrounding buildings, whilst respecting the scale of spaces and buildings in the local area. The South Staffordshire Design Guide provides that extensions should be subservient to the main building, respecting the scale and form and relationship to adjacent buildings.
5.7.2 The front elevation of the building is to remain unaltered, retaining its heritage. The extensions to the rear are of a contemporary design and will therefore be clearly readable as an extension, which in my view works well and incorporates design cues from the existing building. The proposal is compliant with Policy EQ11.
5.8 Impact on neighbouring properties
5.8.1 In accordance with Local Plan Policy EQ9, all development proposals should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents, particularly with regard to privacy, security, noise and disturbance, pollution, odours and daylight.
5.8.2 The proposed extension is located a suitable distance away from the neighbouring dwelling, Leisure Cottage, to ensure no adverse harm is caused. The low level windows on the side wall on the 1st floor are to the hallway/landing area and the proposed balcony proposes no amenity concerns. The proposal is compliant with Policy EQ9.
5.9 Protected Species
5.9.1 Policy EQ1 provides that developments should not cause significant harm to habitats of nature conservation, including woodlands and hedgerows, together with species that are protected or under threat.
5.9.2 Bat emergence surveys have been undertaken at the site which found no evidence of bats emerging or entering the main building. The ecologist therefore considers it is likely that the roof space of building has only been used as day roosts and the commuting and foraging habitat at the site is considered to be of a low suitability. Conditions will be attached to ensure compliance with the Ecologists recommendations regarding the timing of building works and sealing the building prior to any major works taking place. Additionally a condition will attached ensuring that bird and bat boxes are erected at the site to provide additional roosting and nesting opportunities. The proposal is compliant with Policy EQ1.
5.10 Space about dwelling standards
5.10.1 The proposal does not infringe the Councils space about dwelling standards.
5.11 Highways/access
Page 44 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.11.1 Access, parking and turning areas have been provided to the satisfaction of the highways officer. The proposal is compliant with Policy EV12 and Appendix 5 of the Core Strategy.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The proposed development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt harmful by definition and contrary to GB1 of the Core Strategy and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, as noted in paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
6.2 It is finely balanced but overall I consider the proposal demonstrates very special circumstances as it ensures the preservation of an important non designated asset.
6.3 The design of the proposal is acceptable and no harm will be caused on neighbouring amenity or on the highway network. I therefore recommend the application for approval.
7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 17035-04 Rev D and 17035-03 Rev B.
3. The permission hereby granted does not grant or imply consent to any of the facing materials shown on the approved plans, and before development commences details of the facing materials to be used on the external elevations shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out in the approved materials.
4. Before development commences details of proposed windows, doors and rainwater goods to be used for the converted building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the agreed details.
5. Before development commences full details of all new joinery shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such details shall include: building elevations at a sufficient scale to enable individual or recurring types of joinery to be identified clearly; sample elevations of each individual or recurring joinery type at 1:20 or 1:10 scale; and 1:1 profile cross- sections of each individual or recurring joinery type. Details shall also be provided of reveal, surrounds, materials, finish and colour in respect of all proposed joinery works and in particular how they are formed and how they
Page 45 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
meet and sit within the surrounding frame. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained in that form unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
7. Within one month of completion of the development the existing shed as shown by 'proposed site plan' [17035-03 Rev B] shall be demolished and the materials permanently removed from the site.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any other subsequent equivalent order, no development within the following classes of development shall be carried out to the dwelling(s) hereby approved without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority:
a. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A - enlargement, improvement or other alteration b. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B - addition or alteration to the roof c. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class C - any other alteration to the roof d. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class D - porches e. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E - garden buildings, enclosures, pool, oil or gas storage container f. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class F - hardsurfacing g. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class G - chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe h. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class H - microwave antenna i. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A - gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure j. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B - means of access k. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class C - painting of exterior
9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations contained within the Bat Emergence and Re-entry Survey [Report Reference: CE-GA-1209-RP02 - Final]
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the existing building in particular in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Page 46 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
4. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the existing building in particular in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the existing building in particular in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
6. In the interest of highway safety
7. The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development
8. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the existing building in particular in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy. The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development
9. In order to protect any protected species on the site in accordance with EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has approached decision making in a positive and creative way, seeking to approve sustainable development where possible, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2018.
Page 47 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Gospel Ash Methodist Church, Gospel Ash Road, Bobbington, Stourbridge South Staffordshire DY7 5EF
Page 48 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00230/FUL Mr Nigel Farmer ACTON TRUSSELL, BEDNALL & TEDDESLEY HAY Cllr Len Bates Cllr Isabel Ford
Yew Tree Farm Pottal Pool Road Penkridge Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 5RN
Conversion of existing farm buildings to 6no. three bedroomed dwellings including external alterations and demolition of adjacent agricultural building.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The application relates to two large portal-framed buildings situated at Yew Tree Farm off Pottal Pool Road approximately 2.5 miles east of Penkridge village.
1.1.2 The subject buildings, which have been used in the past for pig rearing, are situated behind a series of brick buildings which have planning permission to be converted into dwellings (11/00194/REN), and a locally-listed farmhouse which fronts Pottal Pool Road.
1.1.3 The buildings have a combined floor area of some 1600 sq.m, and range in height between 3.6m and 4.8m with dual-pitched roofs. The exterior walls are constructed from a 1m high course of concrete blocks, and the remainder/majority in a single skin of fibre cement sheeting. The roofs are also covered in corrugated fibre cement sheeting without insulation. The southernmost building has two 1.8m deep x 3m wide internal slurry pits, which run down each side of the building. Sections of this building are dilapidated, and the structure is not weatherproof.
1.2 Relevant planning history
2017, Conversion of redundant pig shed into 3 residential units [Under Class Q of the GPDO 2015], Prior Approval Refused (17/00469/AGRRES) 2016, The existing redundant pig units are to be converted to 3 no. detached dwellings [Under Class Q of the GPDO 2015], Prior Approval Refused (16/00686/AGRRES) 2016, Barn for Sheep containment, approved (16/00793/FUL) 2014, Ground floor extension to existing self-contained guest accommodation, Approved (14/00778/FUL) 2011, Conversion of redundant, traditional brick and tile barns to 5 dwellings, Approved (11/00194/REN) 2008, Conversion of barns to 5 dwellings, Approved (08/00399/COU) 2008, Sheep handling facility, Refused (08/00178/FUL) 1990, Conversion of redundant farm building for farm managers dwelling, Approved (1043/90)
Page 49 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
1998, Change of use of farm buildings to small craft and industrial workshop, Approved (739/88)
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Pre-application advice
2.1.1 No pre-application discussions have taken place.
2.2 The Proposal
2.2.1 This application proposes to convert the southernmost of the two redundant pig sheds into six 3-bed residential units. The other building would be demolished to accommodate individual garden amenity areas and parking spaces for each dwelling.
2.2.2 The proposed works include new insulation and cladding to the exterior walls, a replacement roof covering and the in-filling of the two large internal slurry pits with hardcore and a new concrete slab. There would be new window and door openings throughout.
2.3 Agent's Submission
The application is supported by:-
[1] Covering letter / Planning Statement
[2] "Design Commentary" statement
[3] Ecological Appraisal, which concludes the following:-
It is considered that swallows will be affected by the proposed development. A method statement outlining reasonable avoidance measures for birds (section 6.3.1 of the appraisal) will be followed.
The site will be enhanced for protected species with the inclusion of artificial roost boxes for bats and best boxes for birds.
There are no other ecological constraints to the proposed development.
[4] Structural Report and brief Construction Method Statement, which concludes the following:-
"The structure is currently used as a single storey barn and it is recommended that it is structurally capable of conversion to a single storey dwelling".
-The external roof cladding will be replaced with an approved insulated cladding system.
Page 50 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
-The existing external wall cladding can be retained with insulation applied on the internal face or a new insulated cladding system can be adopted. Either construction will not impact the structural integrity of the building. -The 1.8m deep pits will be filled with hardcore, a concrete slab will be case on the same level as the existing. -The overall form and proportions of the building proposed will be retained, including the steel portal frames and perimeter dwarf wall.
2.4 Amended Plans
01/05/18: The provision of pitched roof gables, and parapet wall gable at each end of the building were omitted from the scheme. Proposed timber cladding and rooflight details were revised to address the Conservation Officer's comments.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 The site is within the West Midlands Green Belt, and the 0km - 8km Zone of Influence of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation Area (SAC).
3.2 Core Strategy NP1: The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ2: Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation Policy EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: Landscaping Core Policy 9: Rural Diversification EV6: Re-use of Redundant Rural Buildings Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport Policy EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 5: Car parking standards Appendix 6: Space about Dwellings
3.3 Adopted local guidance Green Belt and Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Document [2014] South Staffordshire Design Guide [2018] Sustainable Development SPD [2018]
Page 51 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
3.4 National Planning Policy Framework [2018] Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places Chapter 13: Protecting Green Belt land
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Comments received
Ward Councillors Councillor Len Bates: The proposed application would appear to have merit inasmuch as it would an improvement on the dilapidated barns. I believe there was a similar application received some two years ago, which was granted Approval (received 30/03/18). Further to our recent telephone conversation I wish to confirm that I wish to "Call -In" the above application to be determined by the Planning Committee (received 24/08/18).
Acton Trussell Parish Council (expired 19/04/18): No comments received.
Conservation Officer -Original plans (comments received 17/04/18): It is proposed to convert an existing modern agricultural building to form 6 dwellings. There will need to be some amendments to the scheme prior to the determination of the application. The building is to the rear of the site, and is located within the setting of Yew Tree Farm which is on the South Staffordshire Council Local List.
Whilst there are no conservation objections to the principle of the conversion of these buildings, the current proposal includes the provision of small gables to the front elevation of the barn facing towards the locally listed building. It would be preferred to see these gables removed and a single eaves level to follow across the length of the building.
The insertion of the gables gives the building a far more domestic appearance, which alters the character of the site, and is detrimental to the setting of the non- designated heritage asset. Should these gables be removed it is felt that whilst the conversion will alter the setting, it would not harm it any further than the existing structure.
Details of the materials to be used have been submitted, based on the details on drawing number 1893-45. Colour finishes can be confirmed either prior to, or at the time of determination.
-Amended plans (additional comments received 16/05/18): The gables have been removed in line with my previous comments. There are therefore no further conservation objections to the proposed conversion.
Page 52 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Environmental Health Officer (received 10/05/18): I have no objections to the proposed development. However, these conditions are recommended in order to safeguard nearby residential occupiers from undue disturbance during development:
1. All works, including demolition, site works and construction shall only take place between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.
2. Deliveries to the site shall only take place between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays. Delivery vehicles shall not park on the access highways to the site.
3. There should be no burning on site during development
4. All demolition materials shall be removed from site and properly disposed of.
5. Facilities shall be provided at the site and used when necessary for damping down to prevent excessive dust.
6. Road sweeping shall be carried out at regular intervals, both on the site and on the access highway to prevent excessive dust.
7. Any equipment which must be left running outside the allowed working hours shall be inaudible at the boundary of occupied residential dwellings. Asbestos
1. A site survey should be undertaken to determine the presence of any asbestos products. A licensed contractor should carry out the removal and disposal of asbestos.
2. A demolition statement and survey is required for any buildings with asbestos content.
Regeneration and Housing Strategy (expired 19/04/18): No comments received.
County Highways (received 12/04/18): There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:-
1. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
Natural England: Members should refer to the Committee Update List for Natural England's comments, which are expected by 14/09/18.
Neighbours (expired 19/04/18): No comments received.
Site Notice (expired 23/04/18): No comments received.
Page 53 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 This application has been called-in to Planning Committee by Councillor Leonard Bates.
5.2 The Key Issues are:
- Principle of Development [i] Development in the Green Belt [ii] The Re-use of Redundant Rural Buildings (Policy EV6) - Very Special Circumstances - Impact on Residential Amenity / Space about Dwellings standards - Highways/Parking - Ecology - Cannock Chase SAC - Representations
5.3 Principle of Development
[i] Development in the Green Belt
5.3.1 The site is located within the Green Belt. Policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy advises that development acceptable within the terms of national planning policy set out in the NPPF will normally be permitted where the proposed development is for […] in the case of the re-use of a building, that the proposed use of any building (taking into account the size of any extensions, rebuilding or required alterations), would not harm the openness of the Green Belt or the fulfilment of its purposes.
5.3.2 The implication of this statement is that Policy GB1 requires development proposals to be in accordance with the NPPF to represent "appropriate development" in the Green Belt. It also follows that when the Core Strategy is silent in decision making we should defer to the NPPF.
5.3.3 Paragraph 146 of the NPPF [2018] sets out forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and this includes the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction.
5.3.4 The NPPF provides no specific guidance on "permanent and substantial construction"; however it is considered that a building should be capable of being re- used without either being rebuilt or involving other works which are so extensive that they amount to substantial re-building or reconstruction. If only repair and refurbishment works are required to make the existing building fit for habitable use, then the building could appropriately be regarded as being of substantial construction.
5.3.5 Whilst it can be accepted that the subject building for conversion is a permanent structure, the building finished mainly in a single skin of fibre cement
Page 54 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 sheeting to the exterior walls and roof could not in my view be described as being of 'substantial construction', and therefore it fails to meet the fundamental test required by the NPPF. In Green Belt terms therefore, the proposal should be regarded as inappropriate development requiring very special circumstances as justification (considered further below).
[ii] The re-use of redundant rural buildings - Policy EV6
5.3.6 Policy EV6 of the Core Strategy supports the principle of the re-use of a redundant rural building for alternative uses; however, such proposals must demonstrate that the building is: a) in a condition capable of conversion without demolition and rebuilding, or substantial reconstruction; and b) is capable of conversion without detrimental alterations affecting its character, appearance, significance, general setting and immediate surroundings.
5.3.7 The submitted structural report recommends that the existing building is "structurally capable of conversion to a single storey dwelling". However, simply stating that the building is capable of conversion is not enough to satisfy part (a) of Policy EV6, as the proposal must also demonstrate that the building is in a condition capable of conversion without demolition and rebuilding, or substantial reconstruction. A building of permanent and substantial construction may be capable of conversion if enough building materials are incorporated into the scheme; however there must become a point when the extent of the new building works proposed are so extensive that they fall outside of the allowable remit and purpose of Policy EV6.
5.3.8 In this instance, the existing building would need to be enhanced with a substantial amount of new building materials to make it fit for habitable use, including new insulation and cladding to the exterior walls, a replacement roof covering and the in-filling of two large slurry pits which run along each length of the building. Collectively the proposed building works required for the conversion are considered to amount to demolition and rebuilding, and substantial reconstruction which is clearly contrary to Policy EV6.
5.3.9 The wording of Policy EV6 part (b) affords no more or less protection to existing buildings depending on their architectural merit. The policy seeks to avoid "detrimental alterations affecting the building's character appearance, significance, general setting and immediate surroundings". The policy does not suggest that architectural enhancements will be supported or render the conversion scheme acceptable. The fact remains that a traditional agricultural barn or pig rearing shed of this age, design and construction is unlikely to have originally contained the degree and regularity of new openings proposed. The simply utilitarian/agricultural character of the original building would undergo a complete overhaul of its external appearance, which in my view would be more associated with a row of modern commercial units. Furthermore, the proposed conversion would be of a scale, design
Page 55 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 and character that would fail to harmonise with the locally-listed farmhouse, the range of adjacent barns and to the existing built development in this part of Pottal Pool Road. It is therefore considered that the proposed changes to exterior of this building would be detrimental alterations affecting the building's existing character and appearance, significance, general setting and immediate surroundings, contrary to provision (b) of Policy EV6.
5.3.10 As a matter of fact and degree, taking into account the extent of building works required to make the building fit for habitable use, the building is considered unsuitable for conversion.
5.4 Very Special Circumstances
5.4.1 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF [2018] states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
5.4.2 No very special circumstances have been advance in support of this proposal, however the Applicant has noted the positive effect upon Green Belt openness due to the proposed demolition of the northernmost building.
5.4.3 The increase in Green Belt openness can be given some weight in the planning balance, however it is considered that this reason and the extent of Green Belt openness gained from the proposal, would still not amount to the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the proposal's harm on the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness.
5.5 Impact on Residential Amenity / Space about Dwellings Standards
5.5.1 The proposed development accords with Space about Dwellings standards in all aspects, and there are no residential amenity concerns. It is noted that front principal windows to Plots 4 & 5 in the proposal would face towards the rear gardens of Plots 4 & 5 in the adjacent barn conversion scheme to the south yet to be completed (11/00194/REN), however these gardens would be enclosed by post and rail fencing and a native hedgerow which, once established, would maintain suitable privacy conditions to the occupiers.
5.5.2 The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
5.6 Highways/Parking
5.6.1 The proposed development would provide satisfactory access and parking arrangements in compliance with Policy EV12. County Highways raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.
Page 56 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.7 Ecology
5.7.1 The Ecological Appraisal concludes that swallows will be affected however reasonable avoidance measures for birds will be followed in accordance with a method statement. Bird and bat boxes will be provided for site enhancements. The proposal raises no other ecological constraints.
5.8 Cannock Chase SAC
5.8.1 The latest Footprint Ecology Report has established that any new residential development within a 15KM buffer zone of the Cannock Chase SAC will have a significant impact on the SAC in terms of increased visitor pressure (i.e. the Zone of Influence).
5.8.2 The application site is within the 15KM buffer zone. In order to satisfy separate Habitat Regulations, mitigation in a form of a financial agreement will need to be provided if any net dwellings are located within 0-8km of the SAC, in this instance the site falls within this criteria. The payment towards the SAC is not paid for planning purposes but rather to secure compliance with the Habitat Regulations.
5.8.3 As a Unilateral Undertaking agreement has been submitted with the application, I consider that the proposal complies with Core Strategy Policy EQ2.
5.8.4 The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has prepared an "Appropriate Assessment" of the application's effect on the Cannock Chase SAC, which must be agreed with Natural England. Should Natural England find this acceptable, the LPA will have met its duties as a competent authority under the Habitat Regulations. Members should refer to the Committee Update List for Natural England's comments which are expected by 14/09/18.
5.9 Representations
5.9.1 Whilst the amended plans of 01/05/18 have addressed the Conservation Officer's design concerns regarding impacts on the setting of the locally-listed farmhouse, these amendments still fail to overcome the fundamental concerns of this proposal which constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
5.9.2 Councillor Bates' comments regarding design merit have been addressed in Section 5.3 [ii] of this report. Whilst the adjacent range of barns has received permission for conversion into dwellings (11/00194/REN), each case must be considered on its own merits.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The site is within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. The scheme proposes the re-use of a building in the Green Belt which is not of a permanent and substantial construction. The proposal
Page 57 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy and Paragraph 146 of the NPPF.
6.2 The existing building is not considered in a condition capable of conversion to residential use without demolition and rebuilding, or substantial reconstruction, and the proposed exterior changes would be detrimental alterations affecting the building's existing character, appearance, significance, general setting and immediate surroundings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy EV6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
6.3 As a matter of fact and degree, taking into account the extent of building works required to make the building fit for habitable use, the building is considered unsuitable for conversion. I therefore recommend the application should be refused.
7. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE
Reasons
1. The site is within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. The scheme proposes the re-use of a building in the Green Belt which is not of a permanent and substantial construction. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt contrary to Policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy and Paragraph 146 of the NPPF.
2. No very special circumstances have been advanced to justify a departure from Policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy and Paragraph 146 of the NPPF.
3. The existing building is not considered in a condition capable of conversion to residential use without demolition and rebuilding, or substantial reconstruction, and the proposed exterior changes would be detrimental alterations affecting the building's existing character, appearance, significance, general setting and immediate surroundings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy EV6 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. This refusal relates to the following list of plans (received 20/03/18 unless otherwise stated):-
1. 1893-46 Revision B 'Site Plan' 2. 1893-47 Revision A 'Location Plan' 3. 1893-38 'Existing Barn Plans & Elevations' 4. 1893-44 Revision A 'Proposed Floor Plans & Parking' 5. 1893-45 Revision A 'Proposed Elevations & View' (amended plan received 01/05/18)
Page 58 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Proactive Statement
The Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner in accord with National Planning Policy Framework 2018, paragraph 38, by attempting to seek solutions with the applicant to problems associated with the application. A solution could not be found and so the development fails both with regards to the NPPF and the adopted Core Strategy 2012.
Page 59 of 218 Gareth Dwight—Planning Assistant: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Yew Tree Farm, Pottal Pool Road, Penkridge, Stafford, South Staffordshire ST19 5RN
Page 60 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00307/OUT Lone Star Land Ltd PENKRIDGE Cllr Len Bates Cllr Isabel Ford
Land off Kentmere Close/Cherrybrook Drive, Penkridge, South Staffordshire
Outline planning application for the erection of up to 80 dwellings with associated vehicular access and other enabling works. All other matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The site measures 4.2 hectares in area and immediately adjoins the village of Penkridge on its eastern boundary. The site is located in close proximity to the residential roads of Cherrybrook Drive, Kentmere Close, Oaken Close and Prescott Drive. The western boundary of the site adjoins the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal and towpath, and the M6 Motorway runs along the eastern boundary of the site. There is an existing 3 metre high acoustic fence and semi-mature tree planting separating the Site from the M6 Motorway. The northern boundary separates the site from open countryside currently in use for agricultural purposes.
1.1.2 The site itself comprises vacant agricultural land which is currently used to graze sheep for 4 months of the year. The site is bounded by hedgerow along the northern boundary, a strip of broadleaved woodland to the east and a dense continuous scrub along the southern boundary with residential properties. There are a number of riparian trees along the western boundary of the Site with the Canal. The site rises gently from its westernmost extent.
1.2 Site History
1.2.1 No Planning History.
1.3 Pre-application discussions
1.3.1 Pre-application discussions have taken place with both the District and County Councils. A public consultation event was held by the applicants at the Haling Dene Centre, Penkridge on 24 January 2017.
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
2.1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the residential development of up to 80 dwellings on land off Cherrybrook Drive, Penkridge. Approval is sought at this stage
Page 61 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 for the site access. All other details (including layout, design, scale, appearance and landscaping) are reserved for a later stage.
2.1.2 It is proposed that the development will comprise up to 40% affordable dwellings, in accordance with the requirements of Policy H2 in the adopted Core Strategy. The affordable housing will comprise 50% affordable for rent and 50% shared ownership – also in compliance with Policy H2.
2.1.3 The overall provision of public open space within the site constitutes approximately 1.2 hectares, located along both the eastern and western boundaries of the site. An attenuation pond is proposed within the north west of the Site. This pond forms part of the public open space along the western site boundary.
2.1.4 Vehicular access to the Site will be provided via Kentmere Close, with an extension to the existing carriageway, which currently meets the southern boundary of the application site. Pedestrian and cycle access will also be provided via the proposed vehicular access point from Kentmere Close. The illustrative Masterplan identifies a pedestrian route within the site. It is proposed to provide a footpath to access the canal footbridge to the north and facilitate a pedestrian link to Penkridge Middle School. However, this is an illustrative plan only and would require land to be utilised which is outside the application site boundary (and not under the control of the applicant). This issue will be discussed later in this report.
2.1.5 Car parking will be provided in line with the Council’s adopted car parking standards contained within Appendix 5 of the adopted Core Strategy. Where all parking is provided within the curtilage, 2 spaces are required per 2/3 bedroom dwelling and 3 spaces per 4 bedroom + dwellings. Where communal parking is proposed 1.5 spaces per 1/2 bed dwelling and 2 spaces for each 3 or more bedroom dwelling.
2.1.6 Construction traffic will be managed via the submission of a Construction Management Plan with the objective of minimising the potential impact of construction traffic and activity upon the surrounding area.
2.2 AGENTS SUBMISSION:
Site Location Plan (Reference AAH5429-2) Illustrative Masterplan (Reference AAh5429-SK03) Topographical Survey Design & Access Statement Planning Statement Statement of Community Involvement Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy Updated FRA [Issue 4] – dated 03/9/18 Acoustic Report Air Quality Assessment Affordable Housing Statement Transport Assessment & Travel Plan Sewer Capacity Assessment
Page 62 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Tree Survey Heritage Assessment Preliminary Ecological Assessment Updated Ecological Assessments [17/8/18 & 28/8/18] Site Waste Management Plan Desk Study
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 The application site is Safeguarded Land situated on the edge of the Main Service Village of Penkridge.
The local and national planning policies relevant to the determination of this application are as follows:
Core Strategy Development Plan Document, adopted 11 December 2012:
National Policy 1 - The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Policy 1 - The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire Core Policy 2 – Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Core Policy 3 – Sustainable Development and Climate Change Core Policy 5 – Infrastructure Delivery Core Policy 6 - Housing Delivery
GB2 – Land Safeguarded for longer term needs EQ1 - Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets EQ2 - Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation EQ3 – Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets EQ4 - Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape EQ5 - Sustainable Resources and Energy Efficiency EQ7 - Water Quality EQ8 - Waste EQ9 - Protecting Residential Amenity EQ11 - Wider Design Considerations EQ12 - Landscaping EQ13 - Development Contributions H1 - Achieving a Balanced Housing Market H2 - Provision of Affordable Housing H4 - Delivering Affordable Housing EV3 – Canals and Canalside Development EV11 - Sustainable Travel EV12 - Parking Provision
Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Local Plan (2010-2026)
Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015-30)
Page 63 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Housing Market Assessment (2017) - Longer Term Balancing Market Housing Report
The Council has received a sound Inspector’s Report in respect of the emerging Site Allocations Document (SAD). The SAD is a tier 2 plan and seeks to deliver the adopted Core Strategy (the tier 1 plan). Taken together, the 2 documents will comprise the development plan for South Staffordshire. Council is being invited to adopt the SAD at a meeting on Tuesday 11 September 2018.
SAD3 – Safeguarded Land for Longer Term Development Needs SAD7 – Open Space Standards SAD9 – Key Development Requirements
South Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the Sustainable Development SPD adopted by Council on 26 June 2018.
(Revised) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published 24 July 2018
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (revised NPPF 2018 Paragraphs 2 & 47).
The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions (revised NPPF 2018 Paragraph 2) and sets out the national overarching aims for planning with a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Development that is sustainable should be favoured, without delay, and should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking (revised NPPF 2018 Paragraph 11).
Chapter 2 [Para 7-14]: Achieving Sustainable Development Chapter 3 [Para 15-37]: Plan-making Chapter 4 [Para 38-58]: Decision-making Chapter 5 [Para 59-79]: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Chapter 13 [Para 133-147]: Protecting Green Belt land Chapter 15 [Para 170-183]: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Annex 1 [Para 212-217]: Implementation
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), 2018
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Cllr Len Bates (Penkridge North East and Acton Trussell)
I have serious concerns regarding the above application and I wish to "call in" the application for determination by the Planning Committee. My reasons are as follows:
1. Site Allocation Document-Inspectors comments.
Page 64 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
PENKRIDGE. 134. "Penkridge is designated as an MSV in the SSCS, which sets a minimum target of 370 dwellings. However, since completions and commitments (largely at Lyne Hill) have exceeded the figure. The S.A.D. makes no further housing provision here but confirms the retention of existing safeguard land at Cherrybrook Drive identified in the 1996 Local Plan".
135. " Cherrybrook was considered to be the best performance option" . 136. " The main issue is whether the site should be allocated for development within the current plan. I consider it should remain designated as safeguarded land for future LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT, whilst the priority of releasing the land be reconsidered in the Local Plan Review".
2. Proposed development in Penkridge and the surrounding and associated infrastructure.
Acton Hill - 155 Dwellings and 55 Apartments. This application was refused at a Planning Committee Meeting on 19th December, 2017 and is currently subject of a review by the Planning Inspectorate. At the meeting I called for the application to be refused together with another sizeable housing development on land on the north east side of the Stafford Road, Penkridge based on the fact that Penkridge does not have the infrastructure to sustain more large scale house building. I pointed out that the Village Infrastructure was already at breaking point In respect of the Health Centre and School places following the erection of 280 dwellings at Lyne Hill. I explained that the A449 Trunk Road is grid locked twice a week on Market days and when the M6 Motorway is blocked between junctions 12 and 13, which is a regular occurrence. I went on to say that if the Secretary of State gives permission for the West Midlands Interchange then heavy goods vehicles would spill out onto the A44( and traffic would grind to a halt. I reminded Members that Penkridge had met its quota of 300 houses to be built by 2018 in one hit by the Lyne Hill development as per the previous Site Allocation Document The two applications referred to are only a small part of other applications planned for Penkridge. As follows:
1. An outline application by Bloor Homes for the erection of 200 dwellings on land on the north east side of the Stafford Road. This application was recently turned down by the Planning Committee.
2. A pending application by McCarthy & Stone in respect of an Apartment Block and Bungalows adjacent to the Bloor Homes site.
3. The current application for 80 dwellings at Cherrybrook. The local residents are most unhappy about the proposal. This fact is highlighted by the number of E-Mails, Letters and telephone calls that I have received.
4. In addition Persimmon Homes have indicated that they wish to build a Regional Office at Teddesley Road.
5. There is also the very controversial application for Turkey farm at Dunston.
Page 65 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
I clearly understand the pressure that the Council is under in respect of the Birmingham MHA Study. However, I do not believe that at the present time Penkridge can withstand the major housing scheme outline for Cherrybrook. I would refer you to the Inspectors comments when he says: "The main issue is whether the site should be allocated for development in the current plan. I consider it should remain safeguarded for FUTURE LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT, whilst priority of releasing the land be considered in the Local Plan Review.
Penkridge Parish Council
Comments received 28 August 2018
Councillors support the comments/objections submitted by residents previously.
Councillors strongly object to the proposed outline Planning Application and do not think the land is suitable for upto 80 dwellings mainly due to the road width at the entrance to the site which would restrict emergency vehicles due to the vehicles already parked on the highway. The Village does not have the infra structure to cope with an additional 100 houses and its residents. Councillors also had concerns with regard to the pollution from the motorway for the proposed houses that would be adjacent to the border
Previous comments
Strong objections repeated when commenting on revised description that reduced the number of dwellings to up to 80 dwellings (received 28 August 2018).
Councillors supported the comments/objections submitted by residents.
Councillors strongly objected to the proposed Planning Application and did not think the land was appropriate for 100 plus houses mainly due to the road width at the entrance to the site which would restrict emergency vehicles due to the vehicles already parked on the highway.
The Village does not have the infra structure to cope with an additional 100 houses and its residents. Councillors also had concerns with regard to the pollution from the motorway for the proposed houses that would be adjacent to the border.
County Ecologist
Comments received 03 September 2018
I have been commissioned by South Staffordshire Council to review the planning application documentation for the above application. Documents and plans reviewed: -Ecological Assessment (Comprising an Extended Phase 1 Habitat and Protected Species Scoping Survey, Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, and Badger Survey) (G S Ecology Ltd, August 2018) - Revised site plans
Page 66 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
I have not visited the site but have viewed aerial photographs and application photographs.
Assessment of Submitted Documents and Plans
The Ecological Assessment extends a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (G S Ecology Ltd, March 2018) that was submitted previously. My response dated May 2018 dealt with the conclusions of this previous report which have not substantially altered. My previous comments and recommendations (below, with minor amendments) therefore stand. The Ecological Assessment deals with issues raised by Staffordshire Wildlife Trust regarding a fallen tree and neighbouring building with regard to bat potential. It is also clear that trees with bat potential that were not assessed in detail on the south west boundary are to be retained. I have therefore suggested a condition for tree protection.
In my previous response, I had not realised the planting to the M6 boundary is outside the red line boundary; I have therefore removed comments on management of this area. Tree and shrub planting inside the red line boundary parallel to the M6 planting would however strengthen this habitat corridor and should be a consideration in landscaping plans. The revised site plans submitted are for 80 houses (a reduction of 20 units compared to the previous plans). However there is still an overall net loss of grassland and my points below under ‘no net loss of biodiversity’ remain relevant, not least because NPPF now clearly refers to a net gain throughout (s.109 notably). My original suggestion was that species protection measures could be by submission of method statements or defining an ecological clerk of works role. This is still possible, however I have suggested conditions to cover these points.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following points may be dealt with either by provision of further information from the applicant, or by the use of conditions. No net loss of biodiversity The proposal as it stands represents a loss of biodiversity because the on-site features proposed do not go far enough to compensate for loss of grassland. The applicant should bring forward ecology and planting plans that address this issue such as: - The attenuation pond could be designed to also provide a biodiversity feature with shallow edges and reedbed planting. - The SUDS design could be extended to provide a swale with wetland wildflower seed mix or reedbed feature before water reaches the pond. This feature would provide part of treatment chain of SUDS by removing silt and minor pollutants while also enhancing biodiversity. This could be located parallel to the canal or within land parallel to the M6. - The eastern boundary to the M6 now has well-developed shrub and tree planting. This could be enhanced within the red line boundary with extra native shrubs and shade seed mix. - Creation of hedge / shrub barrier to canal frontage - Enhancement of northern boundary as suggested.
Page 67 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Protected species General measures for protected species should be covered by conditions. These should include: - Protection for badgers and other mammals during working - Tree protection in line with BS5837 - Submission of a lighting strategy that retains all boundaries as dark corridors - Field to be kept short grazed or mown to prevent ground nesting birds from occupying it. If this is not maintained, then a survey should be carried out and submitted to the LPA prior to commencement of any works.
Policy and Legislative context in relation to this application
The National Planning Policy Framework s.109 states: “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment ….by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. s.118 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principle: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. In accordance with this, the South Staffordshire adopted Local Plan Core Strategy policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets states that permission will be granted for development that would not cause significant harm to species that are protected or under threat and that wherever possible, development proposals should build in biodiversity by incorporating ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity within the development scheme. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); along with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, provide the main legislative framework for protection of species. In addition to planning policy requirements, the LPA needs to be assured that this legislation will not be contravened due to planning consent. In addition to these provisions, section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Section 41 refers to a list of habitats and species of principal importance to which this duty applies.
Natural England Standing Advice which has the same status as a statutory planning response states that survey reports and mitigation plans are required for development projects that could affect protected species, as part of obtaining planning permission.
Regeneration & Housing Strategy
Housing strategy comments (in respect of affordable housing and housing mix) have been included within the Local Plans comments.
Staffordshire County Council Flood Risk Management Team
Comments received 17 May 2018
Page 68 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Thank you for consulting us on this planning application, our response is as follows: Advice to LPA The Flood Risk Assessment (RPS Reference: AAC5427, Issue 3, 03/04/2018) demonstrates that an acceptable Drainage Strategy can be achieved as part of the proposed development. Some additional details will be required following detailed design, including modelling of the pipe network and storage structures to demonstrate compliance with the technical standards, and arrangements for ongoing maintenance. Further information is available in our SuDS Handbook: https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/environment/Flood-Risk-Management/Information-for- Planners-and-Developers.aspx
We would recommend that the following conditions should be attached to any planning permission.
We ask to be consulted on the details submitted for approval to your Authority to discharge this condition and on any subsequent amendments/alterations. Please also consult us again on any future major changes to the proposed development or drainage scheme.
Staffordshire County Council Flood Risk Management position The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measures are incorporated in an acceptable surface water drainage scheme, to be secured by way of planning conditions on any planning permission.
Condition
No development shall begin until a detailed surface water drainage design has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority.
The design must be in accordance with the overall strategy and key design parameters set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (RPS Reference: AAC5427, Issue 3, 03/04/2018). The design must demonstrate:
Surface water drainage system(s) designed in accordance with national and local standards, including the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (DEFRA, March 2015).
SuDS design to provide adequate water quality treatment, which can be demonstrated using the Simple Index Approach (CIRIA SuDS Manual 2015), to include above-ground attenuation basin.
Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 40% climate change critical rain storm to 6.9l/s to ensure that there will be no increase in flood risk downstream.
Page 69 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods.
Plans illustrating flooded areas and flow paths in the event of exceedance of the drainage system. Site layout and levels should provide safe exceedance routes and adequate access for maintenance.
Provision of an acceptable management and maintenance plan for surface water drainage to ensure continued performance of the system for the lifetime of the development. This should include a schedule of required maintenance activities and frequencies, and contact details for the organisation responsible for carrying out these duties.
Reason To reduce the risk of surface water flooding to the development and properties downstream for the lifetime of the development.
School Organisation Team
Comments dated 03 September 2018
This development falls within the catchments of Marshbrook First School, Penkridge Middle School and Wolgarston High School.
The development is scheduled to provide 80 dwellings. Excluding the 4 one bedroom houses and excluding the 16 RSL dwellings from secondary only, a development of 80 houses including 16 RSLs could add 11 First School aged pupils, 8 Middle School aged pupil, 6 High School aged pupils and 2 sixth form pupils.
The education contribution for a development of this size would be as follows;
11 First School places (11 x £11,031 = £121,341) and 8 Middle School places (8 x £13,827 = £110,616). This gives a total request of £231,957 for up to 80 dwellings.
Wolgarston High School is projected to have limited vacancies based on the current and projected pupil numbers available at this time. Although the development will put additional pressure on school places, current pupil demographics indicate that the schools should be able to accommodate the likely demand from pupils generated by the development.
The above comments are based on a development providing 80 dwellings including 60 houses 4 one bedroom houses and 16 RSL houses. If the number of houses or total dwellings increases, or the number of RSL properties reduces, a revised contribution will be necessary.
The above contribution is based on the 2008/09 cost multipliers which are subject to change.
Page 70 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
The above is based on current demographics; we would wish to be consulted on any further applications for this site.
County Planning – No Comments Received
County Highways
Comments 31 August 2018
Recommendation: There are on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions (see below) being included on any approval: -
The site is well suited to take advantage of sustainable modes of travel with walking and cycling being realistic options for future occupants of the site to access schools and other local facilities. It also has access to bus and rail facilities giving options to access services further afield.
This a proposal for 100 residential units (now revised reduced to up to 80) accessed from Kentmere Drive; which is located in the village of Penkridge. The submitted planning application has been submitted with a Transport Assessment (TA) to report on issues relating to the highway matters.
The TA examines the access to the site and is proposing to extend the existing carriageway (Kentmere Close) into the site. Given the width of the existing site road it is acceptable. The submitted drawing shows a 5.5 metre wide carriageway into the site which is sufficient to serve the numbers proposed. The estate itself currently houses 147 properties and this proposal is for an additional 100 (reduced to up to 80) which is still below the maximum threshold of the County’s residential design guide.
Notwithstanding the drawing with the TA; ref 2104-F01 further details will be required as house number 6 has a driveway the currently extends across the end of the turning which will need to be incorporated with any highway works. I would also require that the side stub of the turning head is stopped up as highway as it will no longer be necessary to have a turning head in this location.
The TA has also looked at the proposed vehicle movements from any future users of the site, I would disagree with the trip distribution figures provided. Cherrybrook Drive is a single access and so any observed flows would provide the requisite flows for use from any future uses. That said this is likely to have a minimal impact on the junction modelling undertaken with marginal increases in traffic heading to and from the East in the am.
The report shows that the numbers of vehicles generated from the site are unlikely to have any ‘severe’ impact on the surrounding highway and junctions. I would expect to see any reserved matters embrace the principles of Manual for Streets and provide a well connect development.
Page 71 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
I have no objection in principle to this proposal subject to the following conditions being attached to any permission granted;
1. Prior to the commencement of any construction, including demolition, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall include details relating to construction access, hours of construction, routing of HGV’s, delivery times and the location of the contractors compounds, cabins, material storage areas and contractors parking and a scheme for the management and suppression of dust and mud from construction activities including the provision of a vehicle wheel wash. It shall also include a method of demolition and restoration of the site. All site operations shall then be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved CEMP for the duration of the construction programme.
Reason: In order to minimise the impact of construction activity on the surrounding environment in accordance with section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as the associated driveway has been surfaced in a boundmaterial, and sustainably drained, in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the NPPF.
3. Prior to commencement of the development a scheme shall submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for a vehicular access onto Kentmere Close. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the NPPF.
Informative
The condition requiring off-site highway works shall require a Highway Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council. The applicant is requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in order to secure the Agreement. The link below is to the Highway Works Information Pack including an application form. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application form or email to ([email protected]). The applicant is advised to begin this process well in advance of any works taking place in order to meet any potential timescales. https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/highwayscontrol/HighwaysWor kAgreements.aspx
Any reserved matters will require approval under Section 7 of the Staffordshire Act 1983 and will require a Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Please contact Staffordshire County Council to ensure that approvals and agreements are secured before commencement of work.
Page 72 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
This Form X is issued on the assumption that the developer enters into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a travel plan and a travel plan monitoring fee £6760.00. Note to Planning Officer.
This form X supersedes previous recommendation dated 25th May 2018.
Staffordshire Fire And Rescue Service
Comments received 15 August 2018
I refer to the planning application dated 14th August 2018 and the proposed development at the above address. VEHICLE ACCESS Appropriate supplies of water for fire fighting and vehicle access should be provided at the site, as indicated in Approved Document B Volume 1 requirement B5, section 11. I would remind you that the roads and drives upon which appliances would have to travel in order to proceed to within 45 metres of any point within the property, should be capable of withstanding the weight of a Staffordshire firefighting appliance (G.V.W. of 17800 Kg). I wish to draw to your attention Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service's stance regarding sprinklers. DOMESTIC SPRINKLERS In the interest of preventing deaths and injuries from fires within domestic dwellings Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service strongly recommend the provision of a sprinkler system to a relevant standard. Early consultation with the Fire Service when designing buildings which incorporate sprinklers may have a significant impact on reducing fire deaths and injuries in domestic premises and financial implications for all stakeholders. Further information can be found at www.bafsa.org.uk - the website of the British Automatic Fire Sprinklers Association Ltd. If you require any further advice or assistance regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me.
Gordon Scott - Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA)
Comments received 15 August – re-stated previous comments below
Thank you for the above consultation document, I ask that South Staffs District Council consider my comments, which are site specific, and made in accordance with; Section 17 of the 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998':
Places a duty on each local authority: 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area to include anti-social behaviour, substance misuse and behaviour which adversely affects the environment'.
National Planning Policy Framework:
Page 73 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Paragraph 58 'Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.'
Paragraph 69. This paragraph looks towards healthy and inclusive communities. The paragraph includes:- "Planning policies and decisions, in turn, should aim to achieve places which promote: Safe and accessible developments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life and community cohesion"
South Staffordshire District Council LDF Core Policy:
Core Policy 13, Community Safety states; The design of buildings and spaces can make a significant contribution towards reducing the scope for crime, and create more pleasant and reassuring environments in which to live, work and play. The opportunities for crime to occur can be minimised by designing and planning out crime in new development. The Council supports the national guidance 'Secured by Design' and will continue to work with Staffordshire Police architectural liaison officer in relation to the design and layout of development proposals.
Policy CS1: Designing Out Crime:
In accordance with Core Policy 13, the design of development must include, means of reducing the opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour, and must also seek to reduce the potential for fear of crime. This will include support for:
Social facilities to be provided in locations which can be adequately controlled and supervised;
Development to be designed to increase natural surveillance of public and private spaces, with continuous public surveillance as an alternative;
Liaison with the Police to design out crime and fear of crime in specific schemes which also meet other design objectives in Policy EQ11.
Development proposals should be consistent with other local planning policies.
Core Policy 13 sets out the strategic policy for community safety that supports the aims and objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Community Safety Partnership Plan. The above Policy provides further detail on the design of development and 'Secured by Design', and in turn supports Policy EQ11 covering wider design considerations.
The Human Rights Act Article & Protocol 1, Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention and PINS 953.
Page 74 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
In order to prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime I recommend that this development attains Police Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation. There is no charge for my advice or for the Secured by Design award, and once awarded the Police SBD logo can be used on advertising material.
Research shows that adopting SBD can reduce burglary by 50%, car crime and criminal damage by 25%, therefore the carbon costs of replacing door-sets and windows on SBD developments as a result of criminal activity is more than 50% less than on non SBD developments, the cost of installing SBD approved products equals 0.2% of the total build cost.
One of the most revealing elements of research into SBD is how much 'safer' residents feel if they occupy a dwelling on an accredited development, even if they are not aware of the award status. There are few other initiatives which can deliver a measurable reduction in fear like this.
SBD supports one of the Government's key planning objectives - the creation of safe, secure, quality places where people wish to live and work. SBD applies quality standards to a range of security measures and should be seen as a positive marketing opportunity.
SBD can contribute towards BREEAM "excellent" assessments.
Staffordshire Police have no objection to this proposal and ask that should it be granted they are consulted further when "reserved matters "are decided.
Further information on Secured by Design and accredited security products can be found at www.securedbydesign.com and www.soldsecure.com
I trust the constructive observations I have made will be useful to the Planning Committee in considering the application. I would appreciate being informed as to the outcome of this application.
Should you wish to discuss any of the comments made please do not hesitate to contact me.
Development and Waste Management Unit
I refer to your consultation letter dated 25 April 2018, and write to confirm the observations of Staffordshire County Council, acting as the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority.
Background
The proposal is for up to 100 dwellings with associated access works, on a 4.2 ha site comprising vacant agricultural land, on the north eastern/ eastern edge of Penkridge. To the south and south west, the site adjoins an existing residential area. The M6 motorway runs along the eastern boundary of the site and the western boundary adjoins the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal and towpath.
Page 75 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Observations
The proposal site is within the Minerals Safeguarding Area (MSA) for superficial sand and gravel. There are no permitted or allocated mineral sites in the vicinity of the application site.
Paragraph 144, of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Policy 3 of the newly adopted Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire (2015 - 2030), both aim to protect mineral resources from sterilisation by other forms of development. Policy 3.2 of the new Minerals Local Plan states that:
Within a Mineral Safeguarding Area, non-mineral development except for those types of development set out in Appendix 6, should not be permitted until the prospective developer has produced evidence prior to determination of the planning application to demonstrate: a) the existence, the quantity, the quality and the value of the underlying or adjacent mineral resource; and b) that proposals for non-mineral development in the vicinity of permitted mineral sites or mineral site allocations would not unduly restrict the mineral operations. Whilst the Planning Statement which accompanies the application does not identify the MSA or the relevant policies from the Minerals Local Plan, in this particular situation any attempt to recover the mineral would be constrained by other development in the form of the M6, the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal and houses in Penkridge. It would, therefore, be unlikely that any underlying mineral resource could be extracted in a manner that was environmentally acceptable and/ or economically viable. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed development would not lead to the sterilisation of significant and otherwise recoverable, mineral resources.
Conclusions
Therefore, under the powers contained in the 'Scheme of Delegation to Officers', this letter confirms that Staffordshire County Council, acting as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority has NO OBJECTION to the outline planning application for planning permission for the erection of up to 100 dwellings with associated vehicular access on land off Cherrybrook Drive, Penkridge, Staffordshire.
I trust that Staffordshire County Council's observations will be taken into account in reaching a decision on the application.
Finally, I wish to take this opportunity to remind you of the policy requirement (as detailed in Policy 1.2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan, and as supported by paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy for Waste) to make better use of waste associated with non-waste related development. In accordance with Policy 1.2, all 'major development' proposals (as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, or any subsequent changes/revisions) should:
Page 76 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 i. Use / Address waste as a resource; ii. Minimise waste as far as possible; iii. Demonstrate the use of sustainable design and construction techniques, i.e.: resource- efficiency in terms of sourcing of materials, construction methods, and demolition; iv. Enable the building to be easily decommissioned or reused for a new purpose; and enable the future recycling of the building fabric to be used for its constituent material; v. Maximise on-site management of construction, demolition and excavation waste arising during construction; vi. Make provision for waste collection to facilitate, where practicable, separated waste collection systems; and, vii. Be supported by a site waste management plan.
Badger Conservation Group – No Comments Received
Inland Waterways Association (IWA) - Lichfield
Thank you for consulting us on the above planning application adjacent to the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal.
The Inland Waterways Association (IWA) is a national charity which campaigns for the conservation, use, maintenance, restoration and development of the inland waterways for public benefit. The Lichfield Branch of IWA has considered this application in relation to the environment of the canal and the interests of its users.
The Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal is a historic waterway and a valuable amenity and recreational corridor, providing leisure boating, walking, angling, cycling and nature conservation benefits to the area. It is designated a Conservation Area for its special architectural and historic interest.
Built development of open countryside adjacent to the canal diminishes the historic rural setting of its Conservation Area. It can also reduce the attractiveness of the canal for recreation and tourism which nowadays is its prime use, and which helps fund its maintenance and contributes to the local visitor economy.
The Illustrative Masterplan shows retention of canalside trees with an open space buffer zone and attenuation pond near the canal which, conditional on appropriate landscaping, will help to reduce the visual impact of the proposed development.
IWA notes that the site is designated as 'Safeguarded Land' for future housing development, but Policy SAD3 of the recently examined Site Allocations Document is clear that this is for long term development beyond 2028 and that until released by a review of the Local Plan, applications will be regarded as departures from the Plan.
IWA therefore considers that this application is premature and should be refused, but if it were to be approved then we would appreciate being consulted further on the detailed layout, design and landscaping to help minimise adverse impacts on the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal.
Page 77 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Canal And River Trust
Comments received 31 August 2018
It is noted that the number of dwellings proposed has been reduced from 100no. to 80no. and an updated Masterplan has been submitted. The Masterplan still indicates a link to the canal bridge to the north of the site and therefore the comments raised in our previous response, dated 22nd May 2018 are still relevant. The following detail is therefore still required before the Trust are able to provide a substantive response to the planning application for the reasons outlined previously:
-Bridge and towpath assessments -Draft S106 agreement
We will make a substantive response within 21 days from the date of receipt of this information
Comments received 22 May 2018
The Canal & River Trust (the Trust) is the guardian of 2,000 miles of historic waterways across England and Wales. We are among the largest charities in the UK. Our vision is that "living waterways transform places and enrich lives". We are a statutory consultee in the development management process.
The Trust has reviewed the application but is unable to make a substantive response under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 due to the absence of the following information:
- Bridge and towpath assessments - Draft S106 agreement
The submission indicates that a pedestrian footway/cycleway is to be provided north of the site connecting to the existing bridge (Bridge 87, Brooms Bridge) across the canal. This connection is to provide a link from the site to Penkridge Middle School.
However, the proposed link is not included within the red line site area and there are no details provided on the layout/design of the link from the site along the offside of the canal or its route to link to the school on the western side of the canal.
The proposal is to utilise the existing canal bridge though there is no assessment as to whether the bridge can accommodate this additional footfall. Brooms Bridge is not a public road bridge and is owned by the Trust. It does not carry vehicular traffic and although the bridge is generally in a reasonable condition, there are several minor issues which require attention. This however is based on the structure's current usage and the there is no assessment within the submission of the likely impacts on the bridge from increased use or details on works required to make it fit for purpose.
Page 78 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
The existing parapets are low and any increase in use will need to consider the need to make alterations to the towpath approach to the bridge, in order to eliminate the fall from height risk from the bridge approach to the towpath as this passes beneath the bridge and comply with current design standards (height) for a cycle path. As you will be aware the canal is a conservation area and the bridge a non-designated heritage asset in its own right. In accordance with the NPPF any proposals would therefore need to fully consider the impact to the conservation area and effect on the significant of the non-designated heritage assets.
The application therefore should provide an assessment of the existing bridge and detail works necessary to make it fit for purpose and support the additional footfall to be created by the proposed development. An assessment should also be undertaken of the likely impacts to the existing towpath / access points from increased use. Details of required mitigation and the mechanism for these to be delivered should also be submitted for assessment.
We will make a substantive response within 21 days from the date of receipt of this information.
Conservation Consultation
Comments received in respect of revised description (up to 80 dwellings instead of up to 100 dwellings) on 21 August 2018
Comments: This site is adjacent to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area. Therefore the proposals have the potential to affect the setting of this designated heritage asset. There is also a Grade II listed building nearby, Wolgarston Farmhouse, but given that the M6 runs between the two there will be no impact on the setting of the listed building.
The concept plan in the Design and Access Statement shows a buffer area between the canal and built form, including planting and an attenuation pond. This will reduce the impact of the proposals on the setting of the conservation area. There is already an extensive length of canal with built form on both sides of it and the proposals will increase this although mitigated by the buffer zone mentioned above.
Given that this application is outline with all aspects except access reserved, there is a limited amount of information and what is included in largely indicative. However, based on the information submitted I consider that the proposed development will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Albeit that this would be at the lower end of the scale so would result in a small level of harm.
Nonetheless any harm to a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance (para 194 NPPF). Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including
Page 79 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
(para 196 NPPF).In this instance which there are no demonstrable heritage related public benefits there may be public benefits resulting from the provision of housing which can be taken into account in the planning balance.
The application is for the erection of up to 100 houses on the outskirts of Penkridge.
The proposed site will not impact upon the setting of any non-designated heritage assets, however it will impact upon the setting of one designated heritage asset. The north-western boundary of the site immediately adjoins the boundary of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area. To the south of the site, the canal runs through the built up are of Penkridge, with dwellings immediately adjacent to the edge of the canal. To the north of the site the canal passes into open countryside (except for the playgrounds of Penkridge Middle School). Only a small section of the canal boundary will be part of the proposed development site (part of which is opposite already developed land). The proposed scheme would continue the built form of the settlement in an area bounded not only by the canal, but by the M6 to the east.
Therefore it is considered that as the development is to be set back from the canal boundary, whilst it would alter the setting of the canal conservation area, it will not harm it to a significantly greater extent than the present development.
There are therefore no conservation objections to the principle of the development in this location, subject to further details on materials, design and landscaping. The development has been set back from the boundary of the canal conservation area, and the attenuation pond located close to this boundary.
Designs of the proposed dwellings will need to take into account elements of the local vernacular, and will need to include chimneys to properties.
Conditions:
Not applicable.
Campaign to Protect Rural England Staffordshire – No Comments Received
Environment Agency
Commented 15 August 2018 - no further comments following initial comments on 01 May 2018 set out below
Thank you for referring the above application which was received on 25 April 2018. We have reviewed the information submitted and have no objections, in principle, to the proposed development. We wish to make the following comments.
Groundwater and Contamination
We have the following comments to make on this application (18/00307/OUT) which
Page 80 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 relate solely to the protection of controlled waters. Matters relating to human health should be directed to the relevant department of the local authority.
Reference to the 1:50,000 scale geological map indicates that the site is located on the bedrock of the Helsby Sandstone Formation which is designated as a Principle Aquifer by the Environment Agency. Superficial deposits are indicated to be present in the form of Glacial Till, designated as a Secondary Undifferentiated Aquifer. The site is not within a Source Protection Zone. The are no surface waters considered to be in hydraulic continuity with the site.
We have reviewed the 'Land at Cherrybrook Drive, Penkridge - Preliminary Risk Assessment' by RSK, dated January 2018 submitted in support of this application. The information available to date identifies that the site has historically and currently been utilised as agricultural grazing land. Based on the information we have to date, the site has not been subject to any previous significant development and consequently we have no requirement for further investigations into the presence of contamination.
It should be noted that in accordance with Government policy detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 120), 'where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner'. Therefore, should any significant contamination subsequently become apparent responsibility remains with these parties.
Advice to Applicant
The applicant / developer should refer to our document 'The Environment Agency's approach to groundwater protection', available from gov.uk. This sets out our position on a wide range of activities and developments, including:
- Waste management - Discharge of liquid effluents - Land contamination - Ground source heating and cooling - Drainage - Storage of pollutants and hazardous substances - Management of groundwater resources
All precaution must be taken to avoid discharges and spills to ground both during and after construction. For advice on pollution prevention measures, the applicant should refer to guidance available on our website (www.gov.uk/environment-agency).
Environmental Health Protection
Comments received 17 May 2918
These conditions are recommended in order to safeguard nearby residential occupiers from undue disturbance during development:
Page 81 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
1. All works, including demolition, site works and construction shall only take place between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.
2. Deliveries to the site shall only take place between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays. Delivery vehicles shall not park on the access highways to the site.
3. There should be no burning on site during development
4. All demolition materials shall be removed from site and properly disposed of.
5. Facilities shall be provided at the site and used when necessary for damping down to prevent excessive dust.
6. Road sweeping shall be carried out at regular intervals, both on the site and on the access highway to prevent excessive dust.
7. Any equipment which must be left running outside the allowed working hours shall be inaudible at the boundary of occupied residential dwellings.
8. Screening shall be provided to the site to protect residential dwellings from exposure to excessive noise. Details of such work shall be agreed with the local authority and carried out before other works begin.
All issues with respect to contaminated land/noise/light nuisance impacts appear to have been addressed in the accompanying documents.
Highways England
Highways England's formal recommendation is that we:
Recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A - Highways England recommended Planning Conditions); Highways Act Section 175B is not relevant to this application.1
This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence.
Should you disagree with this recommendation you should consult the Secretary of State for Transport, as per the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2018, via [email protected].
Page 82 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Arboricultural Officer
No objections subject to appropriate conditions to protect trees and hedgerows and to ensure that suitable landscaping conditions are imposed in order to mitigate the impact of the development and secure appropriate ecological habitats for wildlife and suitable local environment for SUDs.
Natural England Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Summary of Natural England's advice
Additional Comments in letter dated 31 August 2018
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. This advice letter updates and supplements our previous advice letter dated 4.5.18 (our reference 245355).
Cannock Chase SAC - No objection Natural England notes that your authority, as competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, has undertaken an Appropriate Assessment of the proposal, in accordance with Regulation 63 of the Regulations. Natural England is a statutory consultee on the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Your appropriate assessment concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the Cannock Chase SAC. Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for all identified adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the proposal, Natural England advises that we concur with the assessment conclusions, providing that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured in any permission given.
Comments by letter dated 04 May 2018
No objection - subject to appropriate mitigation being secured
We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would:
Have an adverse effect on the integrity of Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation In order to mitigate these adverse effects and make the development acceptable, the following mitigation measures are required / or the following mitigation options should be secured:
Page 83 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
A suitable developer contribution should be secured, consistent with your adopted local plan policy EQ2 Cannock Chase SAC and the Council's supporting document 'Cannock Chase SAC - Guidance to mitigate the impact of residential development'.
We advise that an appropriate planning condition or obligation is attached to any planning permission to secure these measures. Natural England's advice on other natural environment issues is set out below. Other advice
In addition, Natural England would advise on the following issues.
Protected Landscapes - Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The proposed development is for a site within the setting of a nationally designated landscape namely Cannock Chase AONB. Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. The policy and statutory framework to guide your decision and the role of local advice are explained below.
Your decision should be guided by paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which gives the highest status of protection for the 'landscape and scenic beauty' of AONBs and National Parks. For major development proposals paragraph 116 sets out criteria to determine whether the development should exceptionally be permitted within the designated landscape.
Alongside national policy you should also apply landscape policies such as policy EQ4 set out in your development plan. Where available, a local Landscape Character Assessment (Staffordshire County Council's Planning for Landscape Change SPD) can also be a helpful guide to the landscape's sensitivity to this type of development and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area's natural beauty. You should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to 'have regard' for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (S85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.
Further general advice on consideration of protected species and other natural environment issues is provided at Annex A.
Should the developer wish to discuss the detail of measures to mitigate the effects described above with Natural England, we recommend that they seek advice through our Discretionary Advice Service.
If you have any queries relating to the advice in this letter please contact me on 020 802 60939.
Page 84 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
We would not expect to provide further advice on the discharge of planning conditions or obligations attached to any planning permission. Should the proposal change, please consult us again.
Annex A - Additional information Protected Species Natural England has produced standing advice1 to help planning authorities understand the impact of particular developments on protected species. We advise you to refer to this advice. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on protected species where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances.
Biodiversity duty Your authority has a duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity as part of your decision making. Conserving biodiversity can also include restoration or enhancement to a population or habitat. Further information is available here.
Environmental enhancement Development provides opportunities to secure a net gain for nature and local communities, as outlined in paragraphs 9, 109 and 152 of the NPPF. We advise you to follow the mitigation hierarchy as set out in paragraph 118 of the NPPF and firstly consider what existing environmental features on and around the site can be retained or enhanced or what new features could be incorporated into the development proposal. Where onsite measures are not possible, you may wish to consider off site measures, including sites for biodiversity offsetting. Opportunities for enhancement might include:
Providing a new footpath through the new development to link into existing rights of way.
Restoring a neglected hedgerow.
Creating a new pond as an attractive feature on the site.
Planting trees characteristic to the local area to make a positive contribution to the local landscape.
Using native plants in landscaping schemes for better nectar and seed sources for bees and birds.
Incorporating swift boxes or bat boxes into the design of new buildings.
Designing lighting to encourage wildlife.
Adding a green roof to new buildings.
You could also consider how the proposed development can contribute to the wider environment and help implement elements of any Landscape, Green Infrastructure or Biodiversity Strategy in place in your area. For example:
Links to existing greenspace and/or opportunities to enhance and improve access.
Page 85 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Identifying opportunities for new greenspace and managing existing (and new) public spaces to be more wildlife friendly (e.g. by sowing wild flower strips)
Planting additional street trees.
Identifying any improvements to the existing public right of way network or using the opportunity of new development to extend the network to create missing links.
Restoring neglected environmental features (e.g. coppicing a prominent hedge that is in poor condition or clearing away an eyesore).
Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help improve people's access to the natural environment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways should be considered. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be delivered where appropriate. 1 https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails Paragraph 75 of the NPPF highlights the important of public rights of way and access. Development should consider potential impacts on access land, common land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts on the any nearby National Trails. The National Trails website www.nationaltrail.co.uk provides information including contact details for the National Trail Officer. Appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated for any adverse impacts.
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust
Habitats We concur with the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal that the current habitats on the site are not of high value, however they do have some value for wildlife. In order to mitigate for the loss of much of the grassland to built areas, the remaining green areas need to be enhanced with semi-natural habitats to off-set the impacts to biodiversity. The boundary vegetation should be retained and enhanced. We support the recommendations of the report in terms of the suggested habitat enhancements, and these need to be secured through conditions.
In addition we recommend that new species-rich meadow areas are created using local seed sources, and the balancing pond designed to benefit wildlife, with marshy areas and a reedbed. The canal edge could be enhanced with planting, and artificial kingfisher nest holes or a nesting wall created along the canal or on the edge of the balancing pond. Woodland areas should be enhanced and managed with addition of dead wood and ground flora such as bluebells.
Page 86 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Hydrology According to many resident comments, surface water and groundwater flooding is an issue already affecting many properties in the area Consulting old maps, the area used to be marshy and a watercourse was present along the current southern boundary of the site- this appears to have been culverted. Flood maps also show pluvial flooding across middle of the site, and the southern boundary.
It is not clear that the drainage plans would be possible given the ground conditions, and intrusive ground investigations should be carried out before determination, as the conditions may mean that fewer houses could be supported on the site.
We recommend that a green corridor with sustainable drainage swales should be considered through the centre of the site where surface flooding naturally occurs, to make this part of the landscape design.
The piped watercourse should be de-culverted, in line with Environment Agency policy. This could help with flooding issues, as well as avoid maintenance problems, and restore a brook habitat within the site that would be attractive and support wildlife.
Species The recommendations in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal in terms of species should be followed and secured through conditions.
Bats The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal recommends that should any of the larger trees be proposed for felling, a climbing bat survey should be conducted to confirm presence/ absence of bat roosts. The Illustrative Masterplan shows a tree on the western boundary to be removed. This corresponds to target note 3 in the ecology report; a large fallen willow tree. This needs to be surveyed before determination so that the presence of a bat roost can be considered if necessary, in the decision making process and the 3 tests considered. Alternatively, and ideally, the tree should be retained in situ to avoid the need for further survey.
Great crested newts (GCN) Newts have been recorded by local residents on two ponds in gardens on Cherrybrook Drive, and a garden in Chelford Close. A photo of a newt from Cherrybrook Drive, taken in 2016, has been confirmed as a Smooth Newt. However, the presence of newts in the area, and the presence of several garden ponds, indicates the potential for GCN and other amphibians such as Common Toad to be present. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has not investigated garden ponds, as ponds have only been checked on OS maps. Garden ponds within a relevant distance of the site need to be checked for GCN presence before determination of the application, as this is a material consideration and the need for mitigation may impact on the design of the site.
Birds Kingfishers could potentially be present on the canal, and are protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from disturbance while nesting. Should
Page 87 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 a nest be present near to the site, construction work could potentially disturb kingfishers. The 15m buffer to the canal would help, especially if some screening were put in place. However, a check for kingfishers and any other relevant Schedule 1 birds should be made as part of general nesting bird and badger checks pre-commencement of site works.
SUMMARY
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust submits a holding objection at this time, pending further information on the presence of protected species and site drainage. Should these issues be addressed, and the application approved in future, appropriate layout design and landscaping for wildlife would need to be conditioned along with a management plan. I have just noticed that in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, the 'Single storey stable block with concrete block walls' on the western edge of the site is noted as outside the application boundary. On the Location Plan this structure is inside the site. The PEA does not report whether the building has been checked for bat potential - this would need to be confirmed.
Cadent Gas Limited (formerly National Grid) – No Comments Received
Harry Scott - Open Spaces Society
Thank you for consulting the Open Spaces Society, we do not have any comment to make regarding this development
Ramblers Association
I have considered the proposed development and I can confirm that it will not have any adverse effect on the nearby Public Right of Way or on the canal towpath which is to the west of the development site.
Local Plans
Comments received 20 June 2018
The proposal is for outline permission for the construction of up to 100 dwellings with most matters being reserved. The site is situated on the north eastern edge of the village of Penkridge, adjacent to the settlement boundary. The land was removed from the Green Belt in the adopted 1996 Local Plan as a safeguarded site to meet development requirements beyond the plan period. This safeguarded status was restated in the adopted 2012 Core Strategy and 2018 Site Allocations Document. The latter document is now nearing adoption.
Development Plan Policy Considerations The principle development plan policy considerations in relation to this proposal are as follows: CP 1 Core Strategy Spatial Strategy CP6 Housing Delivery GB2 Land Safeguarded for Longer Term Needs
Page 88 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
SAD3 Safeguarded Land for Longer Tern Development Needs EQ2 Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation
National Policy The NPPF acknowledges that the development plan is the starting point for decision making, however were the development plan is absent or out of date, the NPPF states in paragraph 14 that permission should be granted except where the adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against NPPF policies or where specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. This in effect introduces a 'tilted balance' in favour of approval.
One of the key aims of the National Planning Policy Framework is to significantly boost the supply of housing. To help support this objective the NPPF requires Local Authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against requirements (para 47). Failure to demonstrate a five year supply renders relevant local plan policies out of date (para 49). This means that unless there are overriding concerns in terms of adverse impacts, or the NPPF has identified relevant policy constraints, approval should be granted.
Sustainability of Location The site is situated adjacent to the settlement boundary of Penkridge. The settlement hierarchy as set out in Policy CP1 identifies Penkridge as one of the Main Service Villages within the District. Main Service Villages are identified as the primary focus for housing growth, employment development and service provision. This is based upon a strategy of locating growth at the most sustainable and accessible locations within the District. The settlement hierarchy also informs the housing number contained in CP6.
Housing Delivery Penkridge received a minimum housing allocation of 370 dwellings through Core Policy CP6. Completions and commitments (largely at Lyne Hill) have exceeded this figure and therefore no additional housing provision beyond the identification of the safeguarded site at Cherrybrook Drive has been identified through the Site Allocations Document.
The Core Strategy and subsequent Site Allocations Document were based on a housing requirement identified though the now revoked Regional Spatial Strategy, and cannot be considered to be based on an Objective Assessment of Housing Need (OAN). In 2017 the council published a joint Strategic Housing Market Area study in collaboration with the Black Country authorities which established an OAN for the District of 270 dwellings per annum. Against this recently identified OAN requirement the council cannot at present demonstrate a five year housing land supply. This means that the 'tilted balance' in favour of granting approval as set out in paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF should be engaged unless the dis- benefits of approval or NPPF policy constraints suggest otherwise. This application is for the development of a site identified in the Site Allocations Document (Policy SAD3) as 'Safeguarded Land' which is a recognised policy consideration within the NPPF. Core policy GB2 notes that any applications for prior development of such safeguarded sites should be treated as a departure from the development plan.
Page 89 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Safeguarded Land National policy supports the identification of safeguarded land (para 85) as a means of safeguarding the longer term integrity of Green Belt boundaries. Safeguarded sites are removed from Green Belt designation but a policy restriction is applied seeking to prohibit the immediate availability of such sites. The NPPF is explicit that 'permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development.'
Safeguarded land sites are not identified in the footnote attached to paragraph 14 of the NPPF which identifies examples of specific policy restrictions where the tilted balance favouring development should not apply; this is not however an exhaustive list. The removal of safeguarded sites from Green Belt designation is a recognition that these sites are likely to be suitable for development at some future stage. It is clear however in national policy that this should only occur as a consequence of the site being released for development within the context of a local plan review. This would appear to mitigate against the immediate release of such sites occurring as a consequence of speculative planning applications. This has potential implications for the application of the paragraph 14 'tilted balance' which is held not to apply where specific NPPF policy restrictions on development are identified.
The recent public examination of the Site Allocations Document explored the potential role which safeguarded sites might play in addressing any ongoing local shortfall in housing supply and/or contributing towards addressing the overspill housing requirements emerging from the West Midlands conurbation. In his report on the SAD examination the inspector stated explicitly in paragraph 44 of his report in relation to housing provision that 'since the SAD is intended to implement the (Core Strategy) there is no justification for any "penalty clause" to bring forward Safeguarded Land sites if a 5-year supply cannot be demonstrated; this approach would conflict with the SSCS and NPPF. Addressing the application site specifically, the inspector comments at paragraph 136 that 'the scale of potential development on this site (80 dwellings) would significantly increase the SSCS (Core Strategy) housing target for Penkridge and could have a potential impact on the nearby Cannock Chase SAC, as confirmed in the SA/HRA work; its allocation for development now would also require alternative Safeguarded Land to be identified at Penkridge. In these circumstances, I (the inspector) consider it (Cherrybrook Drive) should remain designated as Safeguarded Land for future longer-term development, whilst the possibility of releasing the land earlier could be reconsidered in the Local Plan Review.'
Regardless of whether or not it is appropriate to apply the tilted balance to this proposal as identified in para 14 of the NPPF it is considered that significant weight should be given to national and core strategy policy requirements and also the comments made within the recently published inspectors report on the SAD which support the current restriction on the release of safeguarded sites in advance of a Local Plan review.
Cannock Chase SAC The proposed site is within the 8km charging zone related to the Cannock Chase SAC. Policy EQ2 of the Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it will not lead directly or indirectly to an adverse effect upon the integrity of the SAC. Additional residential development has been identified as potentially
Page 90 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 creating additional pressures on the SAC through increased demand for recreational use. In order to address these concerns, residential development within an identified 8km charging zone is required to make a financial contribution towards an identified series of mitigation measures agreed by the SAC partnership.
Affordable Housing
Policy H2 confirms that this site in Penkridge, a main service village, is required to make an affordable housing contribution. On greenfield sites, this contribution is 40% affordable housing provided on site. The policy also confirms that the affordable housing should be split 50:50 between social rent and intermediate tenure i.e. shared ownership. These obligations will be secured via a Section 106 agreement.
The applicant has referred to provision of affordable rented properties in their submission as part of the affordable housing. To confirm, in line with Policy H2, the Council expects the rented proportion of the affordable housing to be provided as social rent, not affordable rent, and this will be explicit in the S106 agreement.
Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that all new housing development should provide a mix of property sizes and types in order to meet the needs of all groups of the community. It particularly encourages the provision of more 2 and 3 bedroom properties across all market areas of the district in order to better balance the local housing market. Mix should also be informed by local need as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The 2017 SHMA indicates in this area of the district:
Market housing: large need for 3 bedroom, followed by 2 bedroom homes, and some need for 1 and 4 bedroom properties
Affordable housing: a fairly balanced need for all property sizes from 1 to 4+ bedrooms Furthermore, Policy H1 also confirms that housing proposals should include provision of housing to meet the needs of the district's ageing population.
This application is in outline and a market housing mix has not been proposed for the development. The Council would however expect to secure the mix of the market housing via a condition attached to the outline permission. The Council considers the following mix for the market housing element to be compliant with Policy H1 and reflective of local housing need identified in the SHMA:
35% 2 bedroom homes
45% 3 bedroom homes
20% 4+ bedroom homes
10% of the market housing to be provided as bungalows
Page 91 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
The above should therefore be attached as an appropriately worded condition.
In relation to the affordable housing, a proposed mix has been provided by the applicant. This will need to be amended in order to comply with Policy H1 and better reflect the SHMA. There is some need in the area for 4 bedroom homes for social rent, therefore provision of 10% 4 bedroom units should be included within the affordable mix (to be provided as social rent). There is currently also only 5% provision of bungalows in the affordable element of the development. The Council expects this to be increased to 10%, in line with the market housing, and to meet the increasing need for homes for older people. The affordable housing mix will be secured via the Section 106 agreement.
Conclusion It is acknowledged that the development of this site would make a valuable contribution to the current five year housing supply figures and is situated in a sustainable location adjacent to one of the main settlement villages within the district. There are however a number of factors which potentially weigh against granting approval to this current proposal. The application site is identified as land safeguarded for longer term needs, the purpose of which is to maintain the long term integrity of Green Belt boundaries. It is considered that significant weight should be given to this designation as the purpose of retaining such sites over the long term is clearly supported within the National Planning Policy Framework (para 89) and within the adopted Local Plan (Policies GB2 and SAD3).
As noted in the recently published inspectors report in relation to the Site Allocations Document sufficient land has already been identified at Penkridge to meet the core strategy requirement and any further release would need to be considered in relation to the limits identified in the SA/HRA most notably in relation to the Cannock Chase SAC. The proposal should also be considered in the context of the SAD which is nearing adoption and which will result in the release and development of a significant number of housing sites throughout the district within the foreseeable future. It is therefore not the case that the council is currently in the situation of lacking a five year housing supply without an obvious remedy available to improve the current housing land supply situation.
It is for the decision maker to determine if the weight to be given to increasing the supply of housing in this location outweighs that to be given to the safeguarded status of this site. As noted above however it is considered that significant weight should be given to national and local policy requirements regarding the role of safeguarded land and also the findings of the inspector as highlighted in the recently published report on the Site Allocations Document (May 2018). Should it be decided that the site should be released this proposal should be treated as a departure and a contribution will be required to mitigate any potential impacts on the Cannock Chase SAC.
Severn Trent Water Ltd
Comments received 15 May 2018
Page 92 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this planning application. Please find our response noted below:
With Reference to the above planning application the company's observations regarding sewerage are as follows.
I can confirm that we have no objections to the proposals subject to the inclusion of the following condition:
The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and
The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution.
Public Comments
There have been 120 comments from members of the general public [set out in full on Public Access – Council Website]. All of these public responses are objections.
Set out below are extracts taken from the 120 objection comments [ which includes an objection from Jeremy LeFroy MP] where I have aimed to capture the range of issues covered by the objectors (full comments available on Public Access – Council Website under Planning): -
Jeremy LeFroy MP opposes the application on the grounds of inadequate access to the site of the development and consequential road safety risks. In particular he expresses concern about traffic levels passing through Kentmere Close/Cherrybrook Drive and estimates this could be up to 200 cars per day and 400 vehicle movements. Not only will this have a huge impact of residents living in these roads but also will create a hugely dangerous of cars weaving around parked cars. Were this proposal to be allowed, it would have a substantially negative impact on local roads and road safety. In addition, the only entrance and exit from Cherrybrook Drive is on to the Cannock Road. The Cannock Road is already a very busy road, especially at rush hour. Over recent years Penkridge has seen its fair share of development. This has put significant strain on already creaking infrastructure locally such as schools and medical facilities. It is simply not fair for the village to be asked to bear the burden of further development, without substantial investment in such infrastructure. He urges the Planning Committee to reject this application.
I write on behalf of my elderly Mum, who will probably be one of the most directly affected residents within the local community. My parents have enjoyed the privacy, solitude and wildlife abundant in Little Marsh Park, living adjacent to the proposed
Page 93 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
site. I have significant concerns that this development will affect the quality of life of my Mum and those people living in proximity to the site. Not only will the construction be extensive, noisy and invasive, the final development will seriously affect the qualities which my parents have benefitted from. It is clear that the extent of the proposed development will mean that my Mum's home will be overlooked, will suffer loss of natural light and will be affected by traffic movement and noise. The loss of natural habitat will almost certainly be detrimental to the extensive wildlife.
My house is right on the canal and fronts on to the land referred to above. I have lived in this property for 18 years in peace, security and happiness. I am now extremely distraught and worried about the proposed development. I am very worried about the noise during the build as this is such peaceful area. There will be dust and noise; my property is a park home within a few feet of this build and I am very worried about the structure of my home. I will be subjected to people looking in on my home and it will open the area to many more people leaving me feeling particularly vulnerable.
Currently class room sizes within all the local schools are stretched and this will only get worse if further housing development in the village is approved without the school infrastructure being adjusted to meet the demand. To date a substantial number of new houses are being built in the village with no consideration being given to this matter, to continue to do so will damage the education of our children. o There is currently one medical centre in Penkridge, to get a doctors appointment you can wait anything between 4 to 6 weeks. If your condition is urgent you will be seen on the day after a telephone consultation however more and more the person you see is no longer a doctor but an Assessment Practitioner as the current doctors cannot cope with the demands of an aging population. Any further increase in the village population will only serve to make the current medical support to the existing population considerably worse. To wait now for 4 to 6 weeks to be able to discuss health matters with a GP is fundamentally wrong and that is the current situation.
The existing road system is totally unsuitable to accept the additional traffic on site and at access to the main Cannock Road. We find it difficult at present to reverse off our drive on to Cherrybrook Drive and with the additional 200 plus cars planned find this to be a very dangerous situation with a serious accident waiting to happen.
The access not just for the construction, but also the potential new residents is wholly inadequate. Moreover, it will completely change the nature of the accommodation for the people currently living in Kentmere Close where the proposed access is - many of whom will have specifically chosen to reside in a cul-de-sac for many reasons. I would be deeply concerned about the health implications of building housing so close to the M6 motorway. As one of the busiest stretches of road in the country, and even more projected traffic with HS2 construction, the air pollution levels in this area are already particularly high. Could you in good conscience allow families, potentially with small children, to live in a location that exposed them to even higher levels of air pollution than was absolutely necessary. While there is a need for more housing, a
Page 94 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
site such as this one is not just far from ideal, it is plainly unsuitable. It will cause undue stress and inconvenience to the current residents in the area, and, more importantly, could cause life-long health issues for those who do move into these new houses. While there are always compromises that have to be made in planning decisions, the health of the new residents should be paramount - if this cannot be ensured, then you should not in good conscience let this development go ahead.
I have lived on Cherrybrook over 40 years and have enjoyed the wild live that surrounds the estate. If the proposed planning goes ahead this will have an adverse effect on the wildlife. At the moment we enjoy having newts visit our garden and in the evening I like to sit and watch the bats flying over which I believe are a protected species. The traffic on Penkridge estate at the moment is horrendous we have had many a near miss of a collision on the junction of Prescott Drive and also on the bend just up from Kentmere. This would be an accident waiting to happen if this planning goes ahead. The local services such as Doctors, Dentists and schools can't keep up with the demands in particular the doctors appointments now are ridiculous having to wait weeks for an appointment. The site access proposals are not in accordance with acceptable standards and would lead to potential safety hazards. They are not wide enough to sustain through traffic. Emergency services would struggle with access to further roads due to the current on road parking issues.
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 This application is being referred to the Planning Committee as the proposal is a departure from the development plan - being contrary to Policy GB2 (Land Safeguarded for longer term needs) of the adopted Core Strategy.
5.2 Key Issues
-Principle of development -Housing Delivery/5 Year Housing Land Supply -Safeguarded Land -Impact upon landscape character -Cannock Chase SAC -Ecological Value -Historical Environment and Archaeological Value -Agricultural Value -Recreational Value -Sustainability of development -Highways/transport -Flood risk and drainage Air Quality & Noise -Residential amenity and design -Housing Market Area (HMA) – Unmet Housing Needs Local Financial Considerations -Representations
Page 95 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
-Planning Obligations [Section 106] -Unilateral Undertaking (UU) for Cannock Chase SAC
5.3 Principle of development
5.3.1 Core Strategy Policy 1 (The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire) sets out the strategic approach to the delivery of new homes in the district over the plan period. Core Policy 1 defines the main service villages for the main focus for housing growth, employment development and service provision.
5.3.2 The site lies within Safeguarded Land, on the edge of a Main Service Village. Main Service Villages are considered in our adopted Core Strategy to be the most sustainable locations in terms of the level of essential community facilities and services available, access to public transport and supporting infrastructure. Therefore the majority of development and service provision should be focused on the Main Service Villages. The application site is located just outside the Penkridge development boundary and is defined in the Core Strategy as Safeguarded Land (see Policy Inset Plan 41). Policy GB2 (Land Safeguarded for longer term needs) states that ‘…Planning applications for permanent development prior to allocation in the Local Plan will be regarded as departures from the Plan’.
5.3.3 However, the (revised) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018 is based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development (known as the ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF) when assessing and determining proposals [NPPF Paragraph 11]. One of the Governments stated objectives in NPPF is ‘significantly boosting the supply of homes' [NPPF Paragraph 59). NPPF Paragraph 11 states:
‘11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development……..
For decision-taking this means c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay, or d) where there is no relevant development plan policies or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date [footnote 7] granting permission unless:
The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed [footnote 6] or
Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.’
Page 96 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
The importance of achieving net gains in the 3 objectives that underpin sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) is stated in Chapter 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) of (revised) NPPF 2018:
‘2. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives.’
5.3.4 (Revised) NPPF 2018 states that ‘The Framework should be read as a whole (including its footnotes and annexes)’ (NPPF Paragraph 3). In particular, Footnote 7 relates to planning applications where local planning authorities cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer as set out in Paragraph 73) or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years [applies from November 2018 and transition arrangements set out in Annex 1].
5.3.5 Annex 1 (Implementation) confirms that the NPPF is a material consideration in decision-making and that consistency with the Framework will be an important consideration in decision-making
‘212. The policies in this Framework are material considerations which should be taken into account in dealing with applications from the date of its publication [24 July 2018]’………..
213. However, existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).’
5.3.6 (Revised) NPPF Paragraph 139 makes specific reference to planning applications received for the development of land that is identified as safeguarded. It states:
139……d)….Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following an update to a plan which proposes the development.’
Safeguarded land and housing delivery/5 year housing land supply will be considered below as key issues within this report and will form an important part of the ‘planning balance’ which leads to a recommendation in respect of this proposed housing development.
5.4 Housing Delivery/5 Year Housing Land Supply
5.4.1 The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 Year Supply of Housing Land [3.42 years as set out in the Council’s Housing Supply Statement May 2018]. Accordingly, the housing policies in our adopted Core Strategy are now considered to be out-of-date – and therefore carry less than full weight in the planning balance. A decision handed down by the Supreme Court on 10 May 2017 (Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd and SSCLG, Richborough
Page 97 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Estates Partnership LLP and SSCLG v Cheshire East BC [2017]), confirmed that in law this relates only to housing policies regarding the numbers/quantum of houses and their distribution/location. (Revised) NPPF Paragraph 11 makes it clear that it is the policies ‘which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date’.
5.4.2 In these circumstances (revised) NPPF 2018 provides a clear direction that Paragraph 11 [the presumption in favour of sustainable development] applies. This is referred to as ‘the ‘tilted balance’ in favour of a grant of planning permission. In these circumstances planning permission should be granted unless the benefits of granting planning permission would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harm or if there are specific policies in the Framework that indicate that development should be restricted. In the paragraphs below I shall be considering the impact on a number of considerations (including landscape character, ecology, historic assets of the Canal Conservation Area, agricultural value, highways and residential amenity).
5.4.3 Core Policy 6 (Housing Delivery) of the adopted Core Strategy sets out the level of housing growth proposed for each of the villages in the settlement hierarchy, defined in Core Policy 1. Penkridge has a housing target in Policy CP6 (Housing Delivery), of a minimum of 370 dwellings up to 2028, although this figure has been exceeded through planning permissions the numbers identified in the table are labelled as a minimum and not a maximum figure. Furthermore supporting policy text goes on to say;
'In addition to the proposed housing development in the [above] table...should further housing be required during the Plan period to respond to changing circumstances this will be focused on the Main Service Villages that are identified in the table [above] and apportionment between settlements shall have regard to the factors set out in Para 8.8 of this Core Strategy DPD'.
5.4.4 Given that Penkridge is identified as a sustainable location within the settlement hierarchy (one of 9 Main Service Villages) the proposal would comply with Core Policy 6 and the golden thread of presumption in favour of sustainable development and is therefore compliant with Para 11 of NPPF 2018. Therefore I attach significant weight to this consideration – which is the importance of housing delivery and the lack of a five year housing land supply.
5.4.5 Negotiations with the applicants have resulted in a housing mix that is considered to comply with Core Strategy Policy H1 (Achieving a Balanced Housing Market) and Policy H2 (Provision of Affordable Housing.). The housing mix can be secured through planning condition. The delivery of affordable housing, in accordance with Policy H4 (Delivering Affordable Housing), can be secured through Section 106. The housing mixes are as follows:
Market housing mix:
35% 2 Bed 40% 3 Bed 25% 4 Bed (with 10% Open Market to be Bungalows)
Page 98 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Affordable housing mix:
Social rent:
25% 1 bed houses/maisonettes 19% 2 bed bungalows 25% 2 bed houses 19% 3 bed houses 12% 4 bed houses
Shared ownership:
69% 2 bed houses 31% 3 bed houses
5.5 Safeguarded Land
5.5.1 The application site was formerly identified under the South Staffordshire Local Plan 1996 as safeguarded land (or at that time known as ‘white land’). Policy GB2 of the adopted Core Strategy stated that the ‘former ‘white land’ would be considered for development in the Site Allocations DPD in accordance with the sequential approach as outlined in Paragraph 6.20 of the adopted Core Strategy. The application site (identified as Land at Cherrybrook Drive, Penkridge in Paragraph 6.29 of the adopted Core Strategy) remains the only safeguarded land which dates back to the former 1996 Local Plan that is not either under construction or pending the grant of reserved matters approval for the details. Land at Watery Lane, Codsall has a detailed planning permission for housing and is currently under construction. Land at Hobnock Road, Essington was granted planning permission for approximately 230 dwellings in June 2017 and a reserved matters application for the details is currently under consideration. Land at Cherrybrook Drive is in a sustainable location – immediately adjacent to one of the Main Service Villages identified in the adopted Core Strategy.
5.5.2 The application site (identified as Cherrybrook Drive, Penkridge) was not allocated as a housing site within the Site Allocations Document (SAD). The land retained its safeguarded status that was first provided for in the former Local Plan 1996. Accordingly Policy SAD 3 (Safeguarded Land for Longer Term Development Needs) in the emerging SAD applies. It is stated that:
‘SAD3…..All safeguarded land identified for longer term development needs and removal from Green Belt (including existing Safeguarded Land) will retain its safeguarded land designation until a review of the Local Plan proposes development of those areas in whole or in part. Planning applications for permanent development prior to allocation in the Local Plan will be regarded as departures from the Plan in accordance with adopted Core Strategy Policy GB2: Land Safeguarded For Longer Term Needs…….
Page 99 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.5.3 In May 2018 the Council received a ‘sound’ report from the Inspector who Examined the Site Allocations Document (SAD). At Paragraph 58 of his report the Inspector acknowledged that SAD 3 (in accordance with adopted Core Strategy Policy GB2) and (replaced) NPPF 2012 in respect of Safeguarded Land (Chapter 9) state that planning permission should not be granted for permanent development on safeguarded land. (Revised) NPPF 2018 repeats this national policy position. However, the Inspector acknowledges that decision-makers (if applications were to be submitted for housing development) would need to determine in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise:
’58. …….Delays in bringing forward allocated sites or a failure to demonstrate a 5-year housing supply in the future could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in terms of material planning considerations.’
5.5.4 In his Report the Inspector then went on to look at each settlement where housing allocations or safeguarded land had been proposed for designation within the SAD. With regard to Penkridge (and especially Cherrybrook Drive) he stated:
‘134. Penkridge is designated as a MSV in the SSCS, which sets a minimum target of 370 new dwellings. However, since completions and commitments (largely at Lyne Hill) have exceeded this figure, the SAD makes no further housing provision here, but confirms the retention of the existing Safeguarded Land off Cherrybrook Drive identified in the 1996 Local Plan. 135. Six sites were assessed as part of the site-selection process, of which the existing Safeguarded Land at Cherrybrook Drive (005; 4.2ha) was considered to be the best performing option; a site within the existing settlement boundary was discounted since it lies within a flood plain [PS.D.1.17]. SSC has addressed all the relevant planning considerations, including access and the need for mitigation from noise and air pollution due to the proximity of the M6 motorway. Since the site has already been released from the Green Belt, there is no need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
136, The main issue is whether this site should be allocated for development within the current plan period. However, since existing completions and commitments have already exceeded the SSCS housing target for Penkridge, there is no need to allocate further sites for housing development here at this time. The scale of potential development on this site (80 dwellings) would significantly increase the SSCS housing target for Penkridge and could have a potential impact on the nearby Cannock Chase SAC, as confirmed in the SA/HRA work; its allocation for development now would also require alternative Safeguarded Land to be identified at Penkridge. In these circumstances, I consider it should remain designated as Safeguarded Land for future longer-term development, whilst the possibility of releasing the land earlier could be reconsidered in the Local Plan Review.
5.5.5 It is clear (for the reasons set out above in the preceding paragraphs of this report) that the development of this site for residential purposes, at this point in time, would be contrary to the development plan for South Staffordshire and to (revised) NPPF 2018 [at Paragraph 139 d)]. Accordingly I attribute significant weight against the proposed development for these reasons.
Page 100 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.6 Impact upon Landscape Character
5.6.1 Policy EQ4 (Protecting and Enhancing Character and Appearance of the Landscape) and EQ12 (Landscaping) states the intrinsic character and local distinctiveness of the South Staffordshire landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced. Chapter 15 of (revised) NPPF 2018 relates to Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside are identified as ways in which decisions can contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment (NPPF 2018 Paragraph 170). However, It is accepted that the site is not subject of any specific planning policy, environmental or landscape designation and is not of such demonstrable value to be considered part of a 'valued landscape' (as referred to in Chapter 15 of the NPPF 2018).
5.6.2 A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted as part of the application and provides a Summary and Conclusion in Chapter 7 of the document (Paragraphs 7.1.1 to 7.1.8). It is concluded that the proposed development will not dramatically change the characteristics of the wider landscape. Where perceptible the proposed development will be largely contained within a well vegetated and contained landscape. It is considered that the proposed development will fit within the existing village and field pattern and will not be out of scale with the surrounding landscape. The reinforcement of the existing vegetation will, over time, help to further integrate the proposed development into the landscape pattern and improve the landscape legacy of the site.
5.6.3 The site was assessed as being of low landscape sensitivity in the Council’s Landscape Sensitivity Study 2017 which also suggested that landscape buffer zones would be required against the adjacent Canal Conservation Area and motorway corridor. Therefore, there would be no landscape issues sufficient to cause concern for an outline application, provided that the required buffer zones can be accommodated on site and that the application is approved with a landscape plan condition to secure the required buffers and other landscaping. In accordance with Policy SAD7, an open space contribution onsite (presuming that this scheme is for over 25 dwellings) would be required and this would need to be secured through the s106 alongside provisions for maintenance (i.e. commuted sum to Council or provision of Management Company). On 14 August 2018 the applicant confirmed a reduction in the proposed numbers of dwellings – up to 80 dwellings rather than the initial application for up to 100 dwellings. Subsequently, a revised indicative Masterplan was submitted which demonstrates that the necessary buffers and SUDs provision can be accommodated on the site (together with up to 80 dwellings).
5.6.4 The application site is situated about 6 km from the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and therefore lies within the 15 km zone of influence identified around the SAC. This zone is estimated to encompass the area from which 75% of visits to the SAC are generated. Core Policy EQ2 (Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation) relates to the Cannock Chase SAC.
5.6.5 The Habitat Regulations place restrictions on the ability of a ‘competent authority’ to agree to a plan or project where it will adversely affect the integrity of the European site (such as the Cannock Chase SAC). The site lies within the Zone of Influence for the Cannock
Page 101 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Chase SAC where evidence, supported by Natural England, clearly demonstrates that any net increase in housing will have an adverse effect on the SAC. However, the Council has an agreed approach to mitigation with Natural England, which indicates that such impacts can usually be satisfactorily mitigated and avoided through the provision of a commuted sum of £232 per unit towards an agreed set of mitigation projects. This sum has been agreed and will be secured through a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) – see Section 5.18 below. This ensures that there are no adverse impacts on the Cannock Chase SAC arising from the development, meaning that, with the secured commuted sum, the Council has the legal authority to decide this planning application without acting outside of the scope of the Habitat Regulations.
5.7 Ecological Value
5.7.1 (Revised) NPPF 2018 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity {Paragraph 170 d)]. This is echoed within Policy EQ1 (Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets) which states that permission will be granted for development that does not cause significant harm to sites or habitats of nature conservation. As part of the application several documents were provided to address ecological impact and an Updated Ecological Survey was submitted by the applicant on 24 August 2018. This is an outline application and so there is scope within the details (and through imposition of conditions) to establish a coherent ecological network through the development of this site in accordance with the policy set out in NPPF 2018 Paragraph 170 d). However, it has to be acknowledged that at present this proposal has not demonstrated that a net gain in biodiversity will ne achieved.
5.7.2 The Ecologist has reviewed the documents submitted with the application. Currently, she considers that the proposals represent a loss of biodiversity because the on-site proposals do not go far enough to compensate for the loss of grassland. In particular the following improvements could be made through suitable ecological and tree planting plans: -
The attenuation pond could be designed to also provide a biodiversity feature with shallow edges and reedbed planting
The SUDS design could be extended to provide a swale with wetland wildflower seed mix or reedbed feature before water reaches the pond. This feature would provide part of treatment chain of SUDS by removing silt and minor pollutants while also enhancing biodiversity. This could be located parallel to the canal or within land parallel to the M6.
Creation of hedge / shrub barrier to canal frontage
Enhancement of northern boundary as suggested.
General measures for protected species may be covered by submission of ecology method statement / role of ecological clerk of works or similar, or by conditions.
Page 102 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.7.3 The County Ecologist has concluded that the imposition of suitable conditions can ensure that the proposed development will be compliant with Policy EQ1 and (revised) NPPF 2018.
5.7.4 The applicant has submitted an Updated Ecological Survey for the development (24 August 2018). It addresses the potential of a fallen Willow for bat habitat and nearby ponds for great crested newts (gcn) in response to earlier comments. It also confirms there was no evidence of bats for the Willow, and that the ponds did not represent potential gcn habitat, a point accepted by the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust officer. As an extra precaution, I understand that the applicants have secured access to some of the garden ponds for individual review. I consider that the Updated Ecological Survey, together with appropriate planning conditions, are sufficient to ensure that the integrity of the ecology value of the site could be retained and the impact of the development can be suitably mitigated. However, currently the position is that there will be no net gain in biodiversity as a result of this development and therefore I attribute moderate weight against the proposal (in the ‘planning balance’) for this reason.
5.8 Historic Environment & Archaeological Value
5.8.1 The Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal is a historic waterway and a valuable amenity and recreational corridor, providing leisure boating, walking, angling, cycling and nature conservation benefits to the area. It is designated a Conservation Area for its special architectural and historic interest. The Inland Waterways Association (IWA) has commented that built development of open countryside adjacent to the canal diminishes the historic rural setting of its Conservation Area. It can also reduce the attractiveness of the canal for recreation and tourism which nowadays is its prime use, and which helps fund its maintenance and contributes to the local visitor economy.
5.8.2 The Conservation Officer has commented that the application site is located adjacent to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area. Therefore the proposals have the potential to affect the setting of this designated heritage asset. There is also a Grade II listed building nearby, Wolgarston Farmhouse, but given that the M6 runs between the two there will be no impact on the setting of the listed building.
5.8.2 The concept plan in the Design and Access Statement shows a buffer area between the canal and built form, including planting and an attenuation pond. This will reduce the impact of the proposals on the setting of the conservation area. There is already an extensive length of canal with built form on both sides of it and the proposals will increase this although mitigated by the buffer zone mentioned above. The County Ecologist has commented that there is scope to introduce landscape/ecological enhancement within this buffer zone and proposed condition 13 b) can secure this enhancement.
5.8.3 The Conservation Officer considers that the proposed development will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Albeit that this would be at the lower end of the scale so would result in a small level of harm. Nonetheless, any harm to a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less
Page 103 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 than substantial harm to its significance (para 194 NPPF 2018). Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including (para 196 NPPF).
5.8.4 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, I attribute moderate weight (in the ‘planning balance’) against the proposed development because of its impact on the Canal Conservation Area.
5.8.5 The Historic Environment Officer Archaeology has not commented on this application, however I have proposed a planning condition (No. 10) that requires site investigation/recording prior to commencement of development in accordance with national policy set out at NPPF 2018 (Paragraph 189) and in accordance with Core Strategy EQ3 (Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets).
5.8.6 The applicant indicated on the illustrative Masterplan an intention to facilitate a footpath/cyclepath link from the application site, along the canal and to Wolgaston High School. However the Canal & River Trust has commented that the submission indicates that a pedestrian footway/cycleway is to be provided north of the site connecting to the existing bridge (Bridge 87, Brooms Bridge) across the canal. This connection is to provide a link from the site to Penkridge Middle School. However, the proposed link is not included within the red line site area and there are no details provided on the layout/design of the link from the site along the offside of the canal or its route to link to the school on the western side of the canal. The Canals and Rivers Trust concludes that it is unable to make a substantive response under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 due to the absence of the following information:
- Bridge and towpath assessments - Draft S106 agreement
5.8.7 For the reasons set out above I am unable to consider, as a material planning consideration, the applicant’s aspirations for works to create a footpath/cycleway link (outside the boundary of this application site).
5.9 Agricultural Value
5.9.1 Paragraph 170 of the (revised) NPPF 2018 requires local planning authorities to take into account the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land and that areas of poorer quality should be used in preference to areas of higher quality.
5.9.2 The Agricultural Land Classification for the site is Grade 3. Therefore this site is consequently afforded a degree of protection from development but this would not prevent development taking place.
5.9.3 The Council recognises that Grades 1, 2 and 3a are classified as the ‘Best and Most Versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land category as defined in the NPPF. Significant areas of South Staffordshire lie within these areas therefore, in order to meet housing supply in this region,
Page 104 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 and provide the appropriate level of new residential development, the loss of some BMV land would be unavoidable.
5.9.4 Although the land will no longer be available for agricultural production the proposed scheme would include landscaped areas, formal and informal open space along with domestic gardens. Therefore the development in general will allow for some soil reuse. Providing these soils are handled when dry, they will retain a proportion of their structure and functional ability to provide benefits through ecosystem services.
5.9.5 Although it is required to account for economic benefits of BMV, the NPPF does not place a restriction to the development of BMV. In light of the above reasons I am of the view that the proposal does not involve a significant loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and afford only limited weight to its loss [to development] and the proposed is therefore broadly consistent with the Framework.
5.10 Recreational Value
5.10.1 The site is largely private green space and therefore only limited weight can be afforded to its recreational value in this case, however the proximity to the canal would offer some scope for recreation for future residents.
5.11 Sustainability of Development
5.11.1 Sections 5.6 to 5.10 have considered the degree of harm to this parcel of Safeguarded Land – with regard to impact on landscape character, ecology, historic environment and archaeology, agricultural and recreational value. It is considered that the proposed development would not, in this case, have a significant adverse impact on the environmental value of this site. However I have attributed moderate weight (against the proposed development) to the impact on the important heritage asset of the Canal and also, I attribute moderate weight against the development because it does not achieve a net gain in biodiversity.
5.11.2 Whilst located outside the development boundary of Penkridge, the site is located within a reasonable distance of the local services and facilities that are provided within the village of Penkridge.
5.11.3 A number of regular bus services (54, 75, 76 and 878) run via Penkridge on its route between Stafford, Cannock and Wolverhampton; Mondays – Saturdays. Additionally a rail service between Penkridge and Birmingham New Street operates every 30minutes. In addition, Stafford Town can be accessed from Penkridge by train with a frequency of approximately one hour.
5.11.4 It can therefore be said that the application site is well served by public transport and is in a sustainable location. Public comments of objection have referred to the doctor’s surgery being at full capacity and having to wait too long for an appointment. However it is understood that the medical practice is failing to attract sufficient number of GPs hence the
Page 105 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 waiting time problem. This issue could not be justified as a planning reason to refuse this application.
5.11.5 Public comments of objection have also referred to increased pressure on school places. County Education have commented that this development falls within the catchment areas of Marshbrook First School, Penkridge Middle School and Wolgarston High School. The development is scheduled to provide up to 80 dwellings.
5.11.6 The First schools in Penkridge Town and Penkridge Middle School are projected to be full for the foreseeable future. There are plans to increase the capacity within one of the first schools in Penkridge and increase capacity at Penkridge Middle School in order for this development and other approved developments to be mitigated; options are currently being explored and considered.
5.11.7 Wolgarston High School is projected to have limited vacancies based on the current and projected pupil numbers available at this time. Although the development will put additional pressure on school places, current pupil demographics indicate that the schools should be able to accommodate the likely demand from pupils generated by the development.
5.11.8 The education contribution for a development of this size is;
11 First School places (11 x £11,031 = £121,341) and 8 Middle School places (8 x £13,827 = £110,616). This gives a total request of £231,957 for up to 80 dwellings.
5.11.9 Economically, the construction and fitting out of the dwellings and creation of new road infrastructure would create employment and generate demand for services as well as for various plant and material. The increase in the population of Penkridge will potentially boost the spending power of the local economy to some extent. I attribute moderate weight in favour of the development (in the ‘planning balance’) because of these economic benefits.
5.11.10 Socially, the proposed development would provide additional housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations with accessible local services that reflect the communities' needs and supports its health, social and cultural well-being. Although indicative, the development is proposing a relatively high proportion of bungalows that would help serve the district’s ageing population. The proposed development would deliver 40% affordable housing, a mix of market and affordable homes and would deliver a further choice of new homes in a sustainable location. This would boost South Staffordshire’s existing housing supply and assist with accommodating the District’s ageing population in accordance with paragraph 59 of (revised) NPPF 2018 and policy H1 of our adopted Core Strategy. I attribute significant weight (in the ‘planning balance’) in favour of the proposed development because of the delivery of market and affordable housing.
5.11.11 Environmentally, the development will not significantly harm the natural environment, however there are 2 elements of environmental impact where I attribute moderate weight against the development (in the ‘planning balance’) and therefore there is
Page 106 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 a net loss in terms of environmental sustainability. Mitigation measures can minimise waste and pollution, hover there will be a net loss of biodiversity and therefore I attribute moderate weight against the development (in the ‘planning balance’). I also attribute moderate weight against the proposed development (in the ‘planning balance’) because of the harm that would be caused to the adjacent historical asset of the Canal.
5.11.12 In conclusion the proposed development would secure economic growth and boost the supply of market and affordable housing – I attribute moderate weight to the economic benefits and significant weight to the social benefits. However there would be dis-benefits in terms of environmental factors – I attribute moderate weight to both the impact on the adjacent Canal and the loss of biodiversity. Overall, there would be a net gain in terms of achieving sustainable development as a result of this application and this is compliant with the objectives of (revised) NPPF 2018 as set out in Chapter 2 (Achieving Sustainable Development) [Paragraphs 7 to 14]. These are sound planning benefits that carry significant weight in favour of the proposed development.
5.12 Highways/Transport
5.12.1 A significant number of the public comments of objection (including objections from Jeremy LeFroy MP) relate to concerns about vehicular access, highway safety and the impact on residential amenity of neighbouring residents from increased traffic generation. It is clear that this issue requires careful consideration in the determination of this planning application.
5.12.2 County Highways has confirmed no objections subject to conditions. The planning application has been submitted with a Transport Assessment (TA) to report on issues relating to the highway matters. The TA examines the access to the site and is proposing to extend the existing carriageway (Kentmere Close) into the site. Given the width of the existing site road it is acceptable. The submitted drawing shows a 5.5 metre wide carriageway into the site which is sufficient to serve the numbers proposed.
5.12.3 The estate itself currently houses 147 properties and this proposal is for an additional 80 which is still below the maximum threshold of the County's residential design guide. Notwithstanding the drawing with the TA; ref 2104-F01 further details will be required as house number 6 has a driveway that currently extends across the end of the turning which will need to be incorporated with any highway works. I would also require that the side stub of the turning head is stopped up as highway as it will no longer be necessary to have a turning head in this location.
5.12.4 The TA has also looked at the proposed vehicle movements from any future users of the site, I would disagree with the trip distribution figures provided. Cherrybrook Drive is a single access and so any observed flows would provide the requisite flows for use from any future uses. That said this is likely to have a minimal impact on the junction modelling undertaken with marginal increases in traffic heading to and from the East in the am.
5.12.5 The site is well suited to take advantage of sustainable modes of travel with walking and cycling being realistic options for future occupants of the site to access schools and
Page 107 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 other local facilities. It also has access to bus and rail facilities giving options to access services further afield.
5.12.6 The report shows that the numbers of vehicles generated from the site are unlikely to have any ‘severe’ impacts on the surrounding highway and junctions. I would expect to see any reserved matters embrace the principles of Manual for Streets and provide a well- connected development. I have no objection in principle to this proposal subject to a number of conditions (set out in the County Highways consultation response in Section 4 of this Committee Report).
5.12.7 The application site is located adjacent to the M6 Motorway and accordingly it has been necessary to consult with Highways England (HE). No objections have been raised by HE and it is considered that conditions recommended by County Highways will adequately address the highways issues raised by this application.
5.13 Flood risk and drainage
5.13.1 The County Flood Risk Team has advised that the proposed development will only be acceptable if the appropriate measures are incorporated in an acceptable surface water drainage scheme, to be secured by way of planning conditions on any planning permission. The measures that they would require to be secured are set out in their comments in Section 4 of this Committee Report.
5.14 Air Quality & Noise
5.14.1 The application site is situated in close proximity to the M6 Motorway and accordingly it is important that the Environmental Health Protection Officer (EHPO) is satisfied with the proposal. The EHPO has no objections subject to conditions, as stated in Section 4 of this Committee Report, and these have been covered in condition no. 20.
5.15 Residential Amenity and Design
5.15.1 The application is in outline with details of access arrangements only to be agreed at this stage. All other matters (including layout, appearance, landscaping and scale) to be secured at reserved matters stage. The illustrative layout plan submitted with the application does demonstrate that suitable separation distances could be achieved, however condition 3 makes it clear that no indicative drawings are agreed at this stage.
5.15.2 To ensure the amenities of nearby residents are protected, in accordance with Policy EQ9 (Protecting Residential Amenity), a construction management plan will be conditioned (condition no. 8).
5.16 Housing Market Area (HMA) – Unmet Housing Needs
5.16.1 Planning law requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework [revised NPPF 2018] is a material consideration in planning decisions (NPPF Paragraphs 2 &
Page 108 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
47). The achievement of sustainable development is the golden thread that runs through the Framework (NPPF Paragraph 11). ‘Significantly boosting the supply of homes’ is a principal policy driver in the Framework (NPPF Paragraph 59).
5.16.2 In March 2018 the Government consulted on a revised NPPF. The introduction to the draft revised NPPF stated: -
‘The country does not have enough homes. For decades the number of new homes has not kept pace with rising demand. That has created a market that fails to work for far too many families, resulting in sparing prices and rising rents. The Government is clear that the country needs radical, lasting reform that will allow more homes to be built.’
Government published the (revised) NPPF on Tuesday 24 July 2018.
For these reasons, I consider that unmet housing needs within the Housing Market Area (HMA) is another material consideration that should be afforded significant weight in the ‘planning balance’ in considering the merits of this proposed development.
5.16.3 The Localism Act 2011 introduced local financial considerations as another material consideration in planning decisions. It is for the decision-taker to decide how much weight should be attributed in each specific case.
5.16.4 Accordingly, I shall assess the significance of these other material considerations under 2 headings: -
A) Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) - Housing Shortfall B) Local financial considerations
A) Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) - Housing Shortfall
5.16.5 The Birmingham Development Plan 2011-2031 was adopted in January 2017 and commits Birmingham City Council to work with the 13 other local planning authorities within the GBHMA in order to address the housing shortfall within emerging local plans. Birmingham’s objectively assessed housing needs (oan) were evidenced in the plan as 89,000 dwellings. The plan will deliver 51,100 dwellings and so this leaves a shortfall of 37,900 dwellings.
5.16.6 The 14 local planning authorities (Lpas) across the GBHMA have recently commissioned a Strategic Growth Study (SGS) to identify potential strategic locations for growth across the HMA. The GL Hearn/Wood SGS was published on 21 February 2018 and included an update on the housing shortfall (previously evidenced by the Peter Brett Study 2015).
5.16.7 The GL Hearn/Wood SGS 2018 found that the HMA shortfall to 2031 had reduced to 28,150 (partly because of local plan progress since consideration of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031). The Strategic Growth Study (SGS) has also suggested that around 13,000 dwellings from this shortfall could be accommodated through densification, without
Page 109 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 requiring identification of new sites. This would reduce the shortfall (up to 2031) to circa 15,000 dwellings. The SGS looks further ahead by 5 years (up to 2036) and finds that the shortfall is likely to increase to around 48,000 dwellings.
5.16.8 The Chancellor (in his Spring Statement 13 March 2018) announced a new Housing Deal for the West Midlands (Second Devolution Deal). The Government has committed £350 million towards housing delivery/infrastructure across the geography of the WMCA (constituent and non-constituent members). In return the WMCA (through the Mayor) has committed to deliver 215,000 homes by 2030/31 and local plans for constituent and non- constituent authorities are to be updated as necessary by the end of 2019 to deliver the 215,000 new homes by 2030/31. The geography of the constituent and non-constituent members comprises a total of 4 Housing Market Areas (HMAs) – Greater Birmingham & the Black Country HMA, the Coventry & Warwickshire HMA, Telford HMA and Shropshire HMA. This combined authority geography (constituent and non-constituent members) omits 4 local planning authorities who have plan-making functions – the district councils of Lichfield, Bromsgrove, South Staffordshire and Warwick.
6.16.9 The commitment to deliver 215,000 new homes by 2030/31 represents an increase in delivery to nearly 16,000 dwellings/annum (from an average of 12,000 dwellings/annum over the last 3 years) and significantly increases the amount of land released for housing. This ambitious target is above the level proposed under the Government’s Housing Needs Assessment set out in the draft NPPF. This is now known as the ‘standard methodology’ for calculating housing needs (following publication of revised NPPF on 24 July 2018). Government is awaiting the release of new household projection figures in September 2018 and will then revisit the standard methodology formula that will be set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
5.16.10 The GL Hearn/Wood SGS 2018 is not a policy document. It is a body of evidence that the 14 local planning authorities across the Greater Birmingham HMA (including South Staffordshire Council) will be required to test through their emerging local plans. In April 2018 the Government amended Local Planning Regulations to make it a legal obligation on local planning authorities to review their local plans every 5 years. The Council’s adopted Core Strategy (December 2012) is now more than 5 years old and the emerging Site Allocations Document (SAD) includes Policy SAD 1 (that commits the Council to an immediate local plan review). The quantum of housing to be delivered through the adopted Core Strategy was constrained to 175 dwellings/annum (compared with a need/demand figure of 300 dwellings/annum for South Staffordshire [RSS2 Examination Panel Report September 2009 – Paragraph 8.107]). The reason for the lower housing requirement for South Staffordshire was to achieve Urban Renaissance (a fundamental aim of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS). WMRSS was revoked by Government in 2013.
The SGS findings recommended that 11 (specified) strategic locations, across the Greater Birmingham HMA, be considered/tested (through local plan reviews) - for either urban extensions (1500 to 7500 dwellings), employment-led strategic development (1500 to 7500 dwellings) or new settlements (10,000+ dwellings). For South Staffordshire, 2 strategic locations are recommended for consideration – North of Penkridge (urban extension) and North of Wolverhampton/i54 (employment-led strategic development).
Page 110 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.16.11 The existence of an evidenced housing shortfall and the recommendation to consider urban extensions north of Penkridge, are matters for the plan-making process. However, there is currently no agreement as to how the evidenced housing shortfall across the Greater Birmingham HMA (up to 2031) will be apportioned across the 13 local planning authorities within the HMA [Birmingham excepted]. This is another material consideration to which I attach significant weight in the ‘planning balance’ in the consideration of the merits of this proposed development.
B) Local financial considerations
6.16.12 The Localism Act 2011 brought about changes to primary planning legislation which means that local financial considerations are capable of being material considerations in the outcome of planning decisions. How much weight should be attached is for the decision- taker to decide based on the circumstances of the individual case. In this case it is considered that local financial considerations should carry moderate weight in favour of the proposed development. The local financial considerations are the generation of increased council tax payments, potential payment of New Homes Bonus, the construction and fitting out of the dwellings would financially be of benefit locally, together with employment creation, generating demand for materials and the increase in the population of Penkridge will contribute to the spending power of the local economy to some extent.
5.17 Representations
5.17.1 There have been 120 public comments of objection (including one from Jeremy LeFroy MP) and 0 public comments of support for this application. I have taken extracts from these public comments in an attempt to cover the range of comments made in respect of this application. These are set out above under Section 4 Consultation Responses (Public Comments). I have sought to address these concerns throughout the report.
5.17 Planning Contributions
5.17.1 Core Strategy Policy EQ13 (Development Contributions) states that contributions will be sought from developers where necessary to achieve sustainable development. Although the application is in outline form with all details reserved except for access, it is common practice to try and get the particulars that would require entering into a Section 106 Agreement secured at this (the outline) stage.
5.17.2 Core Strategy Policy H2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) seeks 40% affordable housing on greenfield land for 10 or more dwellings. Policy H4 states that affordable housing should be secured in perpetuity and set 50% social rental and 50% intermediate tenures. The draft S106 stipulates that 40% of the dwellings constructed will be affordable and comprise 50% social rented units and 50% intermediate housing units. This is considered to be acceptable for when the final S106 is finalised, complying with policies EQ13, H1 (Housing Delivery), H2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) and H4 (Delivery of Affordable Housing).
Page 111 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.17.3 The draft S106 states that an educational contribution is to be paid. There is also provision for the cost of the monitoring of the agreed Travel Plan.
5.17.4 The proposal includes the provision of green infrastructure including the provision of formal and informal open space. Details are being discussed and this would be secured as part of the S106 agreement.
5.17.5 The Heads of Terms (which will include financial contributions) to be agreed are as follows:
Affordable Housing - In terms of quantum of houses 40% affordable housing for residential dwellings.
Public Open Space (POS) - emerging Policy SAD 7 requires a maintenance fee to be paid to allow for the ongoing maintenance of open spaces. A commuted sum of £65,190/hectare will be required. It is stated that 1.2ha of open space will be provided and so the maintenance fee will be £78,228. An additional contribution towards SUDs provision/maintenance will be required. Equipped Play Area - An equipped play area is indicated on the indicative Master Plan SK03 Rev A and the heads of terms will need to take account of this provision/maintenance
Educational contribution - The education contribution for a development of this size is;
11 First School places (11 x £11,031 = £121,341) and 8 Middle School places (8 x £13,827 = £110,616). This gives a total request of £231,957 for up to 80 dwellings.
Travel Plan - Commitment to producing a Travel Plan and a Travel Plan monitoring fee £6760.00
5.18 SAC Unilateral Undertaking (UU)
5.18.1 The site lies within the Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase SAC where evidence, supported by Natural England and set out in Policy EQ2 of the Core Strategy clearly demonstrates that any net increase in housing will have an adverse effect on the SAC. To assist in mitigating this impact a developer contribution of £232 per unit has been agreed and is considered acceptable provided this is secured through Unilateral Undertaking (UU).
5.18.2 In April 2018 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued what appears to be a landmark judgment [People over Wind and Sweetman Collite Teoranta] from the Irish Republic on habitats regulation assessment (HRA). Under the European Union (EU) habitats directive, local planning authorities are required to carry out these assessments to make sure plans or projects affecting sites in and around EU designated special areas of conservation (SACs) or special protection areas (SPAs) have no harmful effect on them. An Appropriate Assessment (AA) has been carried out for this proposed development and It is considered that the UU, which is supported by Natural England NE), will provide satisfactory mitigation for the effect of granting planning permission for up to 80 new homes adjacent to Penkridge (in the vicinity of Cherrybrook Drive). Natural England has confirmed that it has
Page 112 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 no objections to the proposed development, subject to the UU payment of £232 x 80 = £18,560.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1The application site is not an allocation for residential development within the Council’s emerging Site Allocations Document (SAD). The site is designated as Safeguarded Land (Policy GB2 in adopted Core Strategy and Policy GB3 in the emerging SAD). The land was removed from the Green Belt in the former Local Plan 1996. Development Plan Policy (GB2 and SAD3) and national policy at Paragraph 139 d) of (revised) NPPF 2018 states that planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following an update to a development plan (Local Plan Review) which proposes (allocates) the development. Accordingly, for these reasons I attribute significant weight against this planning application for up to 80 dwellings.
6.2 However, the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and therefore the policies for the supply of housing (as set out in the development plan [adopted Core Strategy 2012] and emerging SAD 2018) cannot be considered to be up-to- date. In these circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies (revised NPPF P 2018 Paragraph 11). (Revised) NPPF 2018 makes it clear (Annex 1 Implementation) that the weight to be attributed to out-of-date policies will depend on their degree of consistency with the Framework (NPPF 2018). The closer that the policies in the Plan are to the Framework, the greater the weight they may be given. The Council’s local plan policies relating to the supply of housing have not been tested at Examination since 2011/12 (and these were based on the now revoked Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands [WMRSS]).
6.3 In these circumstances, the focus for decision-making is drawn to the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out at Paragraph 11 of (revised) NPPF 2018. National policy is clear that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole. Accordingly, for these reasons I attribute significant weight in favour of this planning application for 80 dwellings.
6.4 I accept that this is a finely balanced planning application. There are both planning benefits and planning dis-benefits to which I have attributed significant weight. The scales are balanced. However, the recently published (revised) NPPF 2018 makes it clear that the planning system should be securing net gains across the three different objectives – economic, social and environmental in order to achieve sustainable development. I have weighed the benefits and dis-benefits in this report in order to reach a conclusion in respect of the ‘planning balance’. I have attributed moderate weight against the proposed development on two aspects of environmental – loss of biodiversity and proximity of the proposed development to the historic asset of the Canal. However, there are a number of aspects in the social and economic objectives that will provide a net gain across the three objectives that contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.
Page 113 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
6.5 Penkridge is a main service village with access to local services and facilities within walking distance and a regular bus and rail service that could be used; such are likely to be required by future occupiers on a daily basis. The proposed development is of a scale that is commensurate with the function and character of Penkridge. The site would deliver a range of economic and, social benefits – albeit there are environmental dis-benefits associated with the proposal. The proposed development would also contribute to the Greater Birmingham Housing Market Area (GBHMA) housing shortfall and boost significantly the supply of housing (which is compliant with NPPF 2018). In this report it has been demonstrated that the adverse impact on this Safeguarded Land (situated on the edge of Penkridge), would not be significant, having regard to impact on landscape, ecology, historic environment and archaeology, agricultural and recreational value. Neither is there significant harm to highway safety nor existing infrastructure (such as schools and the provision of medical facilities).
6.6 I acknowledge that there would be conflict with the development plan and (revised) NPPF 2018 as a consequence of developing Safeguarded Land that should not be developed permanently in advance of being allocated in a Local Plan review. However, there are other considerations that weigh significantly in favour of the proposed development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development (revised NPPF Paragraph 11) and the achievement of net gains in two of the three objectives of sustainable development (social and economic) tip the balance in favour of this planning application. The harm identified is not sufficient to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of boosting the supply of open market and affordable housing. The proposed development would make an important contribution to the achievement of sustainable development in South Staffordshire [as defined in (revised) NPPF 2018].
Page 114 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
7. RECOMMENDATION - Delegate APPROVAL to the Chief Planning Officer to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement and Unilateral Undertaking (UU).
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun no later than whichever is the later of the following dates: a. The expiration of three years from the date on which this permission is granted; b. The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
2. Before the development commences, and within 3 years of the date of this permission, full details of the following reserved matters shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval: a. The Layout - The way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are to be provided within the development and their relationship to buildings and spaces in the vicinity of the site; b. The Scale - The height, width, length and overall appearance of each of the proposed buildings, including the proposed facing materials, and how they relate to their surroundings; c. The Appearance - The aspects of a building or place which determine the visual impression it makes; d. The Landscaping - The landscaping – The treatment of private and public space and the impact on the site’s amenity through the introduction of hard and soft landscaping.
3. This permission does not grant or imply consent for the indicative layouts on the Master Plan SK03 Rev A or Conceptual Drainage Strategy SK1 (Rev D), nor does it grant or imply consent for any other indicative layout sketches/drawings included within the documentation submitted as part of this application.
4. The landscaping scheme (required to be submitted by condition 2d) shall be fully completed, in accordance with the approved details, in the first planting and seeding season following occupation of any part of the development (or in accordance with a programme previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority). Any trees or plants, removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees or plants of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted.
5. Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings on this site, a lighting scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The submitted details shall seek to reduce the amount of light projecting on to
Page 115 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
hedgerows and trees that are identified as important habitats for bats and nesting birds [as identified in the submitted landscaping scheme pursuant to conditions 2d) and 13 a)]. The agreed lighting scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the approved development.
6. The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter the agreed scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details. For the avoidance of doubt no dwelling shall be occupied until the disposal of foul and surface water in relation to that dwelling has been fully implemented.
7. Prior to the commencement of any construction, including demolition (where appropriate), a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall include details relating to construction access, hours of construction, routing of HGV's, delivery times and the location of the contractor’s compounds, cabins, material storage areas and contractors parking and a scheme for the management and suppression of dust from construction activities including the provision of a vehicle wheel wash. It shall also include a method of demolition and restoration of the site. All site operations shall then be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved CEMP for the duration of the construction programme.
8. No occupation of any dwelling shall take place until such time as the associated driveway to that dwelling has been surfaced in a bound material and sustainably drained, in accordance with details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. Prior to commencement of the development a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for a vehicular access onto Kentmere Close. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings on the site. For the avoidance of doubt, the consequential off-site works within the public highway shall be secured through a Highway Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council [see informative below].
10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a written scheme of archaeological investigation (‘the Scheme’) shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within the site, including post excavation reporting and appropriate publication. The Scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details.
11. Before development commences details of the existing and proposed ground levels of the site (and finished floor levels of the buildings) shall be submitted to the Local
Page 116 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Planning Authority for approval in writing. The development shall be carried out to the approved levels.
12. No development shall take place within the bird breeding season March-September inclusive unless preceded no more than 48 hours before by a breeding bird survey by a suitably qualified and experienced ornithologist or ecologist that demonstrates that no bird breeding (including ground nesting birds) will be affected or that works can be carried out while protecting breeding sites. The survey report should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two weeks of commencement of any works taking place on site and thereafter the development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the agreed mitigation measures.
13. The landscaping scheme to be submitted (as a requirement of condition 2d) above) shall include the following details: a) A tree and bat survey that also identifies any trees to be removed or reduced in size b) Includes the introduction of new native and wildlife friendly landscaping within a 15 metre zone measured from the bank of the canal adjacent to the application site. This canal edge enhancement planting shall include artificial kingfisher nest holes or a nesting wall created along the canal edge or the edge of the balancing pond. For the avoidance of doubt, no tree planting will be required within this 15 metre zone because of an existing sewer easement. c) The hedge along the northern boundary of the application site shall be restored by gapping up, laying and/or coppicing it. d) To compensate for loss of grassland ecology and planting details that include details of the attenuation pond design such that a biodiversity feature is provided with shallow edges and reedbed planting. e) New species-rich meadow areas are created using local seed sources, and the balancing pond designed to benefit wildlife, with marshy areas a and a reedbed f) Woodland areas should be enhanced and managed with addition of dead wood and floras such as bluebells g) A green corridor with sustainable drainage swales shall be considered through the centre of the site where surface flooding naturally occurs, to make this part of the landscape design h) Consideration to be given to the piped watercourse being de-culverted in line with the policy of the Environment Agency
14. No development shall commence until a Phasing Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The Phasing Plan shall provide for a programme for the implementation of the development of the site. The
Page 117 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
development shall proceed in accordance with the agreed Phasing Plan (or such other Phasing Plan which may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority),
15. The details pursuant to this outline planning permission shall comprise the following housing mix:
Market housing mix:
35% 2 Bed 40% 3 Bed 25% 4 Bed (with 10% Open Market to be Bungalows)
Affordable housing mix:
Social rent:
25% 1 bed houses/maisonettes 19% 2 bed bungalows 25% 2 bed houses 19% 3 bed houses 12% 4 bed houses
Shared ownership:
69% 2 bed houses 31% 3 bed houses
16. All finished floor levels must be set no lower than 83.830mAOD, which is 150mm above the crest level for the existing road.
17. No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage design has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design must be in accordance with the overall strategy and key design parameters set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (RPS Reference: AAC5427, Issue 3, 03/04/2018) [Updated by Issue 4, 03/09/18].
The design must demonstrate:
a) Surface water drainage system(s) designed in accordance with national and local standards, including the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (DEFRA, March 2015). b) SuDS design to provide adequate water quality treatment, which can be demonstrated using the Simple Index Approach (CIRIA SuDS Manual 2015), to include above-ground attenuation basin.
Page 118 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
c) Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 40% climate change critical rain storm to 6.9l/s to ensure that there will be no increase in flood risk downstream. d) Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods. e) Plans illustrating flooded areas and flow paths in the event of exceedance of the drainage system. Site layout and levels should provide safe exceedance routes and adequate access for maintenance. f) Provision of an acceptable management and maintenance plan for surface water drainage to ensure continued performance of the system for the lifetime of the development. This should include a schedule of required maintenance activities and frequencies, and contact details for the organisation responsible for carrying out these duties. 18. No dwelling or building on the site shall be occupied until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than domestic gardens, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall include the well-developed tree and shrub planting along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the M6. The agreed landscape management plan shall then be fully implemented.
19. Prior to commencement of construction works on site, the application site’s field shall be kept cut or grazed short and maintained as such throughout the year.
20. The development herby approved shall be fully implemented in accordance with the following environmental health protection measures: -
a. All works, including demolition, site works and construction shall only take place between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.
b. Deliveries to the site shall only take place between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays. Delivery vehicles shall not park on the access highways to the site.
c. There should be no burning on site during development
d. All demolition materials shall be removed from site and properly disposed of.
Page 119 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
e. Facilities shall be provided at the site and used when necessary for damping down to prevent excessive dust.
f. Road sweeping shall be carried out at regular intervals, both on the site and on the access highway to prevent excessive dust.
g. Any equipment which must be left running outside the allowed working hours shall be inaudible at the boundary of occupied residential dwellings.
h. Screening shall be provided to the site to protect residential dwellings from exposure to excessive noise. Details of such work shall be agreed with the local authority and carried out before other works begin.
21. The development hereby approved shall be fully implemented in accordance with the following use of waste/waste management measures: -
i. Use / Address waste as a resource; ii. Minimise waste as far as possible; iii. Demonstrate the use of sustainable design and construction techniques, i.e.: resource-efficiency in terms of sourcing of materials, construction methods, and demolition; iv. Enable the building to be easily decommissioned or reused for a new purpose; and enable the future recycling of the building fabric to be used for its constituent material; v. Maximise on-site management of construction, demolition and excavation waste arising during construction; vi. Make provision for waste collection to facilitate, where practicable, separated waste collection systems; and, vii. Be supported by a site waste management plan that is first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.
22. The mitigation measures for protected and other identified species (included in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment and Ecological Update Report) shall be fully implemented throughout the course of the development.
23. Within 90 days prior to commencement of development, a badger inspection shall be undertaken by an appropriately qualified ecologist and the outcome reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons
1. To define the permission.
2. In order to define the permission, to avoid doubt and to safeguard the amenity of the area.
Page 120 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
3. To define the permission.
4. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy
5. To safeguard the amenity of the area and protect important habitats for bats and nesting birds in accordance with policies EQ1 and EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
6. To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution in accordance with policy EQ7 and Policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
7. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework [Chapter 9] and in the interest of Highway safety and residential amenity in accordance with Core Strategy Policies EQ9 and EQ11.
8. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) [Chapter 9] and in the interest of Highway safety.
9. To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) [Chapter 9] and in the interest of Highway safety.
10. In order to preserve and record any items of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.
11. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policies EQ4, EQ7 and EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
12. In order to protect any protected species/biodiversity on the site in accordance with EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy
13. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policies EQ4 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy.
14. To enable the local planning authority to monitor (and seek to achieve the timely delivery of) new homes in South Staffordshire in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 47-49)
15. To comply with Policy H1 of the adopted Core Strategy
16. To reduce the flood risk to properties in the event of culvert blockage.
17. To reduce the risk of surface water flooding to the development and properties downstream for the lifetime of the development.
Page 121 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EQ11 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy.
19. To prevent ground nesting birds from using the field.
20. To protect local residential amenities in accordance with Core Strategy Policy EQ9
21. To accord with Policy 1.2 of the Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Plan (2010-2026) and as supported by Paragraph 8 of the of the National Planning Policy for Waste. In order to make better use of waste associated with non-waste related development.
22. To protect the interests of protected and other species in accordance with Policy EQ1 of the adopted Cores Strategy and Chapter 15 of the NPPF 2018.
23. To protect the interests of protected and other species in accordance with Policy EQ1 of the adopted Cores Strategy and Chapter 15 of the NPPF 2018.
PROACTIVE STATEMENT
In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner by agreeing amendments to the application and in accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2018).
INFORMATIVES
County Highways
The condition requiring off-site highway works shall require a Highway Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council. The applicant is requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in order to secure the Agreement. The link below is to the Highway Works Information Pack including an application form. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application form or email to ([email protected]). The applicant is advised to begin this process well in advance of an works taking place in order to meet any potential timescales. https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/highwayscontrol/HighwaysWor kAgreements.aspx
Any reserved matters will require approval under Section 7 of the Staffordshire Act 1983 and will require a Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Please contact Staffordshire County Council to ensure that approvals and agreements are secured before commencement of works. This Form X is issued on the assumption that the developer enters into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a travel plan and a travel plan monitoring fee £6760.00
Biodiversity enhancements
Page 122 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2018).
Crime Prevention
In order to prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime I recommend that this development attains Police Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation. There is no charge for my advice or for the Secured by Design award, and once awarded the Police SBD logo can be used on advertising material.
Research shows that adopting SBD can reduce burglary by 50%, car crime and criminal damage by 25%, therefore the carbon costs of replacing door-sets and windows on SBD developments as a result of criminal activity is more than 50% less than on non SBD developments, the cost of installing SBD approved products equals 0.2% of the total build cost.
Environment Agency
The applicant / developer should refer to our document 'The Environment Agency's approach to groundwater protection', available from gov.uk. This sets out our position on a wide range of activities and developments, including:
- Waste management - Discharge of liquid effluents - Land contamination - Ground source heating and cooling - Drainage - Storage of pollutants and hazardous substances - Management of groundwater resources
All precaution must be taken to avoid discharges and spills to ground both during and after construction. For advice on pollution prevention measures, the applicant should refer to guidance available on our website (www.gov.uk/environment-agency).
Page 123 of 218 Andrew Johnson –Director of Planning and Strategic Services: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Land Off Cherrybrook Drive Penkridge South Staffordshire
Page 124 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00322/FUL Mrs Lesley Birch KINVER Cllr Brian Robert Edwards Cllr Lin Hingley Cllr Henry Williams
Land At The Burgesses Kinver South Staffordshire
Demolition of existing bungalows. Erect 3 Storey residential apartments (20no 1 bedroom apartments) with communal lounge and providing 12 new car parking spaces to rear of building.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site description
1.1.1 The site is located on the south side of the High Street within the main service village of Kinver. The site currently contains nine social housing properties. All of which are single storey with the exception of one two storey element in the top south easterly corner.
1.1.2 The site is accessed directly off the High Street and has a number of off-site parking spaces within the curtilage. The ground rises to the rear of the site with a number of mature trees in situ. The High Street rises towards the east.
1.1.3 The properties surrounding vary in style and age. Directly next door at number 129 High Street is a fairly recent dwelling of around 1960's and is set at a higher level than The Burgesses. Kinver High Street is a Conservation Area and is made up of a number of historic listed properties and the north side in particular is characterised by burgage plots. There are a wide variety of materials some modern and some more traditional, the building at number 17 is timber framed and, like a lot of other buildings are statutorily listed.
1.2 Planning History
1.2.1 Relevant Planning History
None
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal as amended
2.1.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing properties and their replacement with a three storey building providing 20 flats and 12 parking spaces.
Page 125 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
2.2.2 The building is to be positioned relatively close to the highway being set back approximately 5m. It is formed of two elements, one fronting Kinver High street , which is 22.8m wide and the total ridge height of 10.5m. The second element is a rear 'wing' that measures some 26m in depth (30.3m total) with an approximate height of 10.5m. The design of the building incorporates ground to third floor bay windows, pitched roofs and flat roofs.
2.2.3 The building will provide 20 x 1 bedroom flats a communal lounge and a roof terrace.
2.2 Agents Submission
Design and Access Statement Protected species survey Arboricultural survey Heritage Statement
3. POLICY CONTEXT
Within the Kinver Development boundary and Conservation Area
Core Strategy National Policy 1: The presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environ EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting, Expanding and Enhancing Natural Assets Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: Landscaping Core Policy 10: Sustainable Community Facilities and Services Policy EV9:Provision and Retention of Local Community Facilities and Services Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport Policy EV11: Sustainable Travel Policy EV12: Parking Provision Core Policy 14: Open Space, Sport and Recreation Design Guide 2018 Site Allocations Document 2018
National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] 2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 12. Achieving well designed places 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Page 126 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
Cllr B Edwards and Cllr L Hingley called the application to committee on design grounds
Kinver Parish Council (received 07/06/2018): Recommend Refusal on the grounds that:-
Highways have already proposed to Recommend Refusal due to lack of turning space within the curtilage of the site, as it is unacceptable to reverse out onto the High Street.
The planning application form is completed incorrectly, the box has been ticked for apartments / buildings to be sold, not for social housing. Although the applicant has confirmed that these are purpose built social housing and this is a condition of the grant agreed for the building of these flats. The applicants when asked were unsure whether some of the proposed flats would be part ownership flats.
There are insufficient parking spaces for the development as proposed 23 apartments, with 10 parking spaces. No visitor parking allocated, and these are retirement age flats so residents from the age of 55 can live in them. The retirement age is now 67 which means that potentially there will be a maximum of 46 people living in this accommodation and still working. They would no doubt have at least one car per household making 23 cars, as public transport from the village is in adequate, with no service in the evenings or on a Sunday. The NPPF needs to be amended to change the calculations used to work out what parking is adequate as this is bespoke to each village.
There is no on street parking to alleviate the above problems, and residents of the Kinver already have problems with parking.
The pinch point at the end of the High Street and the 2 x on street parking spaces would need to be removed / investigated to help with traffic flow caused by the potential increase of traffic from the development, as visibility is very poor at present when exiting the site due to the nature of the building line of existing properties.
The increased residents to the village would have a major impact on the Doctors surgery, as there are already potentially 60 more homes being built on White Hill and Hyde Lane, plus the Mill House development.
The Design and Access statement refers to tailor made care packages. What does this mean, again can the local GP services and Social Services cope with this additional work load.
Page 127 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
The modern 3 storey building proposed with balconies, is totally out of keeping with the rest of the High Street in the Conservation Area, the balconies should be removed to protect the privacy of the surrounding properties.
The mass and scale of the proposed building is very large and if built would be the 3rd largest building in the Conservation area.
The height is just under the height of number 129, it will be significantly higher than no 128.
The plan states that the property is 2 ½ story's high but in the Design and Access statement it shows 3 story's high with a full size attic.
In the Heritage Statement 5.4.1 it states that when a building is demolished, it should be replaced with a quality building, the materials proposed to be used on this site are not of a quality nature.
In addition in the Heritage statement 5.4.4, it states that this will fill in a gap in the High Street for continuity. Why. The site does not require filling in.
The mature trees on the site should be retained to try to mask the building. Especially T1 and T4.
Previously at another development on Stone Lane, we were told that 1 bedroom properties were not required 2 bedroom were what was needed, therefore why the change now for 1 bedroom properties.
A public consultation did not taken place as promised, this has now been scheduled for the 13th June between 4 - 7 p.m., which is too late for any changes or questions the Parish Council Planning would have liked and our decisions has to be made today. No decision should be taken on this application until a full public consultation has taken place as previously agreed by the applicant.
Several of the properties in this area (including cliff edge by the holloway) have suffered from subsidence and had to be underpinned, if/ when the site is developed, they choose to pile drive, this could have major consequences for these neighbouring properties.
This is a burgage plots which are of late 13th century in origin (Conservation Area Management Plan), a few have had small scale development and some have been lost. None have almost entirely filled with a single building (like this application). The lines and open character of the former burgage plots are still readable on the site and filling the plot would harm the special historic interest of the Conservation Area. This is in direct contravention of the SSDC Design Guide.
The pitched roof of the proposed building is supposed to reference the design guide. It is asymmetrical and dominating however, and is unlike anything existing in the Conservation Area.
Page 128 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Key Views are shown in the Conservation Management Plan, these include views from the Church down towards the High Street and are shown on the mapping provided in the plan. An important element of the conservation area which has been identified is the roof scape when seen from Church Hill. The pattern of the roofs and chimneys of roughly similar size and orientation would be substantially changed by the addition of such a large monolithic roof which almost fills a number of historic plots. The greatest impact would be on views up and down the High Street. A shown in the visualisations, the rear wing would be easily visible from the approach from Church Hill and the approach from either direction in the High Street.
Heritage issues - the statement fails to assess the impact on the conservation area; poor understanding of the significant heritage assets; the assessment only takes into account properties in close proximity to the development not the conservation area itself. The assessment clearly does not meet industry guidelines and is wholly inadequate.
If the development were allowed then it would harm the significance of a number of heritage assets including listed building at 125 High Street and Clifford Cottage. It will have a very marked effect on the setting of the of the listed buildings at 128 High Street and the buildings which have been identified in the Conservation Area Management Plan as making a strong positive contribution to the conservation area at 3 and 4 High Street. It would also negatively affect the setting of the Grade 1 listed St Peters Church and several undesignated assets. Including the Medieval rock cut boundary path at the rear of the property, the old prison and workhouse at Clifford Cottage and the contribution made by the setting to listed and unlisted properties. The loss of burgage plot to almost complete development represents a substantial change to the late 13th Century planned town.
In the NPPF 132 it states that as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require cleaned convincing justification ' this has not been presented. In addition Historic England Guidance reinforced the importance of character in a conservation area When considering any planning application that affects a conservation area a local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. This development neither preserves or enhances
We note that there is a need to demolish the out of date properties on this site and update the development; however, a 2 storey development in a sympathetic design for the Conservation area would be much better received with adequate parking for both visitors and residents.
Local Plans (received 28/06/2018): This is a full application for the demolition of nine existing properties, predominantly bungalows and a two storey warden's property to provide a supported living scheme comprising 23 one bedroom apartments and associated communal lounge and car parking. The site is situated adjacent to the High Street, Kinver within the village
Page 129 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 development boundary and the Kinver Conservation Area and is within close proximity of a number of heritage assets including four listed buildings.
National Policy One of the key aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to significantly boost the supply of housing in a sustainable way. To help support this objective the NPPF requires Local Authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against requirements (para 47). The council presently cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. This means there is a 'tilted balance' in favour of granting approval as set out in paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF. This presumption is not applicable where specific policy restrictions are in place or where the benefits of the proposal are outweighed by adverse impacts. Impact on designated heritage assets is identified within the NPPF as a potential policy restriction and this would suggest that the tilted balance as identified in paragraph 14 would not be appropriate in this case.
Housing Supply Kinver received a minimum housing requirement of 91 dwellings (Policy CP6) of which a residual requirement of 48 dwellings remained to be identified through the Site Allocations Document. Two sites have been identified (Land off Hyde Lane and Land South of White Hill) to meet this remaining requirement. No additional housing sites are therefore required to meet the identified Core Strategy housing requirement.
A key aim of the adopted local plan is to promote a balanced housing market (Policy H1 and H2) including support for the provision of specialist and affordable housing to meet the needs of the changing demographic profile within the district, in particular the increasing need for retirement accommodation.
Sustainability of Location The site is situated within the development boundary of Kinver. The settlement hierarchy as set out in Policy CP1 identifies Kinver as one of the Main Service Villages within the District. Main Service Villages are identified as the main focus for housing growth, employment development and service provision. This is based upon a strategy of locating growth at the most sustainable and accessible locations within the District. The settlement hierarchy also informs the housing number contained in CP6. In terms of meeting current and potential future development provision it is considered that Kinver is a sustainable location with ready access to a good range of community services and facilities.
Affordable housing
Policy H2 requires developments of 10 units or more in Kinver, a main service village, to make an affordable housing contribution. On previously developed land, this contribution is 30% affordable housing provided on site. The policy also confirms that the affordable homes should be split 50:50 between social rent and shared ownership.
Page 130 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
It is understood that the development will be 100% affordable housing, with all apartments provided for social rent. The development therefore exceeds the affordable housing percentage requirement in line with Policy H2. Whilst the 50:50 tenure split is not being adhered to, the policy does confirm that this is set as an initial target and the precise split will be agreed with the Council with reference to local housing needs and the circumstances of the scheme. This is a specialist scheme for older people, in an area of the district with particularly acute affordability issues. The provision of all homes for social rent is therefore supported.
Housing mix and specialist housing
Policy H1 encourages the provision of more smaller properties in order to better balance the local housing market. Mix of new housing developments should also be informed by local need as evidenced by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The 2017 SHMA indicates in this area of the district, there is a need for a wide mixture of property sizes (in terms of affordable housing).
Policies H1 and H5 also support the provision of housing specifically to meet the needs of the district's ageing population. This includes retirement, sheltered and extra care accommodation.
This development will increase the provision of smaller properties in this area of the district, as well as boosting the supply of accommodation for older people, as supported by policies H1 and H5. The scheme is therefore strongly supported from a strategic housing perspective.
Impact on Heritage Assets. The site is situated within the Kinver Village Conservation Area and within close proximity of a number of designated heritage assets including the Grade I Listed 'Church of St Peter' and three Grade II Listed dwellings with varying levels of an inter- visibility relationship with the proposed development site. There are also a number of locally listed buildings and buildings described as having a positive impact in relation to the conservation area.
National policy requires local planning authorities to assess the significance of any heritage assets affected by a development proposal. This assessment should be supported by the submission by the applicants of a proportionate assessment of any such potentially affected assets. Great weight should be given to the conservation of designated assets, the more important the asset the greater the weight. Consent should generally be refused where this would lead to the substantial harm or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset. Account should also be taken of the effect of an application on non-designated heritage assets. National policy also highlights the value and need to protect buildings including non-designated structures which make a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area.
The council has produced a Conservation Area Management Plan for the Kinver conservation area. In addition to seeking to conserve and protect buildings making a
Page 131 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 positive contribution, the management plan states that the 'demolition of neutral or negative buildings would only be considered if replaced with a quality building that has been specifically designed to preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area.'
The applicants have submitted a heritage statement examining the potential impact of the proposed development on the identified heritage assets. The statement notes that the impact with respect to the heritage assets outside of the site will be in relation to the settings and not the fabric of the structure themselves. The outcome of this assessment was that the proposal would have a neutral or potentially beneficial impact in relation to most assets though a slightly adverse impact was noted for the structures directly opposite the site owing to the use of concrete tiles and UPVC windows which would be clearly unsympathetic. These buildings are identified as being of local significance. It is noted that the heritage assessment did not undertake an overview assessment of the potential impact of the proposal on the integrity of the conservation area, only upon selected buildings within it, though this did include all those structures identified as making a contribution to the conservation area character.
Conclusion The development of this proposal would contribute positively to increase the housing supply and diversifying the housing balance within the district and would provide a welcome contribution towards meeting affordable housing requirements. The site is situated in a location identified within the Core Strategy as being one the main settlements for accommodating additional levels of growth (Policy CP1).
The heritage statement notes that the proposal will affect the settings of a number of heritage assets including four listed buildings and a number of non-designated structures identified as making a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. It is considered that the existing structures occupying the site are not of heritage interest. The statement indicates that with the exception of the buildings directly opposite the development site the impacts of the proposal would be either neutral or slightly beneficial on the identified heritage assets. It is noted that the heritage statement has not provided any assessment of the potential impact of the proposal on the character of the conservation area.
It is for the case officer to determine if sufficient account has been taken of the potential impact of this development on the identified heritage assets and also whether the current scheme would preserve and enhance the conservation area. It is considered that there is significant policy support for this application as the proposal is situated within a sustainable location (Policy CP1) and would make a valuable contribution to meeting the shortfall in the five year housing supply situation and would be supportive of the aim of delivering affordable housing promoting a balanced housing market (Policy H1 and H2).
Page 132 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Conservation Consultation (received 22/05/2018): The proposal is for the demolition of an L shaped terrace of small bungalows with one two storey element. The site is located within the Kinver Conservation Area, and there are several listed buildings in close proximity.
The current structures are low and set into the site, whereas the proposed building will be a substantial three storey structure of modern design. From the plans submitted it is not felt that the design reflects the local vernacular, and will cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the setting of Grade 2 listed buildings, especially Clifford Cottage, Church Hill.
There are concerns with regard to the dominance of the proposed building upon other properties within close proximity, which will need to be addressed prior to the determination of the application.
It is accepted that there are other three storey developments at opposite end of the village; however, these are designed to appear more as individual properties as opposed to a single block. The proposed building has been designed to present two active facades, however it would still be preferred to see a far more active frontage facing the access road to the side of the new building.
There are still concerns with regard to the addition of balconies to the building, and there is no precedent for these within the village. The other modern developments have incorporated Juliet style balconies, but not full balconies as proposed here.
In its current form, it is felt that the proposed building causes less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Kinver Conservation Area. In line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF (2012) this harm will need to be weighed against public benefits;
"Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use."
Conditions:
Not applicable at this time
Environmental Health (received 07/05/2018): These conditions are recommended in order to safeguard nearby residential occupiers from undue disturbance during development and the bedroom size conditions are standard for any housing development:
1. All works, including demolition, site works and construction shall only take place between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.
Page 133 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
2. Deliveries to the site shall only take place between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays. Delivery vehicles shall not park on the access highways to the site.
3. There should be no burning on site during development
4. All demolition materials shall be removed from site and properly disposed of.
5. Facilities shall be provided at the site and used when necessary for damping down to prevent excessive dust.
6. Road sweeping shall be carried out at regular intervals, both on the site and on the access highway to prevent excessive dust.
7. Any equipment which must be left running outside the allowed working hours shall be inaudible at the boundary of occupied residential dwellings.
8. Screening shall be provided to the site to protect residential dwellings from exposure to excessive noise. Details of such work shall be agreed with the local authority and carried out before other works begin.
Lighting
9. Lighting to areas such as car parks, pathways, land, buildings, internal communal areas and stairways should be of a design and positioned not to cause a light nuisance to any neighbouring properties. Glare from any lighting must be kept to a minimum. If floodlighting is to be used, a full report is to be submitted to this Service for review prior to planning approval.
Bedrooms -As a domestic Housing development it must comply with the Nation Bedroom Standard minimum bedroom sizes.
Natural England (Expired 14/05/2018): Natural England has not assessed this application for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice which you can use to assess impacts on protected species or you may wish to consult your own ecology services for advice.
Natural England and the Forestry Commission have also published standing advice on ancient woodland and veteran trees which you can use to assess any impacts on ancient woodland.
The lack of comment from Natural England does not imply that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes. It is for the local planning authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national and local policies on the natural environment. Other bodies
Page 134 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 and individuals may be able to provide information and advice on the environmental value of this site and the impacts of the proposal to assist the decision making process. We advise LPAs to obtain specialist ecological or other environmental advice when determining the environmental impacts of development.
We recommend referring to our SSSI Impact Risk Zones (available on Magic and as a downloadable dataset) prior to consultation with Natural England. Further guidance on when to consult Natural England on planning and development proposals is available on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-planning-authorities-get- environmental-advice
Building Control: (Expired 25/05/2018)
County Highways (received 18/05/2018): This application should be refused for the following reasons:- The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for the turning of vehicles within the site curtilage resulting in an increase in the likelihood of highway danger due to drivers having to manoeuvre onto the High Street in a reverse gear. Contrary to the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Note to Planning Officer. This refusal will not prejudice consideration of a further application at a later date which provides a turning area for vehicles from parking bays 2, 9 and 10 or demonstrate that they can turn round within the site curtilage.
County Planning (received 04/05/2018): I refer to your consultation email dated 4 May 2018. The County Council as the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority has no comments on this application as the site is: O Not within or near to any permitted waste management facility; and O Exempt from the requirements of Policy 3 - Mineral Safeguarding in the Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire 2015 - 2030. To assist you in determining when to consult the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority, please note the guidance at paragraph 5.55 of the Staffordshire and Stoke- on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan 2010 - 2026 and the attached interim guidance on mineral safeguarding sent to you in May 2017.
Staffordshire Country Council Flood Risk Management Team (11/05/2018): Flood Zone 1, Surface water risk - No, Past flooding - None recorded. Our information about past flooding is based on data that the Flood Risk Management team holds. Where other authorities (such as LPAs) have been made aware of issues, we cannot guarantee they have passed this information on to us. Watercourse within 5m of site - No Other observations - A flooding hotspot is indicated close to the proposed development. However, upon further investigation, this appears to be a more generalised record of a historic flood event, which should not impact upon the proposed site. RESPONSE Thank you for consulting us on this planning application, our response is as follows:
Page 135 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Advice to LPA The site is in an area which is considered to be at low risk of surface water flooding. There will be no significant change to the impermeable area and so little change to the surface water runoff generated by the site. Considering that the footprint of the proposed building is of a relatively small scale, the Flood Team have no comments to offer on this occasion. We refer you to our Standing Advice for Low Risk Applications, where you may wish to use the tick list to aide your decision. Informative The applicant has indicated that surface water will drain to the existing main sewer system. The point of surface water discharge and discharge rate needs to be agreed with Severn Trent Water.
Gordon Scott- Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) (Received 10/05/2018): Thank you for the above consultation document, I ask that South Staffs District Council consider my comments, which are site specific, and made in accordance with; Section 17 of the 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998': o places a duty on each local authority: 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area to include anti- social behaviour, substance misuse and behaviour which adversely affects the environment'.
National Planning Policy Framework: o Paragraph 58 'Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.' o Paragraph 69. This paragraph looks towards healthy and inclusive communities. The paragraph includes:- "Planning policies and decisions, in turn, should aim to achieve places which promote: Safe and accessible developments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life and community cohesion"
South Staffordshire District Council LDF Core Policy: o Core Policy 13, Community Safety states; The design of buildings and spaces can make a significant contribution towards reducing the scope for crime, and create more pleasant and reassuring environments in which to live, work and play. The opportunities for crime to occur can be minimised by designing and planning out crime in new development. The Council supports the national guidance 'Secured by Design' and will continue to work with Staffordshire Police architectural liaison officer in relation to the design and layout of development proposals.
Policy CS1: Designing Out Crime:
Page 136 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 o In accordance with Core Policy 13, the design of development must include, means of reducing the opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour, and must also seek to reduce the potential for fear of crime. This will include support for: o Social facilities to be provided in locations which can be adequately controlled and supervised; o Development to be designed to increase natural surveillance of public and private spaces, with continuous public surveillance as an alternative; o Liaison with the Police to design out crime and fear of crime in specific schemes which also meet other design objectives in Policy EQ11.
Development proposals should be consistent with other local planning policies.
Core Policy 13 sets out the strategic policy for community safety that supports the aims and objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Community Safety Partnership Plan. The above Policy provides further detail on the design of development and 'Secured by Design', and in turn supports Policy EQ11 covering wider design considerations.
The Human Rights Act Article & Protocol 1, Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention and PINS 953.
In order to prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime I recommend that this development attains Police Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation.
Detailed design advice is given, which has been added as an informative.
Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service (Expired 25/05/2018)
Kinver Civic Society (Expired 25/05/2018)
Environmental Agency (Expired 25/05/2018)
Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (Expired 25/05/2018)
Harry Scott- Open Spaces Society (06/05/2018): Thank you for the consultation. There is a public footpath near or in the development area, can you please confirm if the footpath is affected by the development, thank you. Discussions had with case officer, no objections submitted.
Ramblers Association (received 21/05/2018): I wish to inform you that it will have no adverse effect on three public rights of way N.54(a) and No.55 which pass near to the development site. Therefore the Ramblers' Association has no objections to the development.
Severn Trent Water (received 21/05/2018): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this planning application. Please find our response noted below:
Page 137 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
With Reference to the above planning application the company's observations regarding sewerage are as follows.
I can confirm that we have no objections to the proposals subject to the inclusion of the following condition: o The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and o The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution.
Severn Trent Water advise that there may be a public sewer located within the application site. Although our statutory sewer records do not show any public sewers within the area you have specified, there may be sewers that have been recently adopted under the Transfer Of Sewer Regulations 2011. Public sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent and contact must be made with Severn Trent Water to discuss the proposals. Severn Trent will seek to assist in obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building.
Please note it you wish to respond to this email please send it to [email protected] where we will look to respond within 10 working days. Alternately you can call the office on 01902 793851.
If your query is regarding drainage proposals, please email to the aforementioned email address and mark for the attention of Rhiannon Thomas (Planning Liaison Technician).
AMENDED SCHEME
No further Councillor comments (expired 08/08/2018)
Kinver Parish Council (received 30/07/2018) We note that the plans have been amended and that the balconies have been removed and replaced with a terraced roof garden, along with 2 additional parking spaces added, as the majority of our objections have still not been addressed, we therefore Recommend Refusal on the grounds that:-
' The planning application form is completed incorrectly and should therefore be rejected. Any planning applications by private individuals with incorrect information on, would be thrown out immediately. ' The inconsistences are: It states there are 23 flats, though it would appear they are now proposing 20. It states there are 10 additional parking spaces, which is also misleading as there are not, there are 2 additional parking spaces. Making 12 spaces in all. The Residential units are ticked under Housing market, not social housing. Although the applicant has confirmed that these will be purpose built social housing
Page 138 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 and this is a condition of the grant agreed for the building of these flats. The applicants when asked were unsure whether some of the proposed flats would be part ownership flats. Again 23 units are recorded, this has not been amended to 20.
' The Burgesses is listed by South Staffordshire District Council under monuments ' no 52391 5084718322 ' Post Medieval. This development contravenes section 12 of the NPPF, is a gross overdevelopment of a historical and heritage site of significance. It is one of the few sites where burgesses can still be seen. ' The heritage statement is insufficient and not comprehensive enough. We would recommend a new report is written. ' There are insufficient parking spaces for the development as proposed 20 apartments, with 12 parking spaces. No visitor parking allocated. We believe these are flats for the over 55's year olds. The retirement age is now 67 which means that potentially there will be a maximum of 40 people living in this block still working. They would no doubt have at least one car per household making 20 cars. Public transport from the village is in adequate, with no service in the evenings or on a Sunday. ' No traffic impact and analysis report has been produced. This should be produced with not only the Burgesses development in mind but also for when Mill house is done and the other major developments about to take place in Kinver and Potters Cross. ' Core strategy Policy II Sustainable transport states 'The council will seek to ensure that accessibility will be improved and transport choice widened, by ensuring that new development is well served by an attractive choice of transport modes, including public transport, footpaths and cycle routes to provide alternatives to the used of the private car and promote healthier lifestyles'.' South Staffs District Council are not complying with this strategy. With all the other major developments about to take place in Kinver, (Mill House, Hyde Lane, White Hill, The Grey House), now is the time to review and improve the transport system in the village. The bus routes are inadequate and do not support a working person travelling to Kidderminster, Stourbridge, Birmingham or Wolverhampton. There is no Sunday Bus service. The last bus back from Stourbridge is 17.40. Anyone finishing work at 5pm from Birmingham would not be able to get back to Kinver on public transport. The first train leaves Birmingham at 17.09 and arrives back at Stourbridge at 17.48, after the last bus has left. An improvement would be extending the bus service until at least 19.15pm to allow people working later to travel back to Kinver on public transport. In addition promote and improve the canal towpath network to allow people to walk or cycle back. ' There is no on street parking to alleviate the above problems, and residents of the Kinver already have problems with lack of parking spaces. ' Parking policy EV12 states that community parking for 1 and 2 bedroom flats should be 1 to 1.5 spaces per dwelling, this development should therefore have a minimum of 20 spaces not 12. This development clearly contravenes this policy. ' The pinch point at the end of the High Street and the 2 x on street parking spaces would need to be removed / investigated to help with traffic flow caused by the potential increase of traffic from the development, as visibility is very poor at present when exiting the site due to the nature of the building line of existing properties.
Page 139 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Again, no report on the impact on the High Street and road safety has been produced. ' The increased residents to the village would have a major impact on the Doctors surgery, as there are already potentially 60 more homes being built on White Hill and Hyde Lane, plus the Mill House development. ' The Design and Access statement refers to tailor made care packages? What does this mean, again can the local GP services and Social Services cope with this additional work load. ' The modern 3 storey building proposed or 4 storeys as the roof line is so tall, is totally out of keeping with the rest of the High Street and towers over the heritage building next door and opposite, which is all in the Conservation Area. ' The mass and scale of the proposed building is very large and if built would be the 3rd largest building in the Conservation area. ' The height is just under the height of number 129, it will be significantly higher than no 128. ' The plan states that the property is 2 ½ story's high but in the Design and Access statement it shows 3 story's high with a full size attic. ' In the Heritage Statement 5.4.1 it states that when a building is demolished, it should be replaced with a quality building, the materials proposed to be used on this site are not of a quality nature. ' In addition, in the Heritage statement 5.4.4, states that this will fill in a gap in the High Street for continuity? Why? The site does not require filling in. ' The mature trees on the site should be retained to try to mask the building. Especially T1 and T4. ' Previously at another development on Stone Lane, we were told that 1 bedroom properties were not required 2 bedroom were what was needed, therefore why the change now for 1 bedroom properties? ' Several of the properties in this area (including cliff edge by the Holloway) have suffered from subsidence and had to be underpinned, if/ when the site is developed, they choose to pile drive, this could have major consequences for these neighbouring properties. ' This is an area of burgage plots, which are of late 13th century in origin (Conservation Area Management Plan), a few have had small scale development and some have been lost. None have almost entirely been filled in with a single building (like this application). The lines and open character of the former burgage plots are still readable on the site and filling the plot would harm the special historic interest of the Conservation Area. This is in direct contravention of the SSDC Design Guide. ' The pitched roof of the proposed building is supposed to reference the design guide. It is asymmetrical and dominating however, and is unlike anything existing in the Conservation Area. ' Key Views are shown in the Conservation Management Plan, these include views from the Church down towards the High Street and are shown on the mapping provided in the plan. An important element of the conservation area which has been identified is the roof scape when seen from Church Hill. The pattern of the roofs and chimneys of roughly similar size and orientation would be substantially changed by the addition of such a large monolithic roof which almost fills a number of historic plots. The greatest impact would be on views up and down the High Street. A shown
Page 140 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 in the visualisations, the rear wing would be easily visible from the approach from Church Hill and the approach from either direction in the High Street. ' Heritage issues ' the statement fails to assess the impact on the conservation area; poor understanding of the significant heritage assets; the assessment only takes into account properties in close proximity to the development not the conservation area itself. The assessment clearly does not meet industry guidelines and is wholly inadequate. ' If the development were allowed then it would harm the significance of a number of heritage assets including listed building at 125 High Street and Clifford Cottage. It will have a very marked effect on the setting of the of the listed buildings at 128 High Street and the buildings which have been identified in the Conservation Area Management Plan as making a strong positive contribution to the conservation area at 3 and 4 High Street. It would also negatively affect the setting of the Grade 1 listed St Peters Church and several undesignated assets. Including the Medieval rock cut boundary path at the rear of the property, the old prison and workhouse at Clifford Cottage and the contribution made by the setting to listed and unlisted properties. The loss of burgage plot to almost complete development represents a substantial change to the late 13th Century planned town. ' In the NPPF 132 ' it states that as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require cleaned convincing justification ' this has not been presented. In addition Historic England Guidance reinforced the importance of character in a conservation area 'When considering any planning application that affects a conservation area a local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area'. This development neither preserves or enhances
A letter summarising the objections of the Committee to be circulated to all District Council members, the Head of Planning and the Legal Officer of the District Council.
We note that there is a need to demolish the out of date properties on this site and update the development; however, a 2 storey development in a sympathetic design for the Conservation area would be much better received with adequate parking for both visitors and residents.
Conservation Officer (Received 04/09/2018) Amendments have been mad following previous comments. The proposed balconies have been removed from the scheme, and replaced with more traditional elements including bays to the ground floor. This element is now acceptable. However other alterations suggested have not been carried out. Other previous comments still remain relevant.
The current structures are low and set into the site, whereas the proposed building will be a substantial three storey structure of modern design. From the plans submitted it is not felt that the design reflects the local vernacular, and will cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the setting of Grade 2 listed buildings, especially Clifford Cottage, Church Hill.
Page 141 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
There are still concerns with regard to the dominance of the proposed building upon other properties within close proximity. It is accepted that there are other three storey developments at opposite end of the village; however, these are designed to appear more as individual properties as opposed to a single block. The proposed building has been designed to present two active facades, however it would still be preferred to see a far more active frontage facing the access road to the side of the new building.
In its current form, it is felt that the proposed building causes less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Kinver Conservation Area. In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2018) this harm will need to be weighed against public benefits;
"Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use."
Conditions:
Whilst there are concerns with the proposals, should approval be recommended then the external materials of walls, roof, windows, doors and rainwater goods would be required.
Tree officer (received 14/08/2018) The site is within the CA and some of the trees in the south eastern corner of the site appear to fall within wood W21 of TPO 7/1961.
The application is supported by a Tree Survey that states in Appendix 2 a Tree Survey Plan and a Tree Protection Plan. There is a copy of the latter plan but no Tree Survey Plan (that I can see).
T1 (Liquidamber) in the front north eastern corner of the site is for some reason identified in the tree survey a of low amenity value but as Retention category A. I can only assume that the former opinion is an error as the position of the tree adjacent to the High Street clearly affords it high or significant amenity value status. I seem to recall that the tree was planted by the Kinver WI (or PC) as a commemorative tree. The tree is recommended in the report as 'fell to allow development' when every effort should be made to retain category A trees within a development. The survey comments 'This tree is in good condition but will need to be removed to allow the development'. There appears to be an assumption that planning permission will be given that allows its removal. No suggestion has been made in the survey/report that retention is an option by amending the building footprint/design.
T2 (Hawthorn) stands about centrally on the plot frontage adjacent to the High Street and is identified in the tree survey as low amenity value and category C. The tree is identified as being in good condition and I would suggest that it should attain at least a Category B designation. The tree may simply have been downgraded to C when the comment 'This tree will not form a constraint to the site as it is intended that it will
Page 142 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 be removed prior to the commencement of development' is taken into consideration. The comment is not relevant as it cannot be assumed that planning permission will be given.
T3 (Blackthorn), again the comments in the survey appear to be based on the assumption of a grant of planning permission!
T4 & T5 (2 Sycamores). Identified as poor structural condition, high amenity value and category C. The comments made for both trees are identical and whilst it can be seen that the trees are multi-stemmed no specific reference is made to any specific structural faults in each tree.
The rear, southern end of the site contains some significant trees that are identified in the Tree Survey as G6. The trees are growing on sloping land that rises up from north to south, they and their root protection areas are outside the zone of influence of any proposed construction works. It appears that the proposed car parking will not extend beyond the rear garden boundaries of the existing bungalows on the site. The protective fencing plan shows the protection for this woodland block following (approximately) the line of the root protection areas of trees closest to the development. Whilst the land slopes upwards away from the proposed parking and may inhibit some access by machinery and storage I would suggest that the fencing line is brought down closer to the rear of the parking and follows a straight line parallel with the parking on about the 52.25 contour line.
On the east side of the proposed site layout there are what I assume to be 2 indicative replacement trees.
Policy:
Policy EQ4 of the adopted Core Strategy, Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape states (in part): 'The intrinsic rural character and local distinctiveness of the South Staffordshire landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced. Trees, veteran trees, woodland, ancient woodland and hedgerows should be protected from damage and retained unless it can be demonstrated that removal is necessary and appropriate mitigation can be achieved'.
Conclusion:
I do not consider that the application has wholly 'demonstrated that removal (of trees) is necessary and appropriate mitigation can be achieved'. The removal of the Liquidamber (T1) would be particularly detrimental to local amenity and contrary to policy. Amendment to the layout, for example by the removal of or reconfiguration should allow retention of the tree.
If a conservation area notification was made to the Council to remove T1 serious consideration would be given to making a TPO on it to prevent its removal. Its removal should not therefore be assumed in order to permit any development taking place.
Page 143 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
County Highways (received 10/08/2018) There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval:-
The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the existing access to the site within the limits of the public highway has been reconstructed and completed.
The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive, parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
The parking spaces shall be registered to individuals of the dwellings and identified by appropriate signage of which details are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation.
The vehicular turning area identified on drawing No. 2430-31 B shall be kept clear at all times and identified by appropriate signage or markings of which details are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the proposed development.
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an off-site traffic management scheme comprising of;
Routing of construction vehicles. Wheel washing facilities. Measures to remove any mud or other deleterious material deposited on the highway. Car parking facilities for staff and visitors. Timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved traffic management scheme shall thereafter be implemented prior to any works commencing on site.
Sue Lawley- County Ecologist (received 08/08/2018) I have been commissioned by South Staffordshire Council to review the planning application documentation for the above application. Documents and plans reviewed: - Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Pearce Environment, August 2017, submitted August 2018) I have not visited the site but have viewed aerial photographs, application photographs and data held by Staffordshire Ecological Record. Assessment of Submitted Documents and Plans I am satisfied that the updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal submitted is adequate. Please note that the survey is now one year old and if site demolition works have not commenced by August 2019 an updated survey for bats should be undertaken. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 144 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Conditions are recommended for: - Installation of 2 no. bat boxes and 2 no bird boxes as specified in survey recommendations (3.30 & 3.39) - Any external lighting to be submitted as a lighting plan and designed to allow a dark corridor to the south and east boundaries of the application site. Information note recommended for: - Timing of works to avoid harm to nesting birds Policy and Legislative context in relation to this application The National Planning Policy Framework s.109 states: "The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment ….by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. s.118 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principle: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. In accordance with this, the South Staffordshire adopted Local Plan Core Strategy policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets states that permission will be granted for development that would not cause significant harm to species that are protected or under threat and that wherever possible, development proposals should build in biodiversity by incorporating ecologically sensitive design and features for biodiversity within the development scheme. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); along with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, provide the main legislative framework for protection of species. In addition to planning policy requirements, the LPA needs to be assured that this legislation will not be contravened due to planning consent. In addition to these provisions, section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Section 41 refers to a list of habitats and species of principal importance to which this duty applies. Natural England Standing Advice which has the same status as a statutory planning response states that survey reports and mitigation plans are required for development projects that could affect protected species, as part of obtaining planning permission.
Historic England (received 16/08/2018): Thank you for your letter of 7 August 2018 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.
It is not necessary for us to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals. However, if you would like detailed advice from us, please contact us to explain your request.
Neighbour and Contributors (comments made before expiry date 08/08/2018)
Page 145 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 o Objections over being out of character to the rest of Kinver o Objections over limited parking spaces o Objections over building design o Objections over Kinver being within a conservation area o Objections over high street traffic congestion o Objections over the number of apartments o Objections over sewage o Objections over the over development of Kinver o Objections over the subsidence problems experience o Objections over the materials proposed o Objections over the removal of flora o Objections over privacy o Objections over the loss of light o Objections over the bin storage o Objections over the noise
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application is to be determined by Planning Committee as was called in by Cllr B Edwards and Cllr L Hingley.
5.2 Key Issues
- Principle of development - Housing mix and affordable housing provision - Impact on Heritage Assets - Impact on highways - Flooding - Ecology - Impact on neighbours - Amenity space - Impact on trees - Section 106 agreement
5.3 Principle of development
5.3.1 The site is within the development boundary and a predominantly residential area in the main service village of Kinver. Main service villages within the district are earmarked to accommodate growth. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location, with easy access to community provisions such as shops and the doctors surgery. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable providing the proposals comply with other relevant local and national polices.
5.4 Housing mix and affordable housing provision
5.4.1 Policy H1 encourages the provision of smaller properties in order to better balance the local housing market. Mix of new housing developments should also be informed by local need as evidenced by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment
Page 146 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
(SHMA). The 2017 SHMA indicates in this area of the district, there is a need for a wide mixture of property sizes (in terms of affordable housing).
5.4.2 Policies H1 and H5 also support the provision of housing specifically to meet the needs of the district's ageing population. This includes retirement, sheltered and extra care accommodation.
5.4.3 This development will increase the provision of smaller properties in this area of the district, as well as boosting the supply of accommodation for older people, as supported by policies H1 and H5. The scheme is therefore strongly supported from a strategic housing perspective.
5.5.4 Policy H2 requires developments of 10 units or more in Kinver, a main service village, to make an affordable housing contribution. On previously developed land, this contribution is 30% affordable housing provided on site. The policy also confirms that the affordable homes should be split 50:50 between social rent and shared ownership.
5.4.5 It is understood that the development will be 100% affordable housing, with all apartments provided for social rent. The development therefore exceeds the affordable housing percentage requirement in line with Policy H2. Whilst the 50:50 tenure split is not being adhered to, the policy does confirm that this is set as an initial target and the precise split will be agreed with the Council with reference to local housing needs and the circumstances of the scheme. This is a specialist scheme for older people, in an area of the district with particularly acute affordability issues. The provision of all homes for social rent is therefore supported. This will be also discussed in the Heritage section of this report.
5.5 Impact on Heritage Assets and Design
5.5.1 The site is located within the Kinver Conservation Area and is close to a number of listed buildings. Local Plan policy EQ3 states that the Council will consider the significance of all proposed works to heritages assets, informed by relevant guidance that is supported by English Heritage.
5.5.2 Section 16 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications LPAs should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting and an appropriate assessment should be submitted in support. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated Heritage asset, great weight should be given to the assets conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
Page 147 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.5.3 In addition to the above, paragraph 200 states that LPAs should look for better opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably. Paragraph 201 goes on to say not all elements of a Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance.
5.5.4 The application has been supported by a comprehensive Heritage Statement which would be considered as proportionate assessment of the Conservation Area and the surrounding listed buildings. This has been confirmed by the Conservation Officer.
5.5.5 Conservation areas are designated under the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A conservation area is defined as 'an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.'
5.5.6 The Kinver Conservation Area Management Plan states that any new development in the Conservation Area should assimilate into its surroundings rather than making a complete contrast. This is because the attractiveness of the village relies on the visual cohesiveness of the streetscape. It does not mean that new buildings have to replicate old ones, but rather that their forms should be determined by traditional depths, spans and roof pitches. Details can be borrowed from the established buildings.
5.5.7 EQ11 states the design of all developments must be of the highest quality and the submission of design statements supporting and explaining the design components of proposals will be required. Proposals should be consistent with the design guidance set out in the adopted Village Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (or subsequent revisions) and be informed by any other local design statements.
5.5.8 Development proposals must seek to achieve creative and sustainable designs that take into account local character and distinctiveness, and reflect the principles set out below. The Council will encourage innovative design solutions.
5.5.9 The Councils Design Guide 2018 states the siting and design of development is particularly important, giving consideration to how the development will appear in distant views and how it relates to other buildings. Developments should be sensitively designed for their location, aiming to achieve a sense of harmony and balance. It goes on further to say new buildings should take opportunities to preserve and enhance existing rhythms in the street scene for example by incorporating subtle changes in height, size and form between buildings. New buildings should avoid stark or sudden changes in scale.
5.5.10 This is reinforced in the NPPF where section 12 sets out the aims of national policy with respect to design. Paragraph 130 states
Page 148 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. Conversely, where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to development. Local planning authorities should also seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme (for example through changes to approved details such as the materials used).
5.5.11 In his comments submitted in relation to the amended scheme the Conservation Officer considers that the proposal will cause less than substantial harm to the character of the Conservation Area and the listed buildings within close proximity. In addition to this, Historic England has offered no objections to the scheme. I acknowledge that the design of the building is not ideal for the site. It offers a rather dominant position and should welcome people into the High Street. There are a number of 2.5 storey buildings and as such I consider that the scale of the façade is acceptable. There were lengthy discussions about the design during the course of the application and the design has been revised on a number of occasions by the applicants.
5.5.12 The Conservation Officer did request that mock front doors were added to the façade which would "break up" the building from being one large block and would be read as individual properties. However, this was rejected as the applicants considered they would cause issues for those with dementia. The lengthy mass of building being some 26m will give a cramped appearance from the views into the site to those leaving the High Street. Again this façade has been amended to remove the balconies and to change these to bay windows. However this has left the design with a 'mish-mash' of styles and historic features, although it is a vast improvement on the initial submission. Again, design ideas were suggested by the Conservation Officer and the case officer but they were not considered feasible by the applicants. The front elevation does however incorporate chimney detailing and offers some changes in roof height along with some pitched roofs over the third floor windows. The use of high quality materials, rainwater goods and windows/doors along with the use of appropriate rendering may help the development to assimilate better into the streetscene. This can be secured by condition.
5.5.13 Overall, it is acknowledged that the building will cause less than substantial harm to the designated Heritage Assets. As stated above, paragraph 196 allows for the decision taker to attribute weight in the planning balance against the less than substantial harm and the public benefit of the proposal. The scheme is to be built and managed by Housing Plus Group, a registered social housing provider. There will be a Section 106 agreement that requires 100% of the development to be for affordable housing as acknowledged in the comments submitted by the Strategic Planning Team. They state "this development will increase the provision of smaller properties in this area of the district, as well as boosting the supply of accommodation for older people, as supported by policies H1 and H5. The scheme is
Page 149 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 therefore strongly supported from a strategic housing perspective". In light of these comments I consider that the benefit would have to the public would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the Heritage Assets
5.6 Impact on highways
5.6.1 Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport seeks to ensure that new development must include provision for sustainable forms of transport to access sites as well as within any development. Appendix 5 of the Core Strategy states that the developer will normally have to provide fully for the parking demand generated on or near the site of the development, particularly when new buildings are proposed. This requirement may not however be possible or desirable where in a village centre. However, when considering village centre planning the availability of public parking facilities should be assessed. The standards goes on to say that the parking requirements are but part of the overall assessment of the planning merits of the proposal and the outcome can be a balance between all these considerations.
5.6.2 The standards as quoted above require 1 space per flat and 1 visitor space per flat. This equates to the need for 25 parking spaces, a shortfall of 13 spaces. The County Highways Officer has raised no objection to the scheme, but has requested a number of conditions including that each available parking space is registered to a resident and denoted as such. The applicants have confirmed that there are a number of residents who will reside in the apartments that do not have vehicles. In addition, there is public parking available within the village centre for visitors. There are also double yellow lines down the High Street which would prevent inconsiderate of dangerous parking on the highway.
5.6.2 I note the residents' concerns regarding the issue, however in light of the above, I consider the proposal in accordance with the aims of the parking standards and Core Policy 11.
5.7 Impact on flooding
5.7.1 Core Policy 3 requires
development to be designed to cater for the effects of climate change, making prudent use of natural resources, enabling opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency and helping to minimise any environmental impacts. This will be achieved by a) giving preference to development on previously developed land (brownfield land) in sustainable locations…
It goes onto say that proposal should guide development away from known areas of flood risk as identified in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, Surface Water Management Plan and ensure the use of sustainable drainage (Sustainable Drainage Systems). The County Flood team and Severn Trent Water have no objections subject to the inclusion of conditions. As noted earlier the proposal represents the partial
Page 150 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 development of a previously developed site and is located within the village of Kinver. I therefore consider the proposal is in accordance with the aims of CP3.
5.8 Ecology
5.8.1 Development Policy EQ1 states that permission will be granted for development which will not cause significant harm to sites and/or habitats of nature conservation, geological or geomorphological value and species that are protected. Locally important sites such a Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) will be protected and enhanced. Protected species are a material consideration when making a decision with regard to a planning application. Whilst I note there are a number of neighbours who are concerned the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the existing wildlife at the site, the application was supported by an ecological survey that has been reviewed by the County Ecologist. She has no objections and has recommended a number of mitigating conditions.
5.9 Impact on neighbours
5.9.1 Policy EQ9 states that new development should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents, particularly with regard to privacy, noise, pollution, odours and daylight. There have been a number of objections received from the residents of Kinver, however the majority of any perceived impact would be to the neighbour lying directly to the east at 139 High Street and the properties lying directly opposite. I shall discuss these matters in turn.
5.9.2 The neighbours at 139 are set at a higher level to the site of the Burgesses and the applicants have submitted a survey drawing showing the difference in levels and what would be visible over the existing fence by approximately 7.5m at the lowest point. The development is also located directly to the west of the aforementioned property and as such the sun trajectory is east to west, alleviating any loss of direct sunlight. Whilst there will be some loss of the views towards the High Street from the window on the side elevation the proposed building will be located some 9m away from the boundary and will not be too overbearing.
5.9.3 I appreciate and sympathise that the occupiers of the property have benefited from not being overlooked from the west. However, due to the difference in land levels there will be no overlooking into the garden from the ground floor flats and the amended scheme removed the third floor, leaving the second floor flats potentially causing a loss to perceived privacy to the rear garden only. There is one large window on this elevation that will not be screened by the fence at all which sits predominately within the dwellings side gable. There is a window here as the property has had a two storey extension in the past. However, after checking the plans this window serves an en suite to an existing bedroom and is obscurely glazed. Bathrooms are not afforded any protection as they are not considered to be habitable rooms.
5.9.4 I have also carefully considered the objections received from the neighbours opposite, who consider that the building will be overbearing on them. Historic High
Page 151 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Streets are predominately characterised by buildings that are located hard on the boundary to the highway. The Burgesses is typical of a poorly designed 60's or 70's development that has paid no attention to respect or scale of the existing development and would not be approved if it was submitted today. The original building on the site was a 2.5 storey building and was located hard to the highway. Any scheme on this site should respect the existing rhythm of the streetscene and whilst I have acknowledged that the design is not ideal, the scale and form of the façade is. I can therefore afford no weight to the potential impact to the neighbours opposite.
5.9.5 I do not consider there will be any impact to the neighbours to the west due to adequate separation distances and the location of the these properties hard to the existing fence. Overall, I consider the proposal in accordance with the aims of EQ9.
5.10 Amenity space
5.10.1 Appendix 6: Space about dwellings recommends new development provides space for activities connected with outdoor residential use such as gardening or children's play space. These standards are however recommendations only and it is important to recognise each site has its own individual character and that standards should not be so inflexible that they inhibit the creation of interesting and attractive housing layouts and design. The standards recognise that for smaller dwellings or flats, particularly those designed for special needs, there will be a communal garden or paved area. This development is providing some area around the building as well as a roof terrace. I consider the proposal acceptable in this regard.
5.11 Impact on trees
5.11.1 Policy EQ4 ' Protecting and enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape' states that
'Trees, veteran trees, woodland, ancient woodland and hedgerows should be protected from damage and retained unless it can be demonstrated that removal is necessary and appropriate mitigation can be achieved.' The Arboricultural officer has objected to the loss of the Liquidamber (T1) because it would be particularly detrimental to local amenity and contrary to policy. As with the harm caused to the Heritage Assets, it is down to the decision maker to attribute weight to the comments received by consultees. For the reasons given at section 5.5, I consider the public benefit outweighs the loss of this tree. I consider it necessary and reasonable to require the applicant's to replace this tree within the curtilage of the site or elsewhere with express agreement with the Council if this is not feasible.
5.12 Section 106 agreement
5.12.1 Policy SAD7: Open Space standards require new development of schemes of 10-24 dwellings should provide an off-site provision for public open space. Typically, this will take the form of a contribution to cover both provision and maintenance of offsite greenspace provision, or the improvement an existing nearby open space. As
Page 152 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 such, the Council will require the payment of £993 per dwelling on schemes of 10-24 dwellings. This will be based on a net increase of dwellings. As there are 9 dwellings on site, the net increase is 11 and as such the applicants have agreed to pay £10,923.00.
5.12.2 The applicants are also required to provide 100% affordable housing through the Section 106 agreement.
5.13 Representations
5.13.1 This report has addressed the majority of the points received by the residents of Kinver. One resident queries whether the development could logistically be built; however this is not a material planning consideration. The applicants will have to apply the relevant bodies for stopping up orders etc and building regulations will monitor the progress of the build.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Drawing all the matters together, it is acknowledged that the scheme (by it's inappropriate scale and design) will cause less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area and the loss of a tree. However, the development is providing 100% affordable special housing accommodation for members of the community who cannot afford to buy or privately rent accommodation. I have afforded this matter significant weight in the planning balance.
6.3 The County Ecologist, Flood Team and Highway engineer do not consider there would be any detrimental impact on ecology, flooding nor the highway. I have also concluded that I consider the proposal in accordance with the aims of EQ9 with respect to neighbouring amenity.
6.4 Therefore, in conclusion, I consider the proposal in accordance with the relevant polices of the Core Strategy and NPPF and recommend that Members approve the proposal subject to conditions and the signing of a Section 106 agreement as detailed above.
7. RECOMMENDATION - Delegate APPROVAL to the Team Manager to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement.
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 2430-14 Rev C 2430-15 Rev C 2430-31 Rev B 2430-37 Rev B 2430- 39 2430-38 Rev A received 25/07/2018.
Page 153 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
3. No development shall commence until a full and detailed materials scheduled has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall be carried in accordance with the schedule and maintained as such throughout the lifetime of the development. Any subsequent replacements or painting of any render shall not be carried out without the written consent of the LPA.
4. Before any development commences a landscape scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The scheme shall include details of the locations of new tree, shrub and hedge planting and for each species their quantities and sizes as well as any hard landscaping and boundary treatment. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
5. Before any development takes place a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage and surface water drainage works shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied/brought into use until the approved scheme has been completed.
6. Before the development is fully occupied, the exact location and species of a tree to replace the loss of the existing Liquidamber (T1) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The agreed tree shall be planted in the agreed location within the next available planting season.
7. Before development commences details of the finished floor levels of the buildings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out to the approved levels.
8. Before the occupation of any flats the height and style of the proposed screening on the roof terrace shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
9. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the existing access to the site within the limits of the public highway has been reconstructed and completed.
10. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive, parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
11. The parking spaces shall be registered to individuals of the dwellings and identified by appropriate signage of which details are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation.
12. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until an off-site traffic management scheme comprising of;
Page 154 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Routing of construction vehicles. Wheel washing facilities. Measures to remove any mud or other deleterious material deposited on the highway. Car parking facilities for staff and visitors. Timetable for implementation.
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved traffic management scheme shall thereafter be implemented prior to any works commencing on site.
13. Any external lighting to be submitted as a lighting plan and designed to allow a dark corridor to the south and east boundaries of the application site.
14. The development shall not be occupied until 2 no. bat boxes and 2 no bird boxes as specified in survey recommendations (3.30 & 3.39) have been installed in accordance with the recommendations.
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimize the risk of pollution, in accordance with policy EQ7 of the adopted Core Strategy.
6. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
7. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
8. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area and the privacy of residents in nearby dwellings in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
9. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Page 155 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
10. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
11. The parking spaces shall be registered to individuals of the dwellings and identified by appropriate signage of which details are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation.
12. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
13. In order to protect any protected species on the site in accordance with EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy.
14. In order to protect any protected species on the site in accordance with EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the planning application the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner by agreeing amendments to the application and in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018.
INFORMATIVE – TREES AND SHRUBS
No works shall take place to the existing shrubs or trees during the months of April and August.
INFORMATIVE – SECURED BY DESIGN Research shows that adopting SBD can reduce burglary by 50%, car crime and criminal damage by 25%, therefore the carbon costs of replacing door-sets and windows on SBD developments as a result of criminal activity is more than 50% less than on non SBD developments, the cost of installing SBD approved products equals 0.2% of the total build cost.
One of the most revealing elements of research into SBD is how much 'safer' residents feel if they occupy a dwelling on an accredited development, even if they are not aware of the award status. There are few other initiatives which can deliver a measurable reduction in fear like this.
SBD supports one of the Government's key planning objectives - the creation of safe, secure, quality places where people wish to live and work. SBD applies quality standards to a range of security measures and should be seen as a positive marketing opportunity.
SBD can contribute towards BREEAM assessments.
Page 156 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Lighting External areas should offer Uniformity Values between 0.25 and 0.40, using lamps with a rating of at least 60 on the colour rendering index, and meet the relevant levels as recommended by BS5489:2013, this standard should include all communal parking areas and the bin store.
It should be noted that 'bollard lighting is not compliant with BS5489:2013 because it does not project sufficient light at the right height and distorts the available light due to the 'up-lighting' effect; making it difficult to recognise facial features and as a result causes an increase in the fear of crime' Secured by Design Homes 2016 version 1; February 2016 pp 24, Para 18.3.
For internal areas such as the communal entrance, landings and stairwells, 24 hour lighting (switched using a photoelectric cell) is recommended. To reduce energy consumption, lighting systems that reduce light levels during quieter periods may be utilised.
The implementation of low wattage lamps such as LED's, dusk to dawn lighting, vandal resistant luminaires with appropriate lighting values (5-10 Lux), mounted to a minimum height of 2.4 metres, and a regular maintenance regime, is considered good practice when considering lighting design specification and values; good lighting design promotes the feeling safety in the environment and reduce the fear of crime.
Lighting schemes should work together with landscaping measures to mitigate the effects of seasonal variations, both lighting and landscaping schemes should be well maintained as part of a maintenance schedule.
Boundary The northern boundary abuts the public realm, there are a number of late night shops, licenced premises and food take-away shops located on either side of this proposal; I recommend that the fence panel and gate positioned on the eastern elevation be moved forward in line with the buildings front elevation to remove a hiding place which could be used for anti-social activities, e.g. used as a toilet.
To provide ground floor residents with some defensible space I recommend that 1500mm high railings are installed along the northern boundary set back from the pavement to prevent anti-social behaviour late at night impacting negatively on residents - windows being banged etc.
"Smart" utility meters should be installed to prevent bogus caller sneak-in burglaries.
Doors The minimum Association of British Insurers (ABI) and Police door security standard for both perimeter and apartment doors is that doors should be manufactured to a design that has been shown to meet the security requirements of BS PAS24:2012, PAS
Page 157 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
24:2016 or designed and manufactured in accordance with Appendix B, Doc Q building Regs 2015
Door-sets satisfying other standards that provide similar or better performance are also acceptable, these standards include; o STS 201 Issue 4:2013 or: o LPS 1175 Issue 7.2 2010 Security Rating 2 or: o STS 202 Issue 3 2011 Burglary Rating 2 or: o LPS 2081 Issue 1 2015 Security Rating B
Letter plates, where provided, should have a maximum aperture of 260mm x 40mm. and incorporate a flap designed to hinder attempts to remove keys with sticks or rods and/or to restrict hand or arm entry.
Note; Letter plates meeting the requirements of the Door and Hardware Federation's (DHF's) technical specification TS008:2012 have been shown to protect against attacks mentioned above.
Door-sets shall also be certificated to the following relevant material specific standards: o BS 7412:2007 (PVC-U) o BS 4873:2016 (Aluminium) o BS 6510:2010 (Steel) o BS 644:2012 (Timber) o BS 8529: 2010 (Composite)
Doors should be secured with the relevant lock type: o BS 3621: 2011 thief resistant mortise lock. o BS 8621:2011 thief resistant mortise lock with keyless egress o BS 10621:2011 as above but with keyless external deadlock o BS EN 1303:2005 Minimum standard for cylinder locks o LPS 1242 Issue 1.2 2005 Cylinder lock requirements o DHFTS 621:2011 Electro-mechanical lock.
If glazed panels/windows adjacent to doors are installed as an integral part of the door frame then they must be shown to be part of the manufacturer's certificated range of door sets. Alternatively, where they are manufactured separately from the door frame, they must be certificated to: o PAS 24:2012, or o BS 7950: 1997 or o STS 204 Issue 3:2012, or o LPS 2081 Issue 1:2014
All glazing in and adjacent to flat entrance doors shall be installed with a fire rated laminated glass meeting the requirements of BS EN 356:2000 class P1A, securely fixed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Page 158 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Door frames should be mechanically fixed to the structure of the building in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
Lightweight framed walls should incorporate a resilient layer to reduce the risk of anyone breaking through the wall and accessing the locking system, the resilient layer should be timber sheathing at least 9mm thick, expanded metal or a similar resilient material the full height of the door and 600mm either side of the door.
A third party certificate will be required to certify the doors meet SBD requirements.
Communal Entrances Communal entrance door-sets need to withstand high usage, certification to one of the following standards can demonstrate that the door-set has a more robust construction and is more able to withstand the day to day use in a communal application, doors should comply with; o PAS 24:2012, PAS 24:2016 or STS 201: o STS 202 Issue 3 (2011) Burglary Rating 2 (minimum) o LPS 1175 Issue 7.2 (2014) Security Rating 2+ (minimum) o PAS 24:2012, paragraph 4.4.3 i.e. tested to BS EN 1627 Resistance Class 3 Secured by Design Homes 2016 version 1; February 2016 pp 41, para 27.3.
Communal door-sets also need to be fit for purpose and certified to meet requirements within BS6375 to ensure safety and security.
I recommend that the door entry system should provide access into the building via the use of a key fob, card or key; there should be remote release of the primary entrance door-set from each apartment, and the system should have audio and visual communication between the occupant and the visitor.
Trades buttons are not advised, on the basis they allow unauthorized access, have been proven to be the cause of anti-social behaviour and unlawful access to communal developments'.
Developers and installers of door access control systems should be aware that standard UL293 provides reassurance that a system has been assessed against a prescribed security test regime, installers should pay attention to the following information regarding communal door sets 'where a glazed vision panel is installed it must form part of the manufactures certified door set range' Secured by Design Homes 2016 version 1; February 2016 pp 42, para 27.7. o Door-set - A complete door assembly, consisting of the door frame, door leaf or leaves, essential hardware and any integral side panel or fanlight (excluding coupled assemblies) o Secure door-set - A door-set proven to resist physical attack by a casual or opportunist burglar or a bespoke door-set incorporating proven crime reduction construction features. o Coupled assemblies - Door and window frames which are supplied as separate self-contained frames and fixed together on site.
Page 159 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Windows The minimum Association of British Insurers (ABI) and Police window security standard is that ground floor and other easily accessible windows (including easily accessible roof lights) windows should be secure windows in accordance with paragraphs 2.2 -2.3, Doc Q Building Regs 2015.
(Easily accessible - A window that is within 2m vertically of an accessible level surface such as ground/basement level or access balcony, or a window within 2m of a flat or sloping roof with a pitch of less than 45_"0 that is within 3.5m of ground level).
Windows should be made to a design which has been shown by test to meet the requirements of British Standards Publication PAS 24:2012. Note: windows demonstrating compliance with the police 'Secured by Design' initiative will also meet the provisions of this Approved Document.
Windows satisfying other standards that provide similar or better performance are also acceptable, these standards include; o STS 204 Issue 3: 2012, or o LPS 1175 Issue 7:2010 Security Rating 1, or o LPS 2081 Issue 1:2015 Security Rating A
Windows must also be fit for purpose and shall be certificated to the relevant material standard i.e.: o BS 4873: 2004 (Aluminium) o BS 7412: 2007 (PVC-U) o BS 644: 2003 (Timber) o BS 6510: 2005 (Steel)
Installation and fixing of secure windows Frames should be mechanically fixed to the structure of the building in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. (Secure window - A window proven to resist criminal attack or a bespoke window incorporating proven crime reduction construction features).
A third party certificate will be required to certify the windows meet SBD requirements.
Mail I recommend that all mail is delivered to a secure area created in the main entrance draft lobby with access control installed on both the inner and outer doors; this will enable residents to prevent use at night as a gathering place for youths as has happened at similar buildings in the locality, and to collect their post from lockable mail boxes; this will remove the opportunity for bogus delivery staff to access private corridors to commit crime.
Party Wall Construction & Sound Insulation All party walls will resist intrusion with the components, such as:
Page 160 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018 o Timber sheathing, minimum 9mm thick ; or o Expanded metal
The following 'Robust Details' are acceptable: o E-WT-2 (timber wall construction) o E-WT-3 (light steel construction) o E-WT-20 (masonry wall construction)
Alternatively walls meeting the following standards are also acceptable: o LPS 1175 Issue 7:2010 Security Rating 1, or o STS 202 Issue 3:2011 Burglary Rating 1
Loft hatches in communal areas must be secured with products certified to: o Sold Secure 'Silver', or o LPS 1654 Issue 1:2013 SR, installed in accordance to the manufacturer's instructions.
Intruder Alarms A 13 amp non switched fused spur, suitable for an alarm system, should be installed within each dwelling. If the full alarm system is installed it shall comply with one of the following standards: o BS EN 50131 & PD6662 (wired system) o BS 6799 (wire free system) All installations should be in accordance with the current regulations for electrical installations.
The recommendations contained within this report are the professional statements of the author. As such, they represent what we believe to be the best advice in terms of 'doing all that is reasonable to prevent crime and disorder' under the terms of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. All comments and recommendations are 'Site Specific'. Crime prevention advice is given free without the intention of creating a contract. Neither do the Home Office or the police service take any other legal responsibility for the advice given.
Page 161 of 218 Lucy Duffy—Team Leader (Householder Applications and Appeals): Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Land At The Burgesses, Kinver South Staffordshire
Page 162 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00450/REM Miss Jackie Edwards ESSINGTON Cllr David Clifft Cllr Peter Lever
Land On The South East Side Of Hobnock Road Essington South Staffordshire
The erection of 230 dwellings with ancillary parking, private amenity space, site infrastructure and landscaping.
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The site extends to some 9 hectares and is an area of land designated as Safeguarded Land in the adopted Core Strategy. Currently the land is used for the grazing of animals. There is residential development to the south and west, with St John's Church of England Primary School and Essington Community Centre to the west and the M54 to the north. A small children's play area is adjacent to the north- western corner of the site.
1.1.2 The topography of the site gently rises towards the south-eastern corner of the site, continuing towards a grassed mound which conceals the M54 further east.
1.1.3 There are two Public Footpath's [No's 7 and 8 Essington] which run within the application site and No 9 which runs just outside the northern edge of the site.
1.1.4 The boundaries of the site comprises of hedgerows with intermittent trees and woodland planting to the south eastern boundary which separates the site from the existing housing off Ferndale Road and Rowan Drive.
1.2 Planning History
2016 The erection of approximately 210 dwellings with ancillary parking and private amenity space; a convenience store to serve existing and future residents; additional parking to serve St John's Primary School; Allotments for use by the wider community; site infrastructure and landscaping, approved with section 106 [16/00487/OUT].
1.3 Pre-application Advice
1.3.1 Pre-application discussions have taken place.
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 The Proposal
Page 163 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
2.1.1 This application follows on from the outline planning permission 16/00487/OUT, which was for residential development where all matters were reserved apart from access. The outline consent has already established the principle of residential development on the site including access. This application is in reserved matters format and addresses the other matters requiring agreement pertaining to layout, appearance, scale and landscaping.
2.1.2 The proposal is for the development of 230 dwellings with associated landscaping, open space and drainage. The dwelling mix would comprise of: 1 bed flat - 9 2 bed flat - 9 2 bed bungalows - 23 2 bed houses - 51 3 bed house - 76 4 bed house - 54 5 bed house - 8
40% of the housing provision is to be affordable housing with a 50% spilt between shared ownership and social rent.
2.1.3 The development would provide a mix of bungalows and houses (terrace, semi and detached). All of the houses would be two storeys in height, although some of them would have dormers in the roofspace resulting in them appearing 2.5 storeys. Detached garages are also proposed for some of the properties. The apartment block would be three storeys in height.
2.1.4 Areas of open space would be provided within the development, totalling 2.32 hectares. This area would include the attenuation pond and the existing public rights of way through the site are unaffected. The Section 106 Agreement in the outline application secured a contribution to improve/upgrade the existing play area to the west of the site with the requirement to provide allotments onsite. The signed section 106 agreement will ensure that these elements are delivered.
2.1.5 Access to the site (which has already been agreed) is a single access off Hobnock Road. The agreed works includes an upgrade to the existing mini roundabout on Bursnips Road and Hobnock Road with a signalised junction, new pedestrian crossing and traffic calming measures.
2.2 Applicants Submission
2.2.1 The following documents have been submitted:
- Noise Risk Assessment & Acoustic Design Statement - Planning Statement - Design and Access Statement Reserved Matters Application - Housing Mix Statement
Page 164 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
- Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment & submission in relation to the document from the applicant
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 The site has safeguarded land status as defined in the Council's Core Strategy (2012).
3.2 Core Strategy
National Policy 1 - The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Policy 1 - The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire Core Policy 2 - Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Core Policy 6 - Housing Delivery Policy GB2 - Land Safeguarded for Longer Term Needs Policy EQ1 - Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4 - Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Policy EQ9 - Protecting Residential Amenity Policy EQ13 - Development Contributions Policy H2 - Provision of Affordable Housing Policy H4 - Delivering Affordable Housing Policy EV11 - Sustainable Travel Policy EV12 - Parking Provision Appendix 6- Parking Standards Appendix 6 - Space about Dwelling Standards
3.3 National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Chapter 11 - Making effective use of land Chapter 12 - Achieving well-designed places.
3.4 Emerging Site Allocations Document
3.5 Local Plan 1996
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Comments received
Councillor Clifft [04/07/18]: Request for committee determination
Parish Council [23/08/18]: - Objections - overdevelopment of site - contrary to SSC planning policy 2012-2028
Page 165 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Environmental Health [30/08/18]: No concerns based on the implementation of the recommends in the Environmental Assessment
Housing comments [14/08/18]: I've now had chance to review the revised proposals for the above application. Picking up on my previous comments:
Affordable housing - I can see the 50:50 tenure split as required by Policy H2 is being adhered to. Just to reiterate that the rented dwellings must be provided as social rent (i.e. not affordable rent) and this is explicit in the Section 106 agreement.
- The redesign of plots 158-163 is noted and welcomed.
- Having established the tenure/mix split of the affordable housing in more detail, I would like to see some minor tweaks to better reflect the need identified in the SHMA. By my calculations, the mix breakdown currently proposed is as follows:
Shared ownership Social rent Total 1 bed 0 9 9 2 bed 22 27 49 3 bed 24 10 34 Total 46 46 92
The number of 3 beds for rent is slightly low. I would therefore be looking for 3 x 3 beds for shared ownership to be swapped to social rent, and then in order to balance the numbers, swap 3 x 2 beds for social rent to shared ownership. This does not change any of the overall numbers, but would produce the following revised mix:
Shared ownership Social rent Total 1 bed 0 9 9 2 bed 25 24 49 3 bed 21 13 34 Total 46 46 92
Space Standards - The provision of revised house types in order to now meet the national space standards is noted.
Housing Mix - The provision of 10% bungalows across the site, in both the market and affordable housing, is noted and welcomed.
- I am pleased to see some amendments to the market housing mix, however the revised proposals are unfortunately still not considered compliant with Policy H1.
I note the applicant's comments regarding the overall proportion of 2 and 3 bedroom homes being provided as part of the market housing mix, however Policy H1 is very
Page 166 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 clear in the requirement for new housing development to reflect the latest Housing Market Assessment. Policy H1 was put in place in order to address the local housing market imbalance i.e. the oversupply of larger properties and the distinct lack of smaller homes. The provision in this case then of 45% 4+ bedroom properties, against the SHMA need of just 29%, not only fails to reflect the SHMA evidence, but clearly will not make any contribution to improving (and would likely exacerbate) the housing market imbalance.
Equally, an increased number of 2 bedroom homes would better reflect the SHMA findings, and also contribute to requirements in the revised NPPF for new housing to meet the needs of different groups of the community, including families and older people. Smaller properties assist young families in joining the housing ladder for the first time, as well as providing options for older households to downsize. These are both key issues for South Staffordshire with widespread affordability difficulties and the rapidly ageing population. It also frees up and allows better flow through existing stock of larger properties.
With all of this in mind, we are of the view that the market housing mix will need to be amended further. In my previous comments, I requested the following mix: 40% 2 bed, 25% 3 bed and 35% 4+ bed. With a view to reaching agreement on this, I propose the following mix as a compromise position: 35% 2 bed, 25% 3 bed and 40% 4+ bed. Hopefully this will represent a mix which is acceptable to Bovis Homes and also the Council, including officers, but also Members who are placing increasing importance on achieving suitable housing mixes on major sites for their residents
Conservation Officer [28/08/18]: Amendments have been made to the scheme following previous conservation officer comments. Previous comments stated;
"With regard to the materials, three bricks are proposed across the development;
Ibstock Audley Red Mixture - Acceptable Ibstock Calderdale Claret - Not acceptable Ibstock Mercia Antique - Not acceptable"
The brick types have been amended following these comments; however one of the brick types that were not considered acceptable has been retained, and the one deemed acceptable omitted. The brick types will need to be amended to remove the Ibstock Mercia Antique and replace this with the Ibstock Audley Red Mixture.
The Ibstock Alderley Burgandy and Ibstock Betley Cottage Blend are acceptable. Whilst it would be preferred to see the addition of chimneys to some plots (especially at key visual locations), subject to the amendment to the brick types then there are no further conservation objections to the scheme.
Conditions:
Not applicable
Page 167 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Arboricultural Officer [05/09/18]: No concerns over the amended proposal.
County Council Ecologist [29/08/18]: That the details submitted are satisfactory for condition 5 [landscaping]
School Organisation Team [10/07/18]: In response to the above planning application the School Organisation team has the following comments
The original outline is 16.00487.OUT received on 04.07.2016 for approximately 210 Dwellings. The S106 agreement was sealed on 19 June 2017 and the outline was granted on 23rd June 2017. The S106 agreement was for £991,049 in total £485,364 for primary, £415,550 for secondary and £90,135, based on 168 open market dwellings and 42 RSL
This development falls within the catchments of St. Johns Primary Academy, Essington and Cheslyn Hay Sport and Community High.
The (18.00450.REM) development is scheduled to provide 230 dwellings, including 46 RSL dwellings. Within the RSL dwellings there are 18 x 1 or 2 bed flats (RSL dwellings are discounted from secondary calculation only) and (1 or 2 bed flats are excluded from both primary and secondary calculations).
A development of this size could add 45 Primary School, 28 High School and 6 sixth Form aged pupils.
The new education contribution for the REM application would be
44 Primary School places (45 x £11,031 £496,395), 28 High School places (32 x £16,622 £465,416) and 6 Sixth Form places (6 x £18,027 £108,162). This gives a total Request of £1,069,973 for 230 dwellings.
The above comments are based on a development providing 230 dwellings. If the number of houses or total dwellings changes, or if a number of RSL properties are included, a revised contribution will be necessary.
The above contribution is based on the 2008 to 09 cost multipliers which are subject to change.
County Highways [24/07/18]: There are no objections on Highway grounds to the proposed development subject to the following conditions being included on any approval
Page 168 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
1. The garages indicated on the approved plan shall be retained for the parking of motor vehicles and cycles. They shall at no time be converted to living accommodation without the prior express permission of the Local Planning Authority.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drives, parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
Reasons.
1 and 2. In the interest of highway safety.
To comply with the principles set out in the National Planning policy Framework.
Informative for Decision Notice. This consent will require approval under Section 7 of the Staffordshire Act 1983 and will require a Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Please contact Staffordshire County Council to ensure that approvals and agreements are secured before commencement of works.
County Council Flood Risk Team [30/08/18]: Thank you for consulting us on the amended plans for the application above. From the details provided it appears that the proposed drainage will comply with the required discharge rates, and there is scope to provide additional water quality treatment. The proposed layout is therefore acceptable. Please note that the detailed drainage design and supporting information and calculations are required by a condition on the outline planning permission.
Severn Trent Water [30/08/18]: As there is no proposal to discharge surface water to the public sewerage system, and is to discharge to a ditch course, we would have no comments to make and have no objection to the proposals. I would advise the surface water proposals are discussed with the LLFA/EA.
Coal Authority [26/07/18]: Thank you for your consultation letter of 13 July 2018 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the additional information submitted in support of the above planning application.
The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. As a statutory consultee, The Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.
The Coal Authority Response Material Consideration
Conditions 10 and 11 of the outline planning permission 16/00487/OUT seek to address coal mining legacy issues.
Page 169 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
You will recall in my letter to the LPA dated 2 November 2017 that The Coal Authority had no objections to the discharge of Condition 10 but confirmed our expectation that any subsequent future development layout should be designed accordingly, so that buildings would not straddle the high wall. Condition 11 of the permission seeks to address this issue.
Notwithstanding the above, without any subsequent evidence being submitted to demonstrate that such investigations had been undertaken and without a layout plan identifying the location of the high wall, The Coal Authority confirmed that the layout was not justified and objected to the reserved matters submission. This was confirmed in a letter to the LPA dated 9 July 2018.
The Coal Authority is therefore pleased to note the submitted Supplementary Geo- Environmental Assessment (April 2018, prepared by Wardell Armstrong), the content of which is able confirm the undertaking of investigations that have located the high wall, and which in part identify it illustratively. Whilst the Report goes on to confirm that where plots are implicated upon bespoke foundations will be required, the information submitted meets the requirements of Condition 11, and it will be for the Building Regulations process to ensure the structural integrity of each of the plots affected.
Natural England [09/08/18]: Cannock Chase SAC - No objection Natural England notes that your authority, as competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, has undertaken an Appropriate Assessment of the proposal, in accordance with Regulation 63 of the Regulations. Natural England is a statutory consultee on the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Your appropriate assessment concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the Cannock Chase SAC. Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for all identified adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the proposal, Natural England advises that we concur with the assessment conclusions, providing that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured in any permission given.
Badger Conservation Group [expired 30/08/18] No comments received
County Planning [19/06/18]: The County Council as the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority has no comments on this application as the site is: o Not within or near to any permitted waste management facility; and o Exempt from the requirements of Policy 3 - Mineral Safeguarding in the Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire 2015 - 2030. To assist you in determining when to consult the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority, please note the guidance at paragraph 5.55 of the Staffordshire and Stoke- on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan 2010 - 2026 and the attached interim guidance on mineral safeguarding sent to you in May 2017.
Page 170 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Highways England [10/07/18]: Thank you for forwarding me details of the above referenced planning application. Highways England is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the strategic road network in England. The network includes all major motorways and trunk roads. The strategic road network in the vicinity of the application site is junction 10a, connecting the M6 and the M54, which is located to the east of the site.
Highways England have reviewed documents relating to the reserved matters application pertinent to outline application 16.00487.OUT. The outline application included a condition relating to the noise impact from the adjacent motorway.
5. Acoustic testing and provision of an effective mitigation strategy to bring noise impact from the adjacent motorway in compliance with statutory thresholds is required to be approved by the local planning authority in conjunction with Highways England in accordance with the requirements of DfT Circular 02.2013 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development.
The Developer has commissioned a noise survey carried out by noise.co.uk, dated 22nd May 2018 which satisfies the requirements as laid out in DfT circular 02.2013, and it is therefore concluded that Highways England offer no comment on the reserved matters application, and are content for Condition 5, as noted above, to be discharged.
Crime Prevention Design Officer [10/08/18]: Thank you for the above consultation document, I ask that South Staffs District Council consider my comments, which are site specific, and made in accordance with;
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998: places a duty on each local authority: to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area to include anti-social behaviour, substance misuse and behaviour which adversely affects the environment.
Paragraph 91(b).
This paragraph looks towards healthy and safe communities. The paragraph includes:-
Planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which are safe and accessible, so that crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion
Paragraph 127(f) includes; create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where
Page 171 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
Paragraph 95 (a&b) includes; Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by: a) Anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and natural hazards, especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate. Policies for relevant areas (such as town centre and regeneration frameworks), and the layout and design of developments, should be informed by the most up-to-date information available from the police and other agencies about the nature of potential threats and their implications. This includes appropriate and proportionate steps that can be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security; and b) Recognising and supporting development required for operational defence and security purposes, and ensuring that operational sites are not affected adversely by the impact of other development proposed in the area.
South Staffordshire District Council LDF Core Policy: Core Policy 13, Community Safety states; The design of buildings and spaces can make a significant contribution towards reducing the scope for crime, and create more pleasant and reassuring environments in which to live, work and play. The opportunities for crime to occur can be minimised by designing and planning out crime in new development. The Council supports the national guidance 'Secured by Design' and will continue to work with Staffordshire Police architectural liaison officer in relation to the design and layout of development proposals.
Policy CS1: Designing Out Crime: In accordance with Core Policy 13, the design of development must include, means of reducing the opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour, and must also seek to reduce the potential for fear of crime. This will include support for:
Social facilities to be provided in locations which can be adequately controlled and supervised;
Development to be designed to increase natural surveillance of public and private spaces, with continuous public surveillance as an alternative;
Liaison with the Police to design out crime and fear of crime in specific schemes which also meet other design objectives in Policy EQ11.
Development proposals should be consistent with other local planning policies.
Core Policy 13 sets out the strategic policy for community safety that supports the aims and objectives of the Sustainable Community Strategy and the Community Safety Partnership Plan. The above Policy provides further detail on the design of
Page 172 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 development and Secured by Design, and in turn supports Policy EQ11 covering wider design considerations.
The Human Rights Act Article & Protocol 1, Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention and PINS 953.
In order to prevent crime and reduce the fear of crime I recommend that this development attains Police Secured by Design (SBD) accreditation. There is no charge for my advice or for the Secured by Design award, and once awarded the Police SBD logo can be used on advertising material.
Research shows that adopting SBD can reduce burglary by 50%, car crime and criminal damage by 25%, therefore the carbon costs of replacing door-sets and windows on SBD developments as a result of criminal activity is more than 50% less than on non SBD developments, the cost of installing SBD approved products equals 0.2% of the total build cost.
One of the most revealing elements of research into SBD is how much safer residents feel if they occupy a dwelling on an accredited development, even if they are not aware of the award status. There are few other initiatives which can deliver a measurable reduction in fear like this.
SBD supports one of the Government's key planning objectives - the creation of safe, secure, quality places where people wish to live and work. SBD applies quality standards to a range of security measures and should be seen as a positive marketing opportunity.
SBD can contribute towards BREEAM assessments.
Further to my original response, CA-100-18 submitted 22/06/18, having considered the amended plans I make the following further observations;
Dwelling Boundaries Plots 51-52, 62-63 & 155-156 all have gates at the bottom of a long alleyway, an 1800mm high gate, with anti-lift hinges and a lock, should be erected as close to the front elevation as possible; this removes a narrow, dark, alley between dwellings in which an offender can hide and helps prevent unauthorized persons gaining access to the rear of properties where most burglaries take place.
Timber fencing panels should be secured to the fence posts to prevent offenders lifting them to gain access to adjacent gardens.
Car Parking The car parking bays adjacent plot 110 are vulnerable to crime: I recommend they should be well lit, open to natural surveillance or from regularly habitable rooms and have obvious pedestrian routes. Planting adjacent to car parking bays should have thorn content with a growth height of 0.5 metres.
Page 173 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Further information on Secured by Design and accredited security products can be found at www.securedbydesign.com and www.soldsecure.com
Staffordshire Fire and Rescue [19/06/18]: I refer to the planning application dated 19th June 2018 and the proposed development at the above address. VEHICLE ACCESS Appropriate supplies of water for fire fighting and vehicle access should be provided at the site, as indicated in Approved Document B Volume 1 requirement B5, section 11. I would remind you that the roads and drives upon which appliances would have to travel in order to proceed to within 45 metres of any point within the property, should be capable of withstanding the weight of a Staffordshire firefighting appliance (G.V.W. of 17800 Kg). AUTOMATIC WATER SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS (SPRINKLERS) I wish to draw to your attention Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service's stance regarding sprinklers. DOMESTIC SPRINKLERS In the interest of preventing deaths and injuries from fires within domestic dwellings Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service strongly recommend the provision of a sprinkler system to a relevant standard. Early consultation with the Fire Service when designing buildings which incorporate sprinklers may have a significant impact on reducing fire deaths and injuries in domestic premises and financial implications for all stakeholders. Further information can be found at www.bafsa.org.uk - the website of the British Automatic Fire Sprinklers Association Ltd.
Network Rail [19/06/18]: Network Rail has reviewed the documentation submitted by the applicant and this proposal will not impact the railway infrastructure.
Open Spaces Society [expired 30/08/18]: No comments received
Environment Agency [19/06/18]: No need for consultation there are no constraints on site for them to comment on.
Ramblers Association [09/07/18]: I write to inform you that there are three Public Rights of Way, all footpaths numbers 7, 8 and 9 of Essington Parish that cross the development site. These footpaths should be respected by the developer and incorporated into the development in a sympathetic way with appropriate landscaping to ensure they remain attractive for the public to use.
Neighbours [June to August 2018]: 341 residents have objected to the proposal and 26 letters have been received in support. The concerns received revolve around:
- Contrary to Local Plan/Essington Housing Development Policy/ Quota already met/Overdevelopment/loss of green belt land
Page 174 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
- the application is not in line with the outline approval and section 106/increase in house numbers/change in the amount of open space, insertion of an apartment block. - Public consultation for a different proposal - Impact on local infrastructure - roads/schools/doctors/drainage etc. - Increase in traffic and pollution/ noise pollution from new houses and construction works - Density of the proposal - Loss of natural environment / impact on local wildlife - Impact on Rights of Way - Landscaping near the south eastern boundary as part of the Bellway Development - Devaluation of house prices - Comments over the Geo-Environmental Assessment - position of high wall/contaminated land. - Lack of public consultation
The letters in support comment around: - Lack of housing in local area - New development would re invigorate Essington
Two site notices was posted on the 19th of June [one on the site entrance gate and one on a lamppost near Essington Community Centre] and expired on the 10th of July 2018.
4.1.25 An advert was published on the 25th of June and expired on the 17th of July 2018.
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application has been referred to planning committee due to a call in by Councillor Clifft.
5.2 Key Issues - Principle of development - Layout, appearance and scale - Landscaping - Other Matters - Drainage - Section 106 Agreement - Coal Mining Issues/Land Contamination - Cannock Chase SAC - Public consultation - Representations
5.3 Principle of the development
Page 175 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.3.1 The principle of redeveloping the site to provide housing and access arrangements has already been established through the outline planning permission 16/00487/OUT. This reserved matters application provides further details such as layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.
5.3.2 It is important to note that the Appraisal layout [110 Rev C] provided in the outline application was for indicative purposes only and Condition 4 on the outline planning permission confirmed this:
'This permission does not grant or imply consent to the details shown on the approved plan [110 Rev C] except for access, (because the details which were shown on the plan were for illustrative purposes only)'.
5.3.3 Chapter 11 of the NPPF requires Local Authority's to make an effective use of land and paragraph 223 states:
'Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site'
5.4 Layout, appearance and scale
5.4.1 Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy requires that in terms of scale, volume, massing and materials, developments should contribute positively to the street scene and surrounding buildings, whilst respecting the scale of spaces and buildings in the local area. South Staffordshire Design Guide provides that Developments should sit easily within their surrounding environment, taking account of the surrounding character, whether rural or urban, and building the proposal's layout around existing features (such as waterside locations, trees, landmarks, views or historic elements).
5.4.2 In total 230 dwellings will be delivered on the site in a combination of an apartment block, bungalows, terrace, semi and detached properties ranging from 2 to 5 beds. The majority of the properties will be two storeys in height and some will be 2.5 storeys with dormers in the roofspace. The apartment block will be three storeys in height and will be placed at the front of the development in the north- eastern quarter. Although neighbours have commented on the inclusion of an apartment block, it is not unusual for large housing developments to incorporate some form of apartments and the scale of the development is three storeys which would not be out of context with the surrounding area.
5.4.3 The primary access road serving the site would come off Hobnock Road. The general layout arrangements of the properties are in blocks/cul-de sacs providing the legibility typically associated with modern housing estates. The proposed design incorporates good pedestrian connectivity and routes and the proposal does not alter the existing public rights of way that exist within the site. Each dwelling will
Page 176 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 have appropriate amount of off road parking in accordance with the Councils parking standards and County Highways have raised no concerns over the proposed internal layout.
5.4.4 The materials for the development have been amended in accordance with the Conservation Officers comments. Three types of brickwork would be used being 'Ibstock Audley Red Mixture', Ibstock Alderley Burgundy' and 'Ibstock Betley Cottage Blend' with a handful of the properties being rendered. A combination of Russell Lothian 'Slate Grey' and 'Cottage Red' roof tile would be used.
5.4.5 The appearance of the properties is considered acceptable and provides sufficient contrast to avoid a bland or insipid appearance. The variety to the design to the properties will add to local character and distinctiveness
5.4.6 The scale of the properties is of typical size for residential developments and the appearance is considered acceptable and provides sufficient contrast to avoid a bland or insipid appearance. The overall development will provide a good quality design that would not detrimentally harm the visual amenity of the streetscene; complying with EQ11.
5.4.7 Policy H1 aims to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and to create a more sustainable and balanced housing market by encouraging the provision of more 2 and 3 bed homes in all housing market areas. An appropriate mix of market and affordable housing should be delivered that is informed by the Housing Market Assessment (HMA).
5.4.8 Whilst the development will provide both market and affordable 2 and 3 bedroom properties, the market housing mix is not considered fully reflective of Policy H1 and the need identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for this sub-area, with a small undersupply of 2 bedroom homes, and an oversupply of 4+ bedroom homes. It is important to note however that no specific mix was conditioned at the outline stage and therefore the scope to prescribe a detailed mix is limited at reserved matters stage.
5.4.9 The development is considered compliant with the specific Policy H1 requirement for housing mix to particularly contribute to meeting the needs of the district's ageing population, with 10% of the properties to be bungalows.
5.4.10 In compliance with H2 [Affordable Housing] and the section 106 agreement, 40% of the housing provision is to be affordable housing with a 50% spilt between shared ownership and social rent.
5.4.11 The proposal would boost South Staffordshire's existing housing supply, contribute to the existing shortfall and assist with accommodating the districts ageing population in accordance paragraph 61 of the NPPF and policy H1 of our adopted Core Strategy.
Page 177 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.4.12 New development should avoid harming the amenity of neighbouring properties and should not have any adverse impacts with the loss of privacy, loss of light or overlooking to neighbouring properties, as set out in Policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy.
5.4.13 Policy EQ11 sets out the Council's Space about Dwellings standards in Appendix 6. For privacy and outlook, the guidance states that two storey dwellings should be a minimum distance of 21m between facing habitable room windows over private space and 15m over public space; and it should be 13m between front or rear habitable room windows to a flank side wall over private space.
5.4.14 The proposals would lie adjacent to existing housing currently set in relatively tranquil gardens [western boundary]. The additional traffic and general domestic activities created by the scheme would have some impact on adjoining residents due to noise, disturbance and invasion of garden privacy. However, there would be sufficient space about the dwellings to absorb this intrusion. There is no infringement with the Councils Space about Dwellings standards [habitable windows/flank walls distances] and in addition to this, the majority of the development along the boundary is for bungalow provision.
5.4.15 All of the proposed dwellings meet the national described space standards and comply with the Councils separation distances. The majority of the properties meet the minimum garden sizes; however there are infringements in certain instances. However none of these infringements are considered material or would have an adverse impact on the amenity of any future occupiers, as all of the gardens provide an adequate garden area for the size of the dwelling. I therefore find no conflict with Policy EQ9 and Appendix 6 of the Core Strategy.
5.5 Landscaping
5.5.1 Policy EQ12 emphasises that the landscaping of new developments should be an integral part of the overall design. Policy EQ1 provides that developments should not cause significant harm to habitats of nature conservation, including woodlands and hedgerows, together with species that are protected or under threat. Support will be given to proposals which enhance and increase the number of sites and habitats of nature conservation value, and to meeting the objectives of the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan.
5.5.2 Public space will be provided throughout the development parcel and integrated along pedestrian and minor streets, area of approx. 2.3 hectares [outline indicative plan showed approx. 2.7hectares]. There is a buffer between the proposed houses and Hobnock Road of some 60m and a buffer of some 90m to the motorway. Highways England has confirmed that they satisfied with the submitted noise report and no further information is necessary.
Page 178 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.5.3 Detailed landscaping proposals have been provided which propose the planting of habitats which will be of value to wildlife such as native seed/fruit bearing species, nectar rich species, provision of nesting and roosting habitats and foraging and nesting areas. Wildlife habitat planting has been included within the eastern greenspace and the proposed SuDs basin is a wildlife friendly design.
5.5.4 No concerns have been raised by the Councils Ecology Officer and some minor alterations have been suggested by the Arboricultural Officer, which have been incorporated by the developer.
5.5.5 The proposal is compliant with policies EQ12 and EQ4.
5.6 Other Matters
Drainage
5.6.1 Further drainage details have been submitted with the reserved matters application and reviewed by the County Councils Flood Risk Team and Severn Trent Water. No concerns have been raised over the drainage layout as the proposal will comply with the required discharge rates and provide additional water quality treatment. Further details are required over the SuDS design for water quality and maintenance arrangement which are covered by condition.
Section 106 Agreement
5.6.1 Under the outline application the following obligations need to be delivered:
- 40% of the development delivering affordable housing in accordance with Policy H2. - An education contribution based on 126 Market Dwellings of £674,732 - Allotments - 300sqm convenience store - School car park [no less than 30 spaces] - £10,000 towards the provision of enhanced play facilities - Open space which incorporates 'knoll land'
5.6.2 The application delivers the full 40% affordable housing contribution and a deed of variation is required to the S106 agreement to accommodate the increase to the education contribution [from £991,041 to £1,069,973] as the initial agreement was based on 210 houses with 126 being market dwellings.
5.6.3 Concerns have been expressed by interested parties as to whether the development fulfils and complies with the section 106 agreement and outline permission. Most notably that there is a reduction in the amount of open space proposed and this differs from the outline plan and plan attached to the section 106 agreement and there is a covenant within the section 106 which prevents this land from being built on.
Page 179 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.6.4 As previously discussed the outline application was for all matters reserved except for access and the layout plan provided at the time was for indicative purposes only. Condition 4 of the outline decision notice stated that 'This permission does not grant or imply consent to the details shown on the approved plan [110 Rev C] except for access, (because the details which were shown on the plan were for illustrative purposes only)'. The section 106 agreement acknowledged this and open space land is defined as;
'means the land shown indicatively as edged green on the open space plan…and for the avoidance of doubt include the area known as the village knoll'
5.6.5 Furthermore, with landscape and layout reserved, a formula was included within the Section 106 to calculate the open space maintenance contribution based on the area of open space land provided under reserved matters and transferred to the Parish Council or the Council. As such, the open space contribution is defined as;
'a sum payable by the owner to the Council for the ongoing maintenance of the open space land or any part thereof which shall be calculated on the basis of £65,190 hectares'
5.6.6 A covenant is included within the agreement for the open space land to be used for no other purpose than as public open space. The purpose of the covenant is to control the future use of the open space land that is provided and transferred to the Parish Council or the Council. The covenant does not prevent the area and layout of the open space land from being altered at reserved matters. The amount of open space proposed is adequate for the size of the development (some 2.3 hectares) and would not be a sufficient reason to refuse the application, as there was no set figure agreed within the outline planning permission. The allotments and the area of open space immediately surrounding [referred to as the knoll in the Section 106 agreement] will be first offered to the Parish Council in accordance with the Section 106 agreement.
5.6.7 Applications for the retail store and school car park will come forward separately and are bound by obligations on the owner in the Section 106. Trigger points have been included within the agreement to ensure that the community benefits will be delivered on the site.
5.6.8 It is therefore considered that the reserved matters application is within the ambit of the outline planning permission and the objectives and legal obligations contained within the Section 106 Agreement will/are being delivered.
5.6.9 Subject to the completion of a deed of variation for the education contribution/updated open space plan there are no other legal matters pursuant to this application.
Coal Mining Issues/Land Contamination
Page 180 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.6.10 Paragraph 178 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that: a) a site is suitable for its proposed use taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land stability and contamination. This includes risks arising from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, and ay proposals for mitigation including land remediation (as well as potential impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation); b) after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and c) adequate site investigations information, prepared by a competent person, is available to inform these assessments. Paragraph 179 confirms that when a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.
5.6.11 The applicant has submitted information to discharge conditions 10 and 11 of the outline planning permission 16/00487/OUT, which included the undertaking of intrusive site investigations, layout plan of the high wall and a scheme of remedial works for the shallow coal workings. The Coal Authority have confirmed that the submitted Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment (April 2018, prepared by Wardell Armstrong) is acceptable to discharge the planning conditions.
5.6.12 In relation to comments over land contamination/soil samples/gas control measures, the Councils Environmental Health Team has no concerns based on the implementation of the recommends in the Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment. A condition shall be attached which ensures that the application is carried out in accordance with the recommendations.
Impact on the Cannock Chase SAC
5.6.13 The application site lies outside of the 8km Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase SAC where monetary contributions are required. As a result no developer contribution is required for the proposed development and significant effects upon the Cannock Chase SAC can be screened out. Natural England agrees with this position.
Public Consultation
5.6.14 The Council has written to all neighbours who directly adjoin or live opposite the site and two site notices have been put up [one on the site entrance gate and one on a lamppost near Essington Community Centre]. An advert has also been posted in the Express and Star.
5.6.15 Prior to submission of the reserved matters application the applicant held a public exhibition at Essington Community Centre on Thursday 3 May, between 2 pm.
Page 181 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 and 7 pm and notified residents by leaflets and posters. This event was also publicised on the Councils social media.
5.6.16 Concerning comments regarding public consultation on the outline application, the Council again wrote to all neighbours who directly adjoin or live opposite the site [total of 57] and six site notices were put up [one on the site entrance gate and five along the neighbouring streets]. An advert was also posted in the Express and Star.
5.6.17 The Council has carried out public consultation on both applications in accordance with the Councils Statement of Community Involvement.
Representations
5.6.18 The majority of the comments raised by interested parties have been addressed in the main body of the report. A lot of the comments relate to the principle of the development/sustainability of the site. However the principle of the development has already been assessed and approved under application 16/00487/OUT. The outline application was for all matters reserved except for access and therefore there was no limit set on the amount of houses. As a guideline was given of approximately 210 houses, an additional 20 houses is not considered to be a significant increase and no concerns have been expressed by any statutory bodies. The capacity at St John's Primary School has been assessed by the County Councils School Organisation Team and no objection to the application has been raised, subject to a monetary mitigation payment. The comments received over the devaluation of property prices and a loss of view are not material planning considerations. Concerning noise and air pollution, housing developments are considered to be a 'neighbour friendly' use and as such it is not considered that the proposal would cause any detrimental harm on local amenity.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The principle of development, including access, has been established as part of the outline consent to bring the site forward for housing. Chapter 11 of the NPPF requires Councils to make an effective use of land and the layout of the scheme adequately accommodates 230 dwellings. The proposal would boost South Staffordshire's existing housing supply, contribute to the existing shortfall and assist with accommodating the Districts ageing population in accordance paragraph 61 of the NPPF and policy H1 of our adopted Core Strategy. Whilst the market housing mix specifically does not fully reflect local need with regard to 2 and 4 bedroom homes, a specific mix was not established at outline stage and therefore there is limited scope at this stage to require amendments from the applicant. A sufficient amount of open space has been provided on the site, with appropriate landscaping, that would also encourage ecological benefits. Sustainable drainage techniques would be utilised and there would be no demonstrable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring dwellings or upon the amenity of future occupiers. Planning obligations have already
Page 182 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 been secured via a Section 106 Agreement as part of the outline consent; however a variation is required for the education contribution/updated open space plan.
6.2 Subject to a deed of variation to the Section 106 being completed the application is in accordance with polices EQ1, EQ4, EQ9, EQ11, EQ12, EQ13, H1, H2, H4, EV11, and EV12 of the adopted Core Strategy and I recommend the application for approval.
7. RECOMMENDATION - Delegate APPROVAL to the Chief Planning Officer to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this reserved matters relates must be begun no later than the expiration of 2 years from the date on which this decision notice is granted.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: ESSI-02-002A, ESSI 02-002B, ESSI-02-008, Type 1-2BF-E, Type 1- 2BF-P, Type 07-E, Type 07-P, Type 07P-E, Type 07P-P, Type 08-E, Type 07P-P, Type 08-E, Type 08-P, Type 12-E, Type 12-P, Type 13 -E, Type 13-P, Type 13P- E, Type 13P-P, Type 14-E, Type 14-P, Type 16-E, Type 16-P, Type 18-E, Type 18-P, Type B201 - E, Type B201 - P, Type SB201-E, Type SB201 -P, Type 04-E, Type 04-P, Type 24-E, Type 25-E, Type 25-P, ESSI-02-003A, ESSI-02-005A, ESSI-02-009A
3. The landscape scheme shown on the approved plan(s) LS01_D, LS02_D, LS03_D, LS04_D, LS05_D, LS06_D shall be implemented concurrently with the development and completed within 12 months of the completion of the development. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the scheme has been completed. The planting, hard landscaping (and any other introduced features shown on the approved plan(s) shall be retained and maintained for a minimum period of 10 years by the property owner from the notified completion date of the scheme. Any plant failures that occur during the first 5 years of the notified completion date of the scheme shall be replaced with the same species within the next available planting season (after failure).
4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommends of the Supplementary Geo-Environmental Assessment.
5. No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The scheme must be based on the design parameters and proposed strategy set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (Job No. MID4259 Report No. R.001, 12/04/2016), Drainage Strategy (Drawing No. MID4259-004 Rev B, Oct 2016)
Page 183 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
and information subsequently submitted to the LPA. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme to be submitted shall demonstrate:
- Surface water drainage system(s) designed in accordance with the Non- statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (DEFRA, March 2015). - No discharge should be permitted to the south of the site unless it can be demonstrated that the proposed route of discharge to the south has sufficient capacity and connectivity to convey the flows without increasing the flood risk to others. - SuDS management train to provide adequate water quality treatment in accordance with the Simple Index Approach (CIRIA SuDS Manual). - Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm to 15.8l/s at the north outfall, and 5.0l/s to the south outfall (if applicable). - Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods. - Plans illustrating flooded areas and flow paths in the event of exceedance of the drainage system. - Potential for surface water flooding on Hobnock Road at the site entrance to be further investigated. Potential improvements and emergency access should be investigated and provided where necessary. - Provision of an acceptable management and maintenance plan for surface water drainage to ensure continued performance of the system for the lifetime of the development. This should include a schedule of required maintenance activities and frequencies, and contact details for the organisation responsible for carrying out these duties. - Finished floor levels to be set at a minimum of 150mm above existing ground levels.
6. Before any development takes place a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied/brought into use until the approved scheme has been completed.
7. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved off- site management scheme - 02-019 approved on the 31st of August under discharge of condition application 16/00487/COND2
Page 184 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
8. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the following off-site highway works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; - Signalisation of Hobnock Road/Bursnips Road and associated works. - New Pedestrian crossing and traffic calming measures. - Revision of single yellow lines waiting order in Hobnock Road. The off-site highway works shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being first brought into use.
9. The garages indicated on the approved plan shall be retained for the parking of motor vehicles and cycles. They shall at no time be converted to living accommodation without the prior express permission of the Local Planning Authority.
10. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drives, parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
11. During construction works the following measures shall be complied with:
- All works, including demolition, site works and construction shall only take place between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.
- Deliveries to the site shall only take place between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday; 8.00am to 2.00pm Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimized, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy EQ9 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Page 185 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.
6. To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimize the risk of pollution, in accordance with policy EQ7 of the adopted Core Strategy.
7. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
8. In the interest of highway safety
9. In the interest of highway safety
10. In the interest of highway safety
11. In order to safeguard nearby residential occupiers from undue disturbance during development in accordance with Policy EQ9.
Informatives 1. County Highways This consent will require approval under Section 7 of the Staffordshire Act 1983 and will require a Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Please contact Staffordshire County Council to ensure that approvals and agreements are secured before commencement of works.
2. Public Rights of Way The attention of the developer should be drawn to the existence of the paths and to the requirement that any planning permission given does not construe the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path network. If either path does need diverting as part of these proposals the developer would need to apply to your council under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert the footpath to allow the development to commence. The County Council will need to be formally consulted on the proposal to divert this footpath(s). The applicants should be reminded that the granting of planning permission does not constitute authority for interference with the right of way or its closure or diversion. For further information the applicant should be advised to read section 7 of DEFRA's Rights of Way Circular (1/09). It is important that users of the path(s) are still able to exercise their public rights safely and that the path(s) is reinstated if any damage to the surface occurs as a result of the proposed development. We would ask that trees are not planted within 3 metres of the footpath unless the developer and any subsequent landowners are informed that the maintenance of the trees is their responsibility. Please note that Rights of Way Circular 1/09 (section 7.8) recommends that "In considering potential revisions to an existing right of way that are
Page 186 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
necessary to accommodate planned development, but which are acceptable to the public, any alternative alignment should avoid the use of estate roads for the purpose wherever possible and preference should be given to the use of made up estate paths through landscaped or open space areas away from vehicular traffic". The County Council has not received any application under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add or modify the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, which affects the land in question. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a right of way at common law, or by virtue of a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It may, therefore, be necessary to make further local enquiries and seek legal advice in respect of any physically evident route affecting the land, or the apparent exercise of a right of way by members of the public
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has approached decision making in a positive and creative way, seeking to approve sustainable development where possible, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2018.
Page 187 of 218
Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Land on the South East side of Hobnock Road, Essington
Page 188 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00472/OUT Mrs T Parker-Brown DUNSTON AND COPPENHALL Cllr Len Bates Cllr Isabel Ford
Land Adjacent The Old Vicarage Old Vicarage Lane Dunston South Staffordshire ST18 9AD
Erection of bungalow
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1. Site description
1.1.1. Narrow plot of land immediately southeast of The Old Vicarage, a substantial, relatively venerable building (though listed neither nationally nor locally), now subdivided into three sizeable two-storey dwellings, each with its own garden. The site is separated from 2 The Old Vicarage's garden by, variously, close-boarded and post-and-rail fences, two-to-three-metre-tall hedges and a line of six trees (a lime, an elm, a yew and three sycamores, varying in height between 10 and 20 metres).
1.1.2. To the south and east of the application site are fields. The boundary between them and the site comprises a hedge of height similar to that on the opposite boundary, along with barbed-wire fencing for a short distance close to Old Vicarage Lane.
1.1.3. The fields to the rear (east and south) drop away gradually towards the M6. The site itself is level, though set somewhat lower than The Old Vicarage itself, which stands above its own gardens.
1.1.4. Old Vicarage Lane is single-carriageway and paved until the gated driveway of 1 The Old Vicarage, after which it becomes a gravel track demarcating the headland of the fields to the rear of The Old Vicarage and culminating in those on the opposite side of the motorway. The site itself is accessed via a gated track, currently overgrown.
1.2. Planning history 1998: Dwellinghouse and garage, refused (617/98). 2002: Outline permission for dwellinghouse and double garage, refused on grounds that there was insufficient justification to depart from the normal policy of restricting development in the Open Countryside (02/01474/OUT). The subsequent appeal was dismissed.
Page 189 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1. Proposal 2.1.1. This application is for outline planning permission to develop the land with a bungalow, with layout and access set for approval here and all other matters reserved for later approval.
2.2. Additional plans 2.2.1. A drainage plan was submitted during the application process following neighbour comments.
2.3. Supporting documents 2.3.1. The agent has submitted a planning statement in support of the application, accompanied by four appeal decisions. I shall refer to these as necessary in section five of the report.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
Within the Open Countryside beyond the West Midlands Green Belt.
3.1. Adopted Core Strategy National Policy 1: The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy Policy OC1: Development in the Open Countryside beyond the West Midlands Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Appendix 6: Space about dwellings standards Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: Landscaping Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport Policy EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 5: Car parking standards
3.2. Adopted local guidance District Design Guide [DDG] Supplementary Planning Document [SPD] Green Belt and Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Document [SPD]
3.3. National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF 2018] 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 9. Promoting sustainable transport 12. Achieving well-designed places
Page 190 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
3.4. National Planning Practice Guidance [PPG] 'How should local authorities support sustainable rural communities?'(Reference 50-001-20160519)
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
No response from Councillors Bates and Ford or Dunston with Coppenhall Parish Council (consultation period expired 12 July 2018).
Local Plans provided detailed policy guidance (received 3 August 2018) to which I shall refer in section five of this report.
Senior Arboricultural Officer (received 2 July 2018):
I have no objection to the application. As access and layout are sought for approval we need to apply tree retention and protection conditions in accord with the tree report and locations of barriers shown on Drwg THL-0602 rev4.
Staffordshire Highways (received 6 July 2018): '[N]o objections subject to […] condition [ensuring that t]he development […] not be brought into use until the access, parking and turning areas have been provided[.]'
Severn Trent (received 16 August 2018): '[a]s the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system […] we have no objections to the proposals and do not require a drainage condition to be applied.'
The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) (received 24 July 2018):
The application site lies in a rural area outside Dunston and is located to the rear (South) of The Old Vicarage.
We consider the proposal to be clearly contrary to South Staffordshire's Statutory Adopted Planning Policies including:- "Core Policy 1 - The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire […]
The site is considered to lie outside Dunston - which is not identified as a Service Village.
From reading the Planning Statement which forms part of the application it is apparent that no special case is being made to over-ride statutory policy - other that the argument that in the claimed absence of a 5 year supply of housing land the development ought to be permitted under the provisions of the NPPF.
We have major concerns that the acceptance of this argument and the granting of consent would 'open the door' to similar proposals in rural areas throughout your District.
Page 191 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
We hope and anticipate that your Council will remain consistent in its refusal of proposals for sporadic residential development in the countryside in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as proven agricultural need.
Six neighbours (including two parish councillors, commenting individually) object (received between 5 and 10 July), variously citing: o impact on landscape character; o substandard access; o loss of privacy; o increased traffic and noise; o impracticable visibility splays due to land/hedge ownership, together with regular use of Old Vicarage Lane by heavy agricultural machinery; o difficult access for construction vehicles during works; o removal of trees; o loss of habitat and harm to wildlife; o lack of utilities; o no need for development given new dwellings in Penkridge; o previous refusals for similar development; o contrary to Policy OC1; o extension to and stable rear of 2 The Old Vicarage not shown on plans; o impact on views; and o location within a Site of Biological Importance.
4.1.8. Site notice posted (expired 13 July 2018).
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The Planning Committee must determine this application because it is contrary to Policy OC1 of the adopted Core Strategy, yet I am recommending approval.
5.2 Key issues
Principle of development Impact on landscape and natural environment Impact on residential amenity Impact on local character Parking and highway safety Flooding and drainage Remaining matters
5.3 Principle of development 5.3.1. Introduction 5.3.1.1. The property is within the Open Countryside beyond the West Midlands Green Belt. Policy OC1 sets out four categories of new building that 'will normally be permitted' in the Open Countryside, but the proposed development does not fall into any of them. It is therefore contrary to Policy OC1.
Page 192 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.3.1.2. However, the core principle of the NPPF is the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development', set out at paragraph 11 and echoed by Core Strategy National Policy 1. Paragraph 11 (d) states that 'where […] the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date', planning permission should be granted irrespective of those policies, unless there are NPPF policies clearly indicating refusal, or the 'adverse impacts' of granting permission 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits' when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
5.3.1.3. This is known as the 'tilted balance'. It constitutes a material change to planning policy since the previous refusals, which are not, therefore, germane to this determination.
5.3.1.4. In a footnote, the NPPF goes on to specify that policies should be considered outdated if 'the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites'. This is currently the case in South Staffordshire, so the tilted balance is engaged in this determination.
5.3.1.5. The CPRE's comment exhibits a misunderstanding, in that this is not an 'argument' I can choose (or refuse) to accept, but is a significant material consideration with considerable support from appeal decisions and court judgements, which I must have regard to. The 'door' is already 'open', so to speak.
5.3.1.6. The proposed development does not fall within an area specifically protected by the NPPF ( i.e. those protected in NPPF footnote 6). However, the NPPF does contain relevant policy statements concerning rural housing and sustainable transport that must be weighed in the balance in considering whether the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. It is also important to note that the NPPF’s clear aim is to significantly boost housing supply, through providing an adequate supply of land to meet housing requirements. Therefore, applications for housing development receive support from this NPPF provision, as the Council currently cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply.
5.3.2. Rural housing 5.3.2.1. With regard to the former, paragraphs 78 and 79 encourage development 'where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities' and 'support local services' and indicate that 'decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside.' The PPG expands upon these paragraphs; insofar as it is relevant to this determination, it emphasises that the NPPF should not be taken as directing the refusal of all new dwellings outside established villages.
5.3.2.2. The Appeal Court judgement Braintree DC v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government 14 March 2018 provides further clarification. In the judgement, Lindblom LJ confirms and elucidates the PPG, distinguishing between 'geographical' and 'functional' isolation – with only the former being relevant for considering whether or not a dwelling is ‘isolated’ in terms of the previous NPPF paragraph 55 (now paragraph 79). He goes on to observe that dwellings outside
Page 193 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 established settlements can constitute the sustainable development NPPF paragraph 11 encourages by contributing to the use of services within those settlements, perhaps even more so than new dwellings within settlements where no such services exist. Either way, these paragraphs should not be read as containing a 'presumption', such as that at paragraph 11, but rather a general principle or approach.
5.3.2.3. As such, a new dwelling's 'isolation' is a matter of fact and degree. In this case, the dwelling will not be isolated geographically, since it will form part of an existing small cluster of dwellings, which the referenced court judgement indicates can legitimately be considered a ‘settlement’ for the purposes of the NPPF.
5.3.2.4. That cluster is around three kilometres from the centre of Penkridge, a Main Service Village replete with the services and is less than a mile to the nearest primary school in Dunston. It is therefore likely that this development will contribute in a small way to the use of services in these locations.
5.3.3. Sustainable transport 5.3.3.1. Paragraphs 92 and 102-104 set out the considerations for sustainable transport. Put simply, these paragraphs support mixed-use development, active transport methods and multiple options for transport.
5.3.3.2. As the planning statement notes, there is a half-hourly bus service to and from both Penkridge to the south (about 10 minutes away) and Stafford (about 20 minutes away). From there, regular trains to Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Liverpool and Manchester are available, all within two hours' door-to-door travel time. While neither settlement Penkridge nor Stafford is within what is, for the purposes of this determination, considered walking distance, Penkridge railway station is 10 minutes' cycling from the application site.
5.3.3.3. As such, I find that the site's location is sustainable for this small level of growth in terms of the existing transport infrastructure. Even if the potential occupants do choose to use a car, a single small dwelling will add relatively few new vehicle movements.
5.3.4. Conclusion 5.3.4.1. Based on the considerations in the preceding paragraphs, I judge that the proposal is concordant with the NPPF in terms of its provisions relating to housing supply, sustainable transport and rural housing. I must therefore consider its remaining merits and/or demerits in terms of local policy.
5.4. Impact on landscape and natural environment 5.4.1. Policy EQ4 states that: the design and location of new development should take account of the characteristics and sensitivity of the landscape and its surroundings, and not have a detrimental effect on the immediate environment and on any important medium and long distance views.
Page 194 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.4.2. It goes on to direct that—
[t]rees, veteran trees, woodland, ancient woodland and hedgerows should be protected from damage and retained unless it can be demonstrated that removal is necessary and appropriate mitigation can be achieved.
5.4.3. Policy EQ12 requires that landscaping 'must be an integral part of the overall design, which complements and enhances the development and the wider area[.]'
5.4.4.The site is also within a kilometre of a locally designated Site of Biological Importance (SBI). Policy EQ1 states that—
[p]ermission will be granted for development (alone or in combination) which would not cause significant harm to sites and/or habitats of nature conservation[.] Support will be given to proposals which enhance and increase the number of sites and habitats of nature conservation value, and to meeting the objectives of the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan[.]
5.4.5. I am sympathetic to the neighbours' comments about wildlife and the loss of trees that has already taken place. However, those trees were not directly protected, so I am unable to attach any weight to their removal. If anything, this proposal represents an opportunity to safeguard the remaining vegetation on site, provide new habitats for wildlife and enhance biodiversity, both of which will be addressed in the reserved matters application for approval of landscaping, scale and appearance.
5.4.6. In the meantime, I recommend conditions ensuring that the remaining trees and vegetation on site are retained per the submitted plans and protected during construction works. Furthermore, due to the SBI's proximity, a habitat survey should be conducted and the tree survey updated for submission with the reserved matters application, and I recommend a condition to that effect. With that in place, I consider the development acceptable in principle under Policies EQ1 and EQ4, insofar as trees are concerned.
5.4.7. Provided the trees and hedges are retained, I am satisfied that a single-storey dwelling on this site will not be visible from the open land to the south and east, and will have little to no impact on the character of the landscape or medium- and long- distance public views across it. As such, I consider it compliant with that element of Policy EQ4 too.
5.4.8. While a detailed landscape scheme is reserved for later approval, addressing trees at this early stage ensures that the proposal complies with Policy EQ12.
5.4.9. Finally, a Unilateral Undertaking regarding a contribution to the upkeep of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation was sought and submitted alongside the application, in accordance with Policy EQ2. The sum committed to therein remains payable upon completion of the proposed dwelling.
Page 195 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.5. Impact on residential amenity 5.5.1. Policy EQ9 states that new development 'should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents, particularly with regard to privacy […] and daylight.' It goes on to specify standards for the space around and between dwellinghouses.
5.5.2. This single-storey dwelling will be some 40 metres from the nearest habitable room window, on lower ground, screened by trees, hedges and fencing. Having viewed the site from adjoining land on all sides, I am satisfied that the dwelling will have very little material impact on privacy and still less on daylight.
5.5.3. While I accept that the dwelling will be visible from The Old Vicarage, Policies EQ4 and EQ9 do not seek to protect views from dwellinghouses per se. I do not consider this modest dwelling likely to have any noticeable impact on the outlook from The Old Vicarage in any case, sited as it will be amongst vegetation taller than it will be itself.
5.5.4. Garden length and area both exceed all relevant standards. Facing windows will be considered in the reserved matters application when details are available, but given the separation distances, they are unlikely to be a problem. I have no objections under Policy EQ9.
5.6. Impact on local character 5.6.1. Policy EQ11 requires that new development: respect local character and distinctiveness, including that of the surrounding development and landscape […] by enhancing the positive attributes whilst mitigating the negative aspects[.] In terms of scale, [design] and materials, development should contribute positively to the street scene and surrounding buildings, whilst respecting the scale of spaces and buildings in the local area.
5.6.2. This will be a modest, well-screened dwelling, invisible in the street scene. It will be subordinate to the existing development to the northwest and will have no impact on spacing or the street scene. I acknowledge that it will not be of a similar character to its neighbours, all of which are fairly substantial buildings, but they are themselves diverse, and it is hard to imagine a less obtrusive site for the proposed dwelling than that proposed here.
5.6.3. Materials and external appearance are a matter reserved for later approval, and will be considered carefully as a means for linking the dwelling to its neighbours. In the meantime, I have no objections in terms of local character to the principle of the development or its layout. I therefore consider it compliant with this aspect of Policy EQ11.
5.7. Parking and highway safety 5.7.1. The site plan indicates three off-road parking spaces, ample provision for a dwelling of this size and concordant with Policy EV12. I do not consider a single dwelling likely to add significant new vehicle movements.
Page 196 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.7.2. I acknowledge residents' concerns regarding the access, but traffic volumes and speeds on Old Vicarage Lane are extremely low and both Staffordshire Highways and I consider visibility adequate. I note the comments regarding agricultural vehicles, but these are typically large, noisy and slow-moving; even if they are capable of speed, the geometry of the track where it passes the site surely precludes their achieving it here. I therefore consider them unlikely to present a danger to vehicles entering or exiting the site, and vice versa.
5.7.3. I attach little weight to the road surface, which is a matter for the Highways Authority (Staffordshire County Council) and/or the developer. I consider the current surface adequate for a single dwelling anyway.
5.7.4. Temporary disturbances during the construction process tend to fall outside the remit of the planning system to resolve. Vehicles blocking the carriageway would be a non-emergency matter for the police.
5.7.5. No hedgerow removals are indicated as being necessary to form the access. If any are necessary to effect access to the site during construction, this will be a civil matter for resolution by the developer and relevant landowner and/or subject to the approval of a hedgerow removal notice by the Council, and is not a factor to which I can attach much weight.
5.8. Flooding and drainage 5.8.1. Policy EQ11 also requires that new development consider flooding and drainage. Any new hardstanding associated with the access improvements carries the potential to increase flood risk due to run-off and lost natural drainage. As such, I recommend a condition requiring the use of materials that will allow surface water to drain through to the soil below, or a properly constructed drainage channel.
5.8.2. I have noted the residents' concerns about drainage, and to allay them I have requested and received a drainage plan from the agent. I consider these details satisfactory, and Severn Trent does not object.
5.9. Remaining matters 5.9.1. The installation of utilities is a matter for consideration by a Building Inspector somewhat later in the process. As such, it is not a material consideration in this determination.
5.9.2. I am aware of the proposed stable rear of 2 The Old Vicarage, having been the case officer for the related planning permission (18/00191/FUL). I have not identified any potential impacts upon it from the proposed dwelling, or vice versa.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1.1. Although this proposal is contrary to Policy OC1, and Core Policy 1 of the Core Strategy, these policies are considered out of date for the purposes of paragraph 11 of the NPPF, due to the lack of a five year housing land supply in the District. As the proposal otherwise accords with local and national planning policy, the presumption
Page 197 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 in favour of sustainable development applies. Subject to the conditions described earlier in the report, I therefore recommend the approval of this application.
7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. Before the development commences, and within three years of the date of this permission, full details of the following reserved matters shall be submitted to the local planning authority. a) Scale: the height, width, length and mass of the proposed building, and how it relates to its surroundings. b) Appearance: the aspects of a building or place, including the proposed materials, which determine the visual impression it makes. c) Landscaping: the treatment of private and public space and the impact upon the site's amenity through the introduction of hard and soft landscaping.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings THL-0602 Revision 3 Tree Constraints Plan, received 13 August 2018, and THL-0602 Revision 4 Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Tree Protection Plan, received 5 June 2018.
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. a) An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, including details of any necessary mitigation measures. b) An updated Arboricultural Report.
The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
4. The trees and hedges indicated for retention on the approved drawing shall not be lopped, topped or cut down without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority either prior to development or for a period of 10 years following its completion. If any of the existing trees or hedges should die prior to the start of work or within five years of the completion of the development, it shall be replaced with the same species within 12 months of its death. The existing and any replacement planting shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Page 198 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5. The trees shall be protected during construction works in accordance with THr18-14 ARBORICULTURAL REPORT and the accompanying drawing THL- 0602 Revision 4.
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.
7. The access hereby approved and all new hardstanding within the site shall either be constructed of a permeable or porous material, or shall include provision for surface water to be directed to a permeable or porous surface within the site boundary, and shall be maintained in accordance with this condition throughout the lifespan of the development.
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard trees, hedges and wildlife on the site, in accordance with Core Policy 2 and Policies EQ1, EQ4 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy, to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring residents, in accordance with Policy EQ9, and to preserve local and landscape character, in accordance with Policy EQ11.
4. To safeguard trees, hedges and wildlife on the site, in accordance with Core Policy 2 and Policies EQ1, EQ4 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy, to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring residents, in accordance with Policy EQ9, and to preserve local and landscape character, in accordance with Policy EQ11.
5. To safeguard trees, hedges and wildlife on the site, in accordance with Core Policy 2 and Policies EQ1, EQ4 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy, to safeguard the privacy of neighbouring residents, in accordance with Policy EQ9, and to preserve local and landscape character, in accordance with Policy EQ11.
6. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Page 199 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
7. To reduce the risk of flooding, in accordance with Policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has approached decision making in a positive and creative way, seeking to approve sustainable development where possible, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2018.
Page 200 of 218 Paul Thompson —Graduate Planner: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Land Adjacent The Old Vicarage, Old Vicarage Lane, Dunston, South Staffordshire ST18 9AD
Page 201 of 218
Page 202 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00590/FUL Mrs Carol Parkes PENKRIDGE Cllr Len Bates Cllr Isabel Ford
Lower Drayton Farm Lower Drayton Lane Penkridge Stafford South Staffordshire ST19 5RE
Change of use of land to education facility and the siting of a mobile classroom, animal shelters and ancillary mobile structures including toilets to provide an educational and wellbeing centre for CARE C.I.C. (retrospective).
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site description
1.1.1 This application site is located on land at Lower Drayton Farm approximately 1.5 miles north of Penkridge just off the A449. The site is the location of Chase Aqua Rural Enterprise (CARE) which provides an educational day centre for young people and adults with mental health and special educational needs. The built structures on the site consist of various sized timber buildings, animal enclosures and planters, green shipping containers, a polytunnel, a terrapin classroom, a steel toilet cabin and 2 timber outdoor classrooms. There is an existing gravel parking area located by the entrance on the north side of the site.
1.2 Planning History
The following planning applications for this site are relevant;
2003, Change of use of part of land to be used for paint ball games, Approved (03/00673/COU) 2004, Continuation of paintball activities, withdrawn (04/01480/REN) 2005, renewal of Application 03/00673/COU. Change of use of part of land to be used for paint ball games, approved (05/00100/REN) 2006, Existing dirt track to be used for mud karts, refused (06/01252/COU) 2007, Existing dirt track to be used for mud karts, approved (07/00213/COU) 2008, Temporary tunnels for crop protection, approved (08/00123/TEM) 2008, Change of use of existing yard area to outside storage of off-hire bog mats, withdrawn (08/01015/COU) 2008, Existing dirt track to be used for mud karts renewal of application 07/00213/COU approved (08/01221/COU) Change of use to visitor car parking, including formation of hardstanding withdrawn (10/00093/COU) 2011, Storage and operation of PCVs (buses) application returned (11/00599/COU) 2011, Change of use of part of field to fly model aircraft, approved (11/00848/COU)
Page 203 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
2012, Removal of Condition 5 - The use hereby approved shall be discontinued and the land restored to its condition as agricultural; on or before 28th February 2013; in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority 11/00848/COU approved (12/00847/VAR) 2013, Change of use of part of field to fly model aircraft - Variation of condition 2 of planning application 11/00848/COU, approved (13/00009/VAR) 2013, Installation of two wind turbines to generate electricity, withdrawn (13/00984/FUL) 2014, building, approved, 14/00198/AGR 2014, Residential caravan site for 7 static caravans, refused (14/00950/FUL) 2014, Installation of a single medium scale wind turbine measuring 30m to hub and 45m to blade tip with access track and associated ancillary structure, refused (14/00985/FUL) 2015, Change of Use of existing annex into Bed & Breakfast unit and change of use of part of existing barn to form Be d & Breakfast unit and education room, approved (15/00087/COU) 2015, The proposal is for the storage of up to 8000 cubic metres of liquid fertilizer. The Land at Lower Drayton Farm extends to 200Ha and a further 100 Ha is farmed in the locality. Overall the farm has a requirement for 12,000 cubic metres of the liquid fertilizer which will replace manufactured fertilizer currently used on the farm, approved (15/00161/AGR) 2015, Use of farmland by Staffordshire Rural Support to conduct the activities of animal care, horticultural and minor farming activities, production of rural crafts, learning agricultural skills, social discourse and marketing for persons with learning difficulties, undetermined (15/00538/COU) 2015, Retention of the LDF entertainment and education hub and provision of septic tank, withdrawn (15/00151/FUL) 2016, Change of use of storage yard No2 from agricultural materials storage to garaging of buses used for local bus and school services. Pending, (16/00463/FUL) 2016, Retention of the LDF entertainment and education hub and provision of septic tank and improved access road, a temporary application for 3 years initially, approved (16/00280/FUL) 2016, Telephone poles are brought in from various sites, stored and taken for re- processing and new poles are bulk stored and then delivered to sites various - by Midland Poling Services Limited on a British Telecom Open reach health and safety programme, pending (16/00597/LUE) 2016, Change of use from agricultural to a camping field to site 10 log cabins, 5 camping pods and toilet and shower block and associated hard standing for car parking and access track improvements. Pending (16/00625/FUL) 2016, Proposed on farm gas to grid anaerobic digestion plant for the generation of biomethane and electricity, associated ancillary equipment, construction of new access track, highway improvements and landscape planting, on land at Lower Drayton Farm, Penkridge, Staffordshire, approved (16/00717/FUL) 2017, The change of use of traditional rural buildings to self-contained holiday accommodation with associated hard and soft landscaping, car parking and access driveway using existing highway access, approved (17/00393/FUL) 2017, Retention of hard surfaced area adjacent to the barn consented under 16/00163/AGR, approved (17/00884/FUL)
Page 204 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
A number of enforcement issues have been investigated on various parts of the farm since 2004, including the following: 2016, Issue: Serve enforcement Notice for unauthorised residential caravans on site, investigation complete (16/00048/BOC)
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Proposal
The application is for a change of use of land from agricultural to an education facility and the siting of a mobile classroom, animal shelters and ancillary mobile structures including toilets to provide an educational and wellbeing centre for CARE C.I.C. An application is made to retain what is existing on the site and it is proposed to expand the footprint of the site to 6389sqm. The extended area will be used for parking.
2.2 Agent Submission
The Agent has provided a Planning, Design and Access Statement. The conclusions are as follows; CARE is a very worthwhile and well regarded therapeutic, educational and training service which provides an essential service to the community, especially those with special educational needs, mental health issues and disabled children and their families. This educational facility based at Lower Drayton Farm is an appropriate form of acceptable rural diversification of the agricultural economy providing an opportunity for education and employment in a countryside setting which benefits the health and well-being of its's students and generates economic and employment benefit locally. CARE is an appropriate and complementary rural diversification enterprise, small in scale and temporary in terms of construction, and therefore it is easily removed, and the land reinstated back to agricultural land should the need arise. Overall it is considered that the development required by Chase Aqua Rural Enterprise (CARE) meets the aims and objectives of National and Local planning policies.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
Within the Open Countryside
Adopted Core Strategy Policy OC1: Development in the Open Countryside Beyond the West Midlands Green Belt Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets EQ4: Protecting the Character and Appearance of the Landscape EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity EQ11: Wider Design Considerations
Page 205 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Councillor Bates (received 24.08.2018)Having visited the site, I am comfortable with this retrospective application.
Parish Council response (received 24.08.2018) no comments
County Highways response (received 10.08.2018) no objections
No Environmental Health response (expired 16.08.2018)
No Rights of Way Officer response (expired 16.08.2018)
Health and Safety Executive response (received 07.08.2018) HSE is a statutory consultee for certain developments within the consultation distance (CD) of major hazard sites and major accident hazard pipelines, and has provided planning authorities with access to HSEs Planning Advice WebApp https://pa.hsl.gov.uk. I should therefore be grateful if you would arrange for HSEs Planning Advice WebApp to be used to consult HSE for advice on this application, to see if it lies within the CD of a Major Hazard Site or Pipeline
Environment Agency response (received 24.08.2018) no objections.
Ramblers Association response (received 08.08.2018) no objections
Site Notice (expired 16.08.2018)
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 This application is going to Planning Committee because it is recommended for approval even though it is contrary to Policy OC1.
5.2 Issues - Principle of Development - Design and Impact on Character of Area - Impact on Neighbouring Properties - Highways and Parking - Extenuating circumstances -Health and Safety Executive comments
5.3 Principle of development
5.3.1 Core Strategy policy OC1 states that development consisting of a change of use of land will normally be permitted where the works or use proposed would have no material effect on the appearance and character of the Open Countryside. In this case the proposed change of use would have an impact on the appearance and character of the Open Countryside as there are a number of structures already
Page 206 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018 located on the land and further structures are proposed to be added. Therefore the proposal is contrary to OC1.
5.4 Design and Impact on the character of the area
5.4.1 Core Strategy policy EQ4 states that
'the intrinsic rural character and local distinctiveness of the landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced'.
5.4.2 The site is currently located adjacent the Lower Drayton Farm Entertainment Hub, however this is proposed to be removed, at which point the site will be in an isolated position away from any other built development and surrounded by land in agricultural use. Whilst there is an element of agricultural activity taking place within the site, there are also indoor activities including craft and cooking.
5.4.3 A number of structures are located on the site that are required to support the activities that take place, including a terrapin classroom and a number of shipping containers used for an office and storage space. Some of these buildings are unattractive in appearance and as a whole have a negative impact on the appearance of the open countryside. However, the more agricultural activities taking place on the site are in keeping with the rural character and some are relatively attractive. Overall there is a negative impact on the character of the area and the design of a number of the buildings is poor and therefore the proposal does not comply with EQ4.
5.4.4 An indicative parking layout is shown on the submitted plans. In order to retain the rural character of the area an informal layout is preferable for the parking.
5.5 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
5.5.1 Core Strategy policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity states that all development proposals should take into account the amenity of any nearby neighbours. The nearest neighbours to the development are located 200 km from the site and therefore it is not considered that there would be any impact on the neighbours with regards to noise or loss of amenity. Overall the proposal is compliant with Core Policy EQ9.
5.6 Highways and Parking
5.6.1 Core Strategy policy EV12: Parking Provision and Appendix 6 Parking Standards require that adequate parking be provided with new development. The plan shows an indicative parking layout with 7 parking spaces, 3 of which are for disabled parking. The planning design and access statement states that most of the attendees travel to the site by minibus or public bus and that the increase in traffic using the site will be minimal. Given that the application is largely retrospective and that there is no indication that parking has been an issue to date it is considered that there will be adequate parking and County Highways have no objections.
Page 207 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5.6.2 The site can be accessed from a rough track leading off Lower Drayton Lane. No objections have been received from the County Highways department and it is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of access.
5.7 Extenuating circumstances
5.7.1 Both the existing and proposed change of use of the land and accompanying structures are contrary to planning policy. However it is considered that there are extenuating circumstances which apply. The agent has stated in the planning, design and access statement the following;
'CARE C.I.C. is a community interest company set up to benefit the community it serves. CARE has identified a need in South Staffs for educational facilities specifically targeted at vulnerable adults, young people and children, including those of school age, through partnerships with Staffordshire County Council, schools, community groups as well as private individuals. CARE works to support young people and adults often with emotional, mental health and special educational needs. The NPPF at paragraph 171 and South Staffs adopted Core Strategy Strategic Objective 15 support the provision of facilities and educational opportunities to improve the health and well-being of communities by the provision of indoor and outdoor recreational space.
Lower Drayton Farm provides a sustainable location for the Chase Aqua Rural Enterprise C.I.C., situated in the countryside providing an educational experience on a working farm. Although the facility is located in the countryside CARE can be accessed by bus and train, several of the students and volunteers travel by bus and then on foot to the facility. Additionally transport is provided by taxi and minibus by CARE from Stafford and Cannock to ALDD Learners as part of the fully funded SCC ACL delivery. Clearly an enterprise of this kind must be situated in the countryside to offer the type of therapeutic activities it specialises in, in a quiet and tranquil location.
Core Policy 9 supports Rural diversification outside development boundaries provided they are appropriate and on a on a small scale. CARE provides employment for 7 people (tutors and others) on a self-employed basis, as well as a range of volunteers. CARE is a small scale enterprise in an appropriate setting that has created skilled employment opportunities as well as a range of voluntary positions to the local community in the educational and creative sector.
This educational facility based at Lower Drayton Farm is a complementary farm diversification project for the owners of Lower Drayton Farm which helps to sustain and bolster farm income in line with Policy EV8. The amount of land that has been used for the facility is small and does not negatively impact farm production. The structures are temporary in nature and easily removed should the need arise.
Page 208 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
CARE provides valuable services and facilities for children and young people in Staffordshire. The need for educational and wellbeing services in this location is evidenced through the funding received from Staffordshire County Council.'
5.8 Health and Safety Executive comments
5.8.1 An update on the HSE’s comments will be provided on the Update list.
6. CONCLUSIONS
This proposal is unacceptable development in the Open Countryside in principle. The scheme does not make a positive contribution to the appearance of the open countryside however it is acceptable in terms of highways and impact on neighbour amenity. Overall it is considered that the unique nature of the facility and the valuable contribution it makes in improving the lives of numerous attendees, it is recommended that the application is approved.
7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: CARE PL-01, CARE PL-02, CARE PL-24 to CARE PL-34 received on 16 July 2018.
3. No structures either temporary or permanent shall be located on the site without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority other than those hereby approved.
4. All materials and structures used in connection with the use of the site for CARE CIC shall be removed if the site ceases to be used for this purpose.
5. This permission shall enure only for the benefit of CARE CIC and shall not enure for the benefit of the land.
6. Within 3 months of the date of planning approval details of all boundary treatment around and within the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved boundary treatment shall be built/erected concurrently with the development and shall thereafter be retained in the approved form and position throughout the life of the development.
Page 209 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
5. Permission has only been granted because of the contribution CARE CIC makes to attendees using the facility.
6. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has approached decision making in a positive and creative way, seeking to approve sustainable development where possible, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2018.
Page 210 of 218 Debbie Hall —Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Lower Drayton Farm, Lower Drayton Lane, Penkridge ST19 5RE
Page 211 of 218
Page 212 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
18/00603/FUL Mr K Kelly BREWOOD & COVEN Cllr W J Sutton Cllr Joyce Bolton Cllr D Holmes
93A Tinkers Lane Brewood South Staffordshire ST19 9DD
Replacement park home including decking and utilities store
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The application relates to a mobile home which is sited off Tinkers Lane in Brewood. A public footpath separates the site from the residential properties sited to the east. The site has been recently cleared with the existing park home/decking being removed along with the timber sheds to the front of the site and the overgrown shrubbery.
1.2 Planning History
1960 site for one caravan, approved [60/3406] 2016 replacement park home, approved [16/00340/FUL] 2016 replacement park home (re-submission 16/00340/FUL) including decking and utilities/bin store, approved (16/000763/FUL) 2018 variation of planning application 16/000763/FUL [approved plans] A different design of the park home. The development shall be carried out in-accordance with the revised drawing: K/10/18, approved (18/00385/VAR)
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 The Proposal
2.1.1 Planning permission was granted in 2016 for a replacement park home and utilities and bin store [16/00385/FUL] and a different design of the park home was granted in 2018 [18/00385/VAR].
2.1.2 This application does not seek permission to change the design of the park home or the utilities store but permission is sought for the decking required underneath [0.5m high] to accommodate the skids and give access to connect an maintain services. This element was not included on the variation application for the new design.
2.2 Agents Submission
2.2.1 The application is accompanied by a supporting statement.
Page 213 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 Within the Green Belt
3.2 Core Strategy Spatial Objective 1: To protect and maintain the Green Belt and Open Countryside in order to sustain the distinctive character of South Staffordshire Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy GB1: Development in the Green Belt EQ4: Protecting the character and appearance of the landscape EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EV12: Parking Provision
3.3 NPPF Part 13: Green Belt
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
4.1 Comments received
Councillors [expired 28/08/18]: No comments received
Parish Council [16/08/18]: Objection. Over development. The site would significantly increase in size, visually impacting on the Conservation Area.
Brewood Civic Society [12/08/18] Brewood Civic Society objects to this application. 1. Floor area increased by over 30% in the Green Belt. 2. Over-development of the site. 3. Site is in the conservation area buffer zone, it is unscreened and will impact on views from the conservation area. 4. The car parking space has been removed. There is no vehicle turning space and vehicles will be required to reverse onto the narrow Tinkers Lane.
County Highways [17/08/18]: There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal.
Ramblers [17/08/18]: I write to inform you that the above mentioned proposal will have no adverse effect on Public Right of Way No. 84 of Brewood Parish, which is a footpath. The footpath is protected from the development site by a wooden fence and high hedge on both sides.
Neighbours [expired 23/08/18]: No comments received
Site Notice [expired 23/08/18]: No comments received
Page 214 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 This application has been referred to Planning Committee as parts of the proposal are contrary to Policy GB1 - development in the Green Belt.
5.2 Key Issues - Principle of development - Very Special Circumstances - Impact on the character of the area/visual amenity of the Green Belt - Impact on neighbouring amenity - Highways/access - Representations
5.3 Principle of development
5.3.1 The premises are within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. The application site is neither a dwelling nor a building but a mobile home, which was originally granted consent in 1960 [60/3406]. The original permission gave consent for the siting of one caravan on the land and there were no restrictions over its size.
5.3.2 A replacement mobile home was granted permission in 2016 [16/00385/FUL] which also incorporated decking and a utilities store. In 2018 an application was submitted to change the design of the park home but didn't include any decking [18/00385/VAR], this application was approved.
5.3.3 This application seeks to rectify this omission and add decking to the underneath of the park home and project 1.8m at the front.
5.3.4 Whilst the replacement of the park home does not require consent, the utility store and decking does not fall within any of the exemptions for development in the Green Belt as defined in Policy GB1 of the adopted Local Plan and Paragraph 145 of the NPPF. On that basis it is inappropriate development, with an automatic presumption against the development. However, there are circumstances which may over-ride this automatic objection.
5.4 Very special circumstances
5.4.1 For the development to be considered for approval the application needs to demonstrate material considerations which amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the automatic harm to the Green Belt as noted in paragraph 144 of the NPPF.
5.4.2 The parcel of land has permission to be used for residential purposes in connection with the existing caravan; this application does not propose to increase its curtilage. Whilst the application includes an area of decking and a small store for utilities and bins which will in essence have an effect on the openness of the Green
Page 215 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
Belt, the decking is predominately underneath the park home and a small store for bin storage/utilities is not an unreasonable request, especially when taking into account the dilapidated timber sheds that have been removed from the site. The agent has confirmed that the decking is required to accommodate the skids and give access to connect and maintain services.
5.4.3 I therefore consider that material considerations have been advanced which clearly outweigh the limited harm caused on the openness of the Green Belt.
5.5 Impact on the character of the area/visual amenity of the Green Belt.
5.5.1 The proposed mobile home is of a modern design and the use of timber cladding will be more sympathetic to the rural area.
5.5.2 The site was previously derelict in nature [overgrown shrubbery and dilapidated timber sheds] and therefore the proposal would inevitably improve the appearance of the site.
5.5.3 The proposal is compliant with Policy EQ4 and EQ11 of the Local Plan.
5.6 Impact on neighbouring amenity
5.6.1 The replacement mobile home and associated development will cause no harm on neighbouring amenity. No comments have been received from adjoining occupiers.
5.7 Highways/access
5.7.1 The County Highways officer has no objections to the scheme. The site provides adequate parking and turning facility.
5.8 Representations
5.8.1 The comments raised by the Civic Society and Parish Council have been addressed in the main body of the report.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The site is within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development unless it can be demonstrated that there are very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt. In this case, I consider that the material considerations demonstrated by the application could amount to the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and I therefore recommend the application for approval.
Page 216 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: K/10/18 Rev C and Block Plan.
3. The landscape scheme shown on the approved plan shall be implemented concurrently with the development and completed within 12 months of the completion of the development. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the scheme has been completed. The planting, hard landscaping (and any other introduced features shown on the approved plan(s) shall be retained and maintained for a minimum period of 10 years by the property owner from the notified completion date of the scheme. Any plant failures that occur during the first 5 years of the notified completion date of the scheme shall be replaced with the same species within the next available planting season (after failure).
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Proactive Statement
In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has approached decision making in a positive and creative way, seeking to approve sustainable development where possible, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2018.
Page 217 of 218 Laura Moon—Senior Planning Officer: Planning Committee 18.09.2018
93A Tinkers Lane, Brewood, South Staffordshire ST19 9DD
Page 218 of 218