Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/16/00171/OUT Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/235 Ctte Date: 30th August 2016
ITEM 6
PROPOSED OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CREATION OF NEW SITE ACCESS (ALL MATTERS RESERVED SAVE FOR ACCESS) – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED 26/04/2016, 27/06/2016, 08/07/2016, 11/07/2016, 08/08/2016 AT THE FORMER BOAT YARD, 955 SHEFFIELD ROAD, SHEEPBRIDGE, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE, S41 9EJ FOR ELECTRAPLAS LTD
Local Plan: Economic Growth CS13 Ward: Old Whittington
1.0 CONSULTATIONS
DCC Highways Comments received 14/04/2016, 13/05/2016 and 12/07/2016 – see report
Environmental Services Comments received 19/04/2016 and 12/08/2016 - see report
Design Services Comments received 28/04/2016 – see report
Economic Development No comments received
Forward Planning Comments received 28/04/2016 – see report
Housing Comments received 27/04/2016 – see report
Leisure Services No comments received
Environment Agency Comments received 09/05/2016 – see report
Lead Local Flood Authority Comments received 27/06/2016 – see report
Yorkshire Water Services Comments received 03/05/2016 – see report
North East Derbyshire DC No comments received
Crime Prevention Design Advisor Comments received 04/05/2016 – see report
DCC Strategic Infrastructure Comments received 19/05/2016 – see report
Chesterfield Cycle Campaign No comments received
Network Rail Comments received 03/05/2016 – see report
Tree Officer Comments received 18/05/2016 – see report
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Comments received 10/06/2016 and 15/08/2016 – see report
Derby & Derbyshire Archaeologist Comments received 26/04/2016 and 18/07/2016 – see report
NHS No comments received
Ward Members No comments received
Site Notice / neighbours One letter of representation received
2.0 THE SITE
2.1 The proposed application site is a Former Boat Sales Yard situated on Sheffield Road at the southern edge of the settlement of Unstone, Chesterfield. The application site is located approximately 200 metres south of Unstone Green. The local centre / village of Dronfield lies 3.5km to the north-west with Chesterfield town centre being approximately 5km to the South.
2.2 The site may be described as a parcel of land which is roughly square in shape measuring approximately 110m north-south by 120m east-west. The overall site area is 1.2987ha as measured on plan. The site is located between the main Midland railway lines on its eastern boundary, and the B6057 Sheffield Road along its western boundary. To the north lies a small stream that joins the river Drone at the north western corner of the site this stream is edged with mature trees. The river Drone passes under Sheffield Road (Brierley Bridge) and runs south to the west of the site. The southern boundary of the site adjoins a single residential property which has a dilapidated smallholding to the rear.
2.3 Within the site there are a number of former buildings that once served the former boatyard: these comprise a former portacabin- style office, an open-fronted but covered boat sales area with concrete base, a former engine workshop, a shop/ chandlery and a residential bungalow. The existing buildings on site are a mix of temporary structures and more substantial brick buildings none of these are in a useable / habitable state and all are showing signs of distress and vegetation invasion.
2.4 The majority of the site is open un-surfaced ground that was used for the storage of boats, areas of tarmac and hardstanding being evident across the site. Due to the site being left unattended it is at risk of being covered by self-seeded brambles and other scrub.
2.5 Topographically levels appear to be fairly consistent across much of the site, it is noted that a rise in level occurs towards the eastern boundary this is more noticeable within the eastern part of the site where features a step-change in ground level due to an area of raised ground. Overall, ground levels along the western site boundary are at approximately 82m AOD, but rise gently to between about 85m AOD (south-eastern site corner) and 87m AOD in the north-eastern corner.
3.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
3.1 CHE/0784/0390 - Permission for change of use of office use to a dwelling together with the use of the balance of the site for boat repairs and sales. Approved 13/09/1984.
3.2 CHE/1284/0765 - Permission for carport for the storage of boats. Approved 13/02/1985.
3.3 CHE/0288/0090 - Permission for residential development. Approved 22/04/1988.
3.4 CHE/0488/0269 – Permission for extension of boat sales and repairs area. Approved 04/07/1988.
3.5 CHE/0596/0274 - Alterations to fence to improve access. Approved 10/07/1996.
3.6 CHE/07/00696/COU - Change of Use to secure storage of caravans, motorhomes, horseboxes and boats. Withdrawn 09/10/2007.
4.0 THE PROPOSAL
4.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of up to 48 no dwellings on site with all matters except for means of access being reserved. Access is shown to be newly formed centrally to the application site boundary with Sheffield Road (in between the sites 2 no. existing access points).
4.2 The indicative site layout drawing (which shows a layout of 48 no. dwellings) demonstrates a potential engineering solution to the site specific constraints and the design and access statement indicates the development could comprise detached and semi-detached properties (2, 3, or 4 bed) which could be two, two and a half or three storey in scale.
4.3 The application is accompanied by the following plans / drawings and supporting reports: . Application Site Plan Drawing No. 753 Loc/001 . Site Plan As Existing Drawing No. 753 001 Rev C . Existing Site Sections Drawing No. 753 002 Rev A . Site Plan As Proposed Drawing No. 753 101 Rev E . Site Sections As Proposed Drawing No. 753 102 Rev A . Weddle Landscape Design Ecological Assessment Tree Survey 590 OBU 01 Tree Constraints Plan 590 OBU 02 Phase I Habitat Survey 590 OBU 03 . Design and Access Statement (by Haxton Koyander Architecture Ltd) . Flood Risk Assessment (by Sanderson Associates) . Transport Assessment (by Sanderson Associates) . Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment (by Groundsmiths UK Ltd)
4.4 The following additional / revised documentation was received during the application process: Agent’s letter dated 26 April 2016 re: Environmental Services comments. Sanderson Associates letter dated 27 June 2016 and email dated 08 July 2016 re: DCC Highways comments. Bat and Nesting Bird Survey (by Whitcher Wildlife Ltd) received 11 July 2016 Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (by Trigpoint Conservation & Planning Ltd) received 14 July 2016 Bat and Nesting Bird Survey inc. Bat Emergence Survey (by Whitcher Wildlife Ltd) received 08/08/2016
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 National/Local Planning Policy
5.1.1 The site the subject of the application is land allocated as employment land (the boundary of which was retained from the 2006 Local Plan) alongside the adoption of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 - 2031.
5.1.2 Having regard to the nature of the application proposals and the allocation above policies CS1 (Spatial Strategy), CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS4 (Infrastructure Delivery), CS6 (Sustainable Design), CS7 (Management of the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS10 (Flexibility in delivery of Housing), CS11 (Range of Housing), CS13 (Economic Growth), CS18 (Design), CS19 (Historic Environment) and CS20 (Demand for Travel) of the Core Strategy and the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) apply. In addition the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Layout and Design ‘Successful Places’ is also a material consideration.
5.2 Spatial Strategy & Principle of Development
National Planning Policy Framework
5.2.1 The NPPF requires stipulates that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites.
5.2.2 The latest published position (April 2015) is that the Borough can demonstrate a 4.1 year supply of housing, once the shortfall in delivery and a 20% margin for ‘persistent under delivery’ is taken into account. Monitoring of housing delivery for 2015-16 is currently underway. The Council is also currently preparing a review of the Local Plan with publication of a draft plan set for September/October 2016. At the present time however, the Council is not currently able to demonstrate the required 5 year supply of deliverable land for housing, and as such, other local and national policies come into consideration.
5.2.3 In relation to paragraph 49 of the NPPF, a recent Court of Appeal decision (Richborough Estates vs Cheshire East District Council) has determined that any development plan policy that restricts provision of housing is therefore a "relevant policy for the supply of housing". Policies rendered ‘out-of-date’ by Para 49 should not be ignored, but it is up to the Council to determine what weight should be placed on them, taking into account factors such as the councils’ actions to remedy any shortfall, the purpose of the particular policy, the extent of the shortfall and the circumstances of the application and other material considerations. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where relevant policies are out-of-date; development should be approved unless the adverse impacts of doing so would outweigh the benefits or specific policies of the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.
5.2.4 The NPPF also recognises that it is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings public and private spaces, and wider areas development schemes (para 57)
Existing Employment Land (Local Plan EMP7)
5.2.5 The site is allocated as existing employment land in the Local Plan (saved policy EMP7. The policy sets out criteria for considering proposals for the redevelopment of such land for alternative uses. Is it considered that the scheme could provide a satisfactory living environment for residents and a high level of accessibility to existing facilities, given the proximity to public transport along Sheffield Road (Criterion (a)), the proposal would not prejudice employment uses on adjacent employment land (Criterion (b)), the application site is marginal in location and size and the proposal would not lead to a qualitative or quantitative deficiency in the supply of employment land (Criterion (c)), and the proposal would not unduly inhibit existing or future business activity in the area (Criterion (d)). Significantly, the status of the site in relation to Policy EMP7 also needs to be considered in the context of the NPPF and the current inability to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, and the potential contribution of the proposal to housing land supply in the Borough.
Core Strategy
5.2.6 The Core Strategy reflects the NPPF through its approach to town centres, economic development, and design.
5.2.7 Policy CS1 states that the overall approach to growth will be to concentrate new development within walking distance of centre and to focus on areas that need regenerating. Although the site can be considered to be within reasonable cycling distance of facilities, the site is at the margins of what might be considered a reasonable walking distance from all facilities. Sheepbridge has a regular bus service and the site is within 400 metres of a bus stop.
5.2.8 Policy CS2 sets criteria for assessing proposals for development on unallocated sites. Criteria (a) relates to delivering the Council’s Spatial Strategy (policy CS1) as set out in the previous paragraph. The spatial strategy also sets out the overall housing requirement for the Borough, and the proposal would make some contribution to delivering that, particularly in light of the current lack of 5 year supply for housing. The site meets the requirement of the proposal being previously developed land (criteria (b)). The land is not of high environmental value. The site is not on the best or most versatile agricultural land (c). Criteria (d) – see above. Subject to comments from DCC Strategic Infrastructure, it would also accord with criteria (e) provided contributions are made to providing additional capacity in schools (if required) and public open space through appropriate planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments. In terms of criteria (f) a bus stop is located within 400m of the site with a regular bus service between Chesterfield, Unstone, Dronfield and Sheffield.
5.2.9 Overall it is considered that in principle residential development is acceptable. Although the most relevant polices for this proposal are CS1 and CS2, other policies in the plan continue to apply and these are considered in more detailed sections below.
5.3 Design and Appearance Considerations (inc. Neighbouring Impact)
5.3.1 The proposal seeks outline planning permission for residential development with details of access and layout for determination at this stage. Scale, layout, appearance and landscaping would be for subsequent consideration. Forty eight dwellings are shown on the proposed layout, comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached properties of 2, 3 and 4 bed. The development summary on the indicative site layout plan shows five different house types.
5.3.2 Access is shown from Sheffield Road via the creation of a new access located in between the position of the current 2 no. access points which exist into the site. A centralised access point ensures visibility splays are maximised, which are also further enhanced by the fact the site lies on the outside of the highway curvature. A carriageway of 5.0m is shown leading into the site and a 2m footway can be provided on each side of the carriageway around the southern and northern sides of the access road. A pedestrian footway already exists along Sheffield Road.
5.3.3 The site is a roughly square in shape and is situated between the mainline railway immediately to the east and eastern edge of the Sheffield Road carriageway to the west. Levels predominantly rise from being equal to carriageway level on the west up the railway embankment to the east. There is one adjoining neighbouring property to the south and the river Drone lies to the north. The indicative site sections submitted show that the houses will roughly follow the existing site levels and will be slightly higher towards the east. The boundary against the railway line is show with a landscaped / planting buffer. The edges of the site adjacent to the neighbouring properties comprise a mixture of vegetation and fences of varying heights and styles.
5.3.4 The submission generally represents a rational design process in terms of the approach taken to the assessment of the site, understanding the specific constraints and issues that need to be taken into account.
5.3.5 Although the overall form of the layout is broadly acceptable, several aspects of the layout require improvement. The Councils Urban Design Officer has recommended that any reserved matters submission should have full regard to the principles set out in the Council’s adopted SPD on Housing Layout and Design called ‘Successful Places’. This document sets appropriate levels of separation, amenity space, design for parking and boundary treatments which any reserved matters submission for appearance, scale, layout and landscaping should have regard. The site occupies an area of approximately 1.29 hectares. The application proposes 48 no. dwellings. This equates to a density of 37dph, which represents an acceptable density.
5.3.6 Landscaping is a reserved matter. However, details of hard and soft landscape design will be an important aspect of the design and significantly influence the character and identity of the resulting place. Soft landscaping should be accommodated wherever possible and therefore details of hard and soft landscaping should be conditioned. Similarly to landscaping boundary treatments will be critical in terms of character and sense of place.
5.3.7 Appearance is a reserved matter. However, the design and appearance of the buildings would need to have regard to its context and the character of the locale. It is recommended that details of materials should be conditioned.
5.3.8 Although, the overall approach to the layout of the scheme is reasonably well conceived a number of elements within the detailed layout raise concerns in respect of urban design considerations and the impact this will have on the character, appearance and quality of place that would result. Given this scheme is submitted in outline the concerns at this stage carry very little weigh when it is clear they can be addressed satisfactorily by revision. Most importantly the scheme demonstrates that more than sufficient separation distances can be achieved on the current layout shown to neighbouring properties in line with the Councils SPD and therefore the scheme will not impose an adverse impact upon private amenity if these distances are carried through to any subsequent revisions.
5.3.9 Having regard to the design and appearance concerns raised above at this stage the detailed design is yet to be undertaken. Nevertheless, as a major site it will be important to ensure that the quality of the built environment achieves the objectives set out under the NPPF and NPPG that a good standard of design is achieved in a manner that supports the positive characteristics and local distinctiveness of Chesterfield. It is considered that in respect of design, appearance and amenity issues the proposals (subject to reserved matters) can de suitably designed to demonstrate accordance with the requirements of policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and the principles set in the Successful Places SPD if the above points of concern are taken into account and therefore the principles / outline considerations of a scheme of up to 25 dwellings on this site are in respect of design and appearance considerations acceptable.
5.4 Ecology and Trees
Ecology
5.4.1 The application submission was initially accompanied by an Ecological Assessment (EcoA) and Phase I Habitat Survey (prepared by Weddle Landscape Design) which was reviewed by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) under their service level agreement. The initial response from DWT dated 10 June 2016 commented that prior to determination a bat survey and a reptile survey should be undertaken.
5.4.2 In response to the initial comments from DWT above the applicant agreed to undertake the bat surveys, given that the building which stood on site were dilapidated and could have the potential to be used for bat roosting. The applicant did however query the need for reptile surveys prior to determination of the application given that the DWT records returned as part of their EcoA search confirmed there we no reptile records affecting the site.
5.4.3 In respect of reptiles it was agreed that given the absence of any specific records DWTs insistence on the survey work prior to determination was heavy handed, and it was agreed that a reptile survey could accompany any first reserved matters submission if permission was granted and the optimum time for these surveys are April/May or September.
5.4.4 A Bat and Nesting Bird Survey was undertaken by Whitcher Wildlife Ltd and was subsequently updated with Bat Emergence Surveys in August 2016 which were sent to DWT for further comment. The following response dated 15 August 2016 was received:
‘It is understood that the application is for outline permission for the construction of a new residential development of up to 50 dwellings with the creation of new access. The application is supported by an Ecological Assessment Report produced by Weddle Landscape Design, October 2015 and subsequent updated ecology surveys (bat building assessment and nocturnal survey by Whitcher Wildlife, August 2016).
A daytime Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken on 12th October 2015 and this was supported by a desk study which is welcomed.
In summary the site survey identified bare ground, scattered trees, buildings and intact conifer hedgerows on site. Evidence of the presence of a barn owl feeding roost was recorded within an open workshop and the report states that the buildings provide potential habitat for birds and bats. The report identifies the presence of a great crested newt record to the south of the site within a garden pond. This is stated to be 400 m to the south of the site, but is actually 320 m from the site. The report states that the potential for the site to support great crested newt and reptiles is low given the recently disturbed nature of the site. The field survey did not identify the presence of Japanese knotweed; however the Trust has a record of Japanese knotweed within the site from 2005. Overall the report states that the site is assessed to have low to moderate ecological value.
Habitats The site supports scattered trees, buildings, bare ground and conifer hedgerows. The bare ground habitats are colonised with ephemeral vegetation and shrub species such as buddleia. We have reviewed the UK BAP Priority Habitat Description for Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL) to determine if the bare ground/ephemeral habitat on site meets this criteria. It is difficult to determine if the site could qualify under this UK BAP definition without a Phase 1 Habitat Plan of the site or a more detailed species list. It is recommended that a botanical survey is undertaken of the site at an appropriate time of year in order to determine if this habitat meets the UK BAP criteria for OMHPDL and if appropriate mitigation and compensation measures would need to be put in place as a result of the development of the site. The survey was undertaken in October and many plant species may not have been visible or easily identifiable at this time of year.
It is recommended that the existing trees and hedgerows around the boundaries of the site are retained wherever possible. Where any trees or hedgerows do not to be removed, then their loss should be compensated for through new native tree and hedgerow planting. Along the northern boundary of the site where a small watercourse flows into the River Drone, it is recommended that a buffer is retained to protect this corridor from direct and indirect disturbance. The watercourse and associated vegetation should not form the curtilage of residential gardens and should instead form a boundary adjacent to an area of public open space.
Opportunities for new native planting landscape planting should be taken wherever possible within the site and should make use native species to be of maximum benefit for wildlife. If planning permission is granted for the development of this site, then details of landscaping works should be requested as a condition.
All retained habitats and the off-site watercourse should be protected from damage during construction work by the erection of adequate temporary protective fencing for the duration of the works in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works on the site as a condition of any consent.
Invasive Species No invasive species such as Japanese knotweed were recorded during the site survey in October 2015; however we hold a record from 2005 for a stand of Japanese knotweed within conifer trees on the western boundary of the site. This Japanese knotweed may have been treated and removed from the site since this date; however it is recommended that a further check for this invasive plant is undertaken during the growing season in the summer months to ensure that it is not present. If present, then a removal strategy would need to be put in place to ensure that Japanese knotweed was not spread during the development work.
Bats The additional ecology report, identified a number of buildings have low potential for roosting bats, subsequent nocturnal survey was undertaken and no bats were seen emerging from the buildings. However common pipistrelle bats and myotis sp bats were noted foraging and commuting along the mature tree line. Consequently, the retained habitats should avoid being lit; therefore, it is recommended a condition in regards to lighting is implemented:
“No development shall commence until a detailed lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Such approved measures will be implanted in full”.
Nesting Birds and Barn Owl Evidence of a barn owl feeding roost has been identified in the open workshop within the site. The report states that this has not been used for some months. Given the time that has lapsed since the survey work was completed it is recommended that the buildings are re-surveyed for evidence of barn owl to determine the current use of the site by barn owl. The additional ecology report did not identify a barn owl feeding roost; no reference to barn owl is present within the additional ecology report. Disused bird nests were noted in a number of the buildings. The surrounding habitats were noted to provide suitably nesting habitats.
Based on the current evidence of use of the workshop as a feeding roost, the proposed development would result in the loss of this roost and also suitable foraging habitat. This would result in a net loss of biodiversity which is not in line with the principles set out within the National Planning Policy Framework which aims to move towards achieving a net gain of biodiversity.
The trees and buildings within the site provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. Should planning permission be granted for this development then the following condition should be attached: “No removal of trees or buildings shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation/buildings for active birds’ nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared or buildings are demolished; and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the local planning authority.”
Reptiles From reviewing the photographs within the survey report it is considered that the site does have potential to support reptiles, such as common lizard and grass snake. There are records of grass snake in the local area and the site is located adjacent to a railway line and watercourse which are likely to provide suitable habitat for reptiles and provide corridors for movement of reptiles.
Prior to determination of this application it is recommended that reptile surveys are undertaken in areas of suitable habitat within the site to determine their presence or absence. A minimum of seven survey visits (Natural England Guidance TIN102) should be undertaken during the optimum survey season of April/May and/or September. If reptiles are recorded during these surveys then a suitable mitigation and compensation scheme would need to be produced to ensure that reptiles are adequately protected.
Great Crested Newt There are no ponds within the site boundary or in close proximity to the site; however there is a record of great crested newt located 320 m to the south of the site. This great crested newt record is connected to the site via suitable habitat that is present along the eastern boundary where the railway line is present, and suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newt appears to be present on site. Given the distance of record and pond from the site and the lack of other ponds in the local area, it is considered unlikely that great crested newt will be an issue on site and undertaking terrestrial surveys for great crested newt would be unreasonable. However, it is recommended that as part of the reptile survey work the reptile refugia are used as a tool to try to detect great crested newt and other amphibians on site.
Enhancement Opportunities Notwithstanding our recommendations and comments above which request further survey work, if planning permission is granted, then in line with paragraph 118 of the NPPF it is recommended that opportunities are taken to incorporate measures for biodiversity into the development. This should include the provision of bat roosting and bird nesting opportunities within new properties, as well as native landscaping planting detailed earlier. These measures should be secured through a condition that requests the production of an ecological enhancement and management plan.
Overall we would advise that there is currently insufficient ecological information in the consultation documents to enable Derbyshire Wildlife Trust to make an informed assessment of whether the proposal would have adverse ecological impacts and to advise the LPA accordingly as to whether the proposal complies with relevant legislation and policies relating to biodiversity.’
5.4.5 It is noted in the comments made by DWT above that they maintain their view that reptile surveys should be undertaken prior to the application being determined, however the view of the LPA (para. 5.4.3 above) is that this matter can be dealt with by planning condition and required to accompany first reserved matters submission.
5.4.6 In respect of other issues in DWTs response above it is accepted that DWT have concerns about the timing of the habitat survey undertaken as they consider that the site could boast characteristics of Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land which is a UK BAP Priority Habitat and a more detailed botanical survey is requested to determine whether any scheme should incorporate mitigation measures if the habitat is lost to development. It is noted that DWT above raises concerns about the net loss of biodiversity having specific regard to the ‘open mosaic habitat’ which has been identified within the site and nesting in the disused buildings. In this respect it is accepted that ‘open mosaic habitat’ typically establishes itself on previously developed or vacant / undeveloped land and in the case of this site the habitat has formed as a result of the passage of time since the previous use ceased. It is considered that the site could at any time be cleared of all vegetation given its previously developed nature and extant planning use as a boat sales yard therefore it is not considered to be in the best interest of promoting re- development of brownfield sites by delaying permission for such surveys when it can be requested that any subsequent landscaping proposals (by conditions or reserved matters submission) have regard to the sites potential and incorporate mitigation measures into any landscaping detail. This issue over the potential presence of Japanese Knotweed could also be addressed at this stage.
5.4.7 The comments in respect of bats and birds are noted and it is considered that the conditions suggested by DWT can be imposed on any subsequent outline permission granted. It is considered that bird and bat boxes should be incorporated into any detailed scheme and an appropriate condition can be imposed to this effect.
5.4.8 The Local Planning Authority have a duty to balance promoting development on previously developed / allocated land against the preservation / mitigation against the loss of this habitat and in this respect it is considered that an opportunity exists to achieve some degree of biodiversity gain throughout the entire application site in the form of a biodiversity enhancement scheme, accepting the resultant loss of this particular habitat in favour of sustainable development. Overall whilst DWT do maintain concerns about the scheme it is not considered that any of the issues raised cannot be addressed by the imposition of appropriate conditions and reserved matters requirements. On balance there is a stronger case to argue that housing delivery on a previously developed site carries greater weight (particularly given the fall back extant planning use whose reintroduction could see any such habitat on site cleared out without mitigation).
Trees
5.4.9 The application has been reviewed by the Council Tree Officer having regard to the fact there are protected trees located within the application site boundary which front onto Sheffield Road. The following comments were made:
‘There are 13 Lime trees on the site that are covered by tree preservation order 4901.188. T1 & T2 (multi stemmed trees) are located next to the watercourse in the north-west corner of the site and T3-T13 along the front boundary between the two existing access points. There are also 2 Silver Birch and 2 Pine trees reference T14-T18 on the adjacent property to the south of the site at 929 Sheffield Road that are also covered by the same Order.
The proposed access into the site off Sheffield Road would result in the loss of 6 protected Limes trees on the front boundary reference T4-T9. It is unclear why this location for the access has been chosen through the protected trees when there are two existing access. The trees do have good visual amenity along the frontage however they are fairly young trees which have been planted too close to each other which has resulted in their growth being restricted and some being supressed by the more dominant trees within the group. Ideally these trees should have been thinned out in the past, removing each alternative tree to allow the others to grow unrestricted. I therefore have no objection to the removal of the trees if this is the only option for an access as long as new trees of the same species are planted evenly spaced along the front boundary in mitigation and conditioned in the landscaping scheme which should be submitted as a reserved matter. Any development to the frontage of the site should allow enough space for the trees to reach the ultimate crown spread without affecting any habitual space. A stand-off distance of 18-20 metres is recommended. If the trees are to remain then further tree planting should still be conditioned along the frontage and the existing Limes T3-T13 alternately removed to open up the area for future growth.
A condition should also be attached which restricts any development within 20 metres of T1 & T2 Lime (multi stemmed trees) which are located next to the watercourse in the north-west corner as the rooting environment for these trees is restricted due to the adjacent watercourse and walling next to Sheffield Road. The same will apply to the protected Silver Birch trees and Pines in the neighbouring property at 929 Sheffield Road where a distance of 5 metres from the base of the tree should be designated a not go area for any development.
Pre-application advice was given by Paul Staniforth on the 2nd June 2015 and it was stated that consideration should be given to the natural northern edge border and the adjacent Green belt designation and the landscaping between the site and the railway to the east. The mature landscaping along these boundaries should therefore be retained and protected during any land stripping, demolition and development. A condition should therefore be attached to retain the landscaping and providing space for the vegetation to flourish. Details should therefore be provided of tree protection measures along these boundaries. The eastern landscaping does provide a valuable screen from the railway track and suitable species should be used to improve this boundary as listed in the comments by Network Rail on the 3rd May 2016 section ‘Trees/Shrubs/Landscaping’.
I therefore have no objection to the application as long as the recommended conditions above are taken into consideration and conditions below attached.
Conditions There shall be no felling or pruning of the protected trees on the site or neighbouring land covered by a tree preservation order unless consent has been granted in writing through the tree application process.
The trees along the northern and eastern boundaries excluding the groups of conifers are retained in the scheme.
A tree protection plan should be submitted and agreed by the Local Authority and protective fencing erected before any works start on the site which includes any demolition, grading of the land or soil stripping. The plan should show the Root protection measures, trees to be removed and trees to be retained on the site.
An arboriculturalist should be appointed to oversee the development including demolition and soil stripping in relation to trees and regularly inspect the tree protection measures and other related tree issues weekly. An arboricultural inspection log should be completed and signed by the arboriculturalist for each visit and presented to the Local Planning Authority for discharged of condition once the development has finished.
The protected and retained trees on the site and neighbouring land should be protected by fencing as recommended in BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’ 2012 and should remain in situ until the development has finished. Notices should be attached to the fencing at regular intervals to this effect and the area within the RPA treated as a no go area unless consent is granted by the Local Authority. For tree roots to be retained undamaged there must be no excavations, no soil stripping and no grading of the site within the RPA. There should also be no storage of materials within the RPA.
Service runs Details of any service run excavations for drainage, electricity, gas etc should be submitted and approved by the Local Authority before development commences. Any service runs should not encroach into the RPA of any the retained trees on the site or neighbouring land unless agreed by the local authority.
Storage of plant and materials Details should be provided to show how the applicant will control the storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading, unloading and manoeuvring of vehicles on the site before any development commences. A detailed site plan showing the location of these on the site should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority and which should avoid the root protection areas of the trees.’
5.4.10 In respect of the comments raised by the Councils Tree Officer the proposal to require appropriate protection measures and management to the tress already covered by tree preservation order can be dealt with by appropriate planning condition, if permission is granted. Whilst it is accepted that there may be some loss to trees at the point of site access (to allow for appropriate junction formation and visibility) – see Highways section - it is considered that there is scope within the entire application site boundary / perimeter to require compensatory tree planting in the interests of policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF.
5.5 Heritage / Archaeology
5.5.1 Having regard to matters of heritage / archaeology the site the subject of the application does not include within, or adjacent to it, any designated heritage assets however the site was deemed by the Derby and Derbyshire Development Control Archaeologist (D&DDC Arch) to be of potential archaeological interest given that the site is included in the Historic Environment Records for Derbyshire as the site of the former Priestley’s brickworks in use from 1870 – 1915 using three Scotch kilns. The D&DDC Arch indicated in their initial consultation response that the application submission should have included a heritage impact assessment to enable the significance of this record to be assessed and the potential impact of the development proposals understood.
5.5.2 In response to this request the applicant sought for an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment to be undertaken for the site and this was presented during the application process for further consideration by the D&DDC Arch. The following comments were received:
‘Thank you for re-consulting on this application following the submission of an archaeological desk-based assessment (DBA). I advise that this document presents an appropriate and proportionate assessment of heritage significance sufficient to enable determination of the application, in line with NPPF para 128.
The DBA document establishes that there are two standing buildings on the site possibly associated with the former Priestley’s Brickworks (Derbyshire HER 31536), although re-used and adapted in modern times. These buildings are of low (local) significance, and their loss in the event that proposals gain consent should be addressed by a scheme of historic building recording prior to demolition (Historic England Level 2), in line with NPPF para 141.
There is a wider potential for below-ground remains of the former brickworks, and in particular its kilns and some associated workers’ housing, to survive within the site. If well –preserved, this could be of regional significance, and its loss should be addressed through a conditioned scheme of archaeological excavation and recording in line with NPPF para 141. The nature of this will depend to some extent on the detail of the proposed development groundworks, but it is likely to comprise either some trial trenching followed by targeted excavation of significant areas, or archaeological controlled strip-and-record focusing on areas of interest.
The following conditions should therefore be attached to any planning consent: a) No development shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological work and historic building recording has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing, and until any pre-start element of the approved scheme has been completed to the written satisfaction of the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and 1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording 2. The programme for post investigation assessment 3. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording 4. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation 5. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation 6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation" b) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (a)." c) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (a) and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured."
5.5.3 Having regard to the comments received from the D&DDC Arch above it is not considered that the development proposals are unacceptable. Clearly the D&DDC Archaeologist is satisfied that whilst the site may hold some below ground archaeological interest an appropriate planning condition imposed as a pre- commencement condition would ensure this was investigated. Thereafter any findings would be recorded in accordance with a written / prescribed scheme of investigation which would be overseen prior to any development on the site taking place.
5.6 Highways / Demand for Travel
5.6.1 The application submission has been considered by the Local Highways Authority (LHA) having regard to the fact the application (accompanied by a Transport Assessment prepared by Sanderson Associates) proposes the formation of a new access onto Sheffield Road.
5.6.2 The first response to the application submission from the LHA was as follows:
‘This is an outline application with means of access included. The applicant should be aware therefore that specific comments on the internal indicative layout are not provided. In general however it would not be considered for adoption as highway maintainable at public expense and servicing and deliveries should be particularly considered. A possible extension is also indicated and the applicant should satisfy themselves that the provision of any road and junction layout is capable of supporting further development. Cul-de-sac length may also be an issue without a second means of access to the site. Off-street parking should generally be located in close proximity to the dwellings it is intended to serve.
It is noted that an automated traffic count speed survey has been submitted as part of the application in order to calculate required exit visibility splays. The Highways Authority has reservations regarding this method as it is unclear whether traffic conditions are free slowing or whether vehicle speeds are affected by slower moving vehicles.
The visibility splay onto Sheffield Road from the proposed access has been calculated using the table in the 6C’s design guide. Exit visibility onto Sheffield Road should, however be calculated using the empirical formula in Manual for Streets 2. In view of the level of HGVs / bus traffic and the amount of traffic travelling in excess of 60kph a percolation time of 2 seconds should be used with a deceleration rate of 0.25 for a desirable exit visibility splay of 103m, and absolute minimum exit visibility would be 82m using a deceleration rate of 0.375. Given that the site is on the outside of a bandit is considered likely that exit visibility could be achieved from an access at some point on the site frontage. Of greater concern is forward visibility to and from right turners and it is considered that this should be accurately determined and demonstrated on a topographical survey. It is noted that in vicinity of the proposed access there are double solid white lines to the centre of the carriageway which suggest forward visibility may not be achievable from the access point as proposed. The location of the access point may therefore need to be reviewed or it should be demonstrated that the proposal will not intensify the vehicular use of the site over previous movements which would be likely to restrict the scale of development.
Having spoken to colleagues in this Authority’s Traffic Section it is not considered that the left hand bend ahead signs would require replacing with a junction on left hand bend ahead signs.
Having consulted with colleagues in the Passenger Transport unit it is also considered that it may be beneficial to relocate the bus stops closer to the development to further encourage the use of public transport. Costs would need to be met by the developer and may include the provision of shelters and commuted sums for future maintenance of same.
The applicant should also be aware that the requirement for any protection / diversion / relocation of any Statutory Undertakers apparatus would also be at their expense. Consultation should be taken with this Authority’s Traffic and Street Lighting Section regarding signs and street lighting columns respectively. It is likely any such works would be required to be subject to a S278 agreement under the 1980 Highway Act.
I look forward to the receipt of a revised plan to satisfactorily demonstrate exit and particularly forward visibility in order that the Highway Authority can provide formal comments on this application.’
5.6.3 In response to the comments raised by the LHA above the applicant provided a further response prepared by Sanderson Associates (received on 29 June 2016) which included them undertaking further manual radar speed surveys within the vicinity of the site. Furthermore in compliance with the advice given by the LHA the supporting information also include the provision of 3 no. plans demonstrating how the currently proposed access point can fully demonstrates compliance with Manual for Streets given the recorded speed readings; however for the avoidance of doubt two further alternative access points are show which demonstrate how by relocating the access further south improvements to the exit and forward visibility can be achieved (albeit unjustified). The applicant has confirmed that they are happy with preparing a fully detailed access drawing based upon these findings with 73m visibility splays in both directions as part of any reserved matters submission.
5.6.4 The LHA were further consulted on the revised details and they confirmed by email dated 12 July 2016 that the information presented demonstrated that an acceptable junction layout could be achieved. Unfortunately at the time of writing this report the LHA had not provided a formal response with their usual list of recommended conditions however given the outline nature of the proposals and the detail agreed above it is considered that the LPA can anticipate what conditions would be sought and these can be imposed accordingly having regard to the provisions of policies CS2, CS18 and CS20 of the Core Strategy.
5.7 Land Condition / Contamination
5.7.1 Given previous and current land uses associated with industrial development which have taken place at the site there is potential for the site to be contaminated. Having regard to the nature of the proposed development it is essential to ensure that any sources contamination on site are identified and also that ground conditions are appropriate such that the site is remediated to an appropriate level suitable for the development being proposed.
5.7.2 In accordance with policy CS8 of the Core Strategy and wider advice contained in the NPPF the application submission is accompanied by a Phase I Geo-Environmental Assessment which has been reviewed alongside the application submission by the Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer (EHO) and the Environment Agency (EA).
5.7.3 The EA have not raised any issue in respect of contamination in their consultee response, their only comments were in relation to flood risk. The Councils EHO has confirmed that they agree with the recommendations of the Assessment and that intrusive site investigations are necessary to establish ground conditions prior to development commencing. It is considered that these requirements can be imposed by appropriate planning condition to meet the requirements of policy CS8.
5.8 Noise / Railway Line
5.8.1 It is noted that the application site boundary lies adjacent to the Railway which is operated as the main Midland Mainline between Chesterfield and Sheffield. Trains utilise the line on a frequent basis carry both passenger and freight trains and therefore the potential impact of noise and operative requirements needs to be considered as part of the application process. The application submission has been considered by the Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer (EHO). In addition Network Rail was also consulted on the application proposals.
5.8.2 The initial consultee response received from the EHO raised concerns that the application submission did not include any noise assessment / report and therefore it was not clear whether the applicant had considered the potential impact of noise upon future occupants given the proximity to the railway line. In response to these concerns the applicant / agent submitted further correspondence to address the questions / queries the EHO had raised. The EHO was invited to provide further comment on this submission and a late response was received as follows:
‘I agree, it is possible that the developer could probably ensure compliance with the internal noise levels within the residential properties; however, the required amount of insulation/noise mitigation cannot be determined until the actual noise levels are known (including the noise from the railway line).
The railway line is indeed higher than ground level putting it in direct line with the first floor of the proposed housing. As such, I strongly recommend that the noise from the railway line is taken into consideration.’
5.8.3 Members will note that a similar situation in respect of the relationship of noise from a railway line and new residential development was presented on a site to the rear of Swaddale Avenue (CHE/16/00092/OUT) where it was concluded that development in close proximity to railway lines can be accepted (the Waterside development is located adjacent to the railway line, as is the development of residential flats at Tapton Lock) subject to appropriate mitigation being incorporated in the design and layout of the housing being proposed. In this instance given the outline nature of the application submission it is considered that in order to address the concerns raised by the EHO above and to inform the subsequent design of any necessary mitigation a further noise assessment shall be required by condition to accompany the first reserved matters submission and the parameters of which will firstly have needed to be agreed by the EHO.
5.8.4 Secondly Network Rail provided the following response:
‘With reference to the protection of the railway, Network Rail has no objection in principle to the development, but below are some requirements which must be met,
Drainage All surface and foul water arising from the proposed works must be collected and diverted away from Network Rail property. In the absence of detailed plans all soakaways must be located so as to discharge away from the railway infrastructure. The following points need to be addressed:
There should be no increase to average or peak flows of surface water run off leading towards Network Rail assets, including earthworks, bridges and culverts. All surface water run off and sewage effluent should be handled in accordance with Local Council and Water Company regulations.
Attenuation should be included as necessary to protect the existing surface water drainage systems from any increase in average or peak loadings due to normal and extreme rainfall events.
Attenuation ponds, next to the railway, should be designed by a competent specialist engineer and should include adequate storm capacity and overflow arrangements such that there is no risk of flooding of the adjacent railway line during either normal or exceptional rainfall events.
It is expected that the preparation and implementation of a surface water drainage strategy addressing the above points will be conditioned as part of any approval.
Fail Safe Use of Crane and Plant All operations, including the use of cranes or other mechanical plant working adjacent to Network Rail’s property, must at all times be carried out in a “fail safe” manner such that in the event of mishandling, collapse or failure, no materials or plant are capable of falling within 3.0m of the nearest rail of the adjacent railway line, or where the railway is electrified, within 3.0m of overhead electrical equipment or supports.
Excavations/Earthworks All excavations/ earthworks carried out in the vicinity of Network Rail property/ structures must be designed and executed such that no interference with the integrity of that property/ structure can occur. If temporary works compounds are to be located adjacent to the operational railway, these should be included in a method statement for approval by Network Rail. Prior to commencement of works, full details of excavations and earthworks to be carried out near the railway undertaker's boundary fence should be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority acting in consultation with the railway undertaker and the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Where development may affect the railway, consultation with the Asset Protection Project Manager should be undertaken. Network Rail will not accept any liability for any settlement, disturbance or damage caused to any development by failure of the railway infrastructure nor for any noise or vibration arising from the normal use and/or maintenance of the operational railway. No right of support is given or can be claimed from Network Rails infrastructure or railway land.
Security of Mutual Boundary Security of the railway boundary will need to be maintained at all times. If the works require temporary or permanent alterations to the mutual boundary the applicant must contact Network Rail’s Asset Protection Project Manager.
Fencing Because of the nature of the proposed developments we consider that there will be an increased risk of trespass onto the railway. The Developer must provide a suitable trespass proof fence adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary (minimum approx. 1.8m high) and make provision for its future maintenance and renewal. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged.
Method Statements/Fail Safe/Possessions Method statements may require to be submitted to Network Rail’s Asset Protection Project Manager at the below address for approval prior to works commencing on site. This should include an outline of the proposed method of construction, risk assessment in relation to the railway and construction traffic management plan. Where appropriate an asset protection agreement will have to be entered into. Where any works cannot be carried out in a “fail-safe” manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. “possession” which must be booked via Network Rail’s Asset Protection Project Manager and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks. Generally if excavations/piling/buildings are to be located within 10m of the railway boundary a method statement should be submitted for NR approval.
OPE Once planning permission has been granted and at least six weeks prior to works commencing on site the Asset Protection Project Manager (OPE) MUST be contacted, contact details as below. The OPE will require to see any method statements/drawings relating to any excavation, drainage, demolition, lighting and building work or any works to be carried out on site that may affect the safety, operation, integrity and access to the railway.
Demolition Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway, or the stability of the adjoining Network Rail structures. The demolition of buildings or other structures near to the operational railway infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Approval of the method statement must be obtained from Network Rail’s Asset Protection Project Manager before the development can commence.
Vibro-impact Machinery Where vibro-compaction machinery is to be used in development, details of the use of such machinery and a method statement should be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority acting in consultation with the railway undertaker prior to the commencement of works and the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement
Two Metre Boundary Consideration should be given to ensure that the construction and subsequent maintenance can be carried out to any proposed buildings or structures without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon Network Rail’s adjacent land, and therefore all/any building should be situated at least 2 metres from Network Rail’s boundary. This will allow construction and future maintenance to be carried out from the applicant’s land, thus reducing the probability of provision and costs of railway look-out protection, supervision and other facilities necessary when working from or on railway land.
ENCROACHMENT The developer/applicant must ensure that their proposal, both during construction, and after completion of works on site, does not affect the safety, operation or integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail and its infrastructure or undermine or damage or adversely affect any railway land and structures. There must be no physical encroachment of the proposal onto Network Rail land, no over-sailing into Network Rail air-space and no encroachment of foundations onto Network Rail land and soil. There must be no physical encroachment of any foundations onto Network Rail land. Any future maintenance must be conducted solely within the applicant’s land ownership. Should the applicant require access to Network Rail land then must seek approval from the Network Rail Asset Protection Team. Any unauthorised access to Network Rail land or air-space is an act of trespass and we would remind the council that this is a criminal offence (s55 British Transport Commission Act 1949). Should the applicant be granted access to Network Rail land then they will be liable for all costs incurred in facilitating the proposal.
Noise/Soundproofing The Developer should be aware that any development for residential use adjacent to an operational railway may result in neighbour issues arising. Consequently every endeavour should be made by the developer to provide adequate soundproofing for each dwelling. Please note that in a worst case scenario there could be trains running 24 hours a day and the soundproofing should take this into account.
Trees/Shrubs/Landscaping Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these shrubs should be positioned at a minimum distance greater than their predicted mature height from the boundary. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary. We would wish to be involved in the approval of any landscaping scheme adjacent to the railway. Where landscaping is proposed as part of an application adjacent to the railway it will be necessary for details of the landscaping to be known and approved to ensure it does not impact upon the railway infrastructure. Any hedge planted adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary fencing for screening purposes should be so placed that when fully grown it does not damage the fencing or provide a means of scaling it. No hedge should prevent Network Rail from maintaining its boundary fencing. Lists of trees that are permitted and those that are not permitted are provided below and these should be added to any tree planting conditions:
Acceptable: Birch (Betula), Crab Apple (Malus Sylvestris), Field Maple (Acer Campestre), Bird Cherry (Prunus Padus), Wild Pear (Pyrs Communis), Fir Trees – Pines (Pinus), Hawthorne (Cretaegus), Mountain Ash – Whitebeams (Sorbus), False Acacia (Robinia), Willow Shrubs (Shrubby Salix), Thuja Plicatat “Zebrina” Not Acceptable: Acer (Acer pseudoplantanus), Aspen – Poplar (Populus), Small- leaved Lime (Tilia Cordata), Sycamore – Norway Maple (Acer), Horse Chestnut (Aesculus Hippocastanum), Sweet Chestnut (Castanea Sativa), Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), Black poplar (Populus nigra var, betulifolia), Lombardy Poplar (Populus nigra var, italica), Large-leaved lime (Tilia platyphyllos), Common line (Tilia x europea) A comprehensive list of permitted tree species is available upon request.
Lighting Where new lighting is to be erected adjacent to the operational railway the potential for train drivers to be dazzled must be eliminated. In addition the location and colour of lights must not give rise to the potential for confusion with the signalling arrangements on the railway. Detail of any external lighting should be provided as a condition if not already indicated on the application.
Access to Railway All roads, paths or ways providing access to any part of the railway undertaker's land shall be kept open at all times during and after the development.
Network Rail is required to recover all reasonable costs associated with facilitating these works.
I would advise that in particular the drainage, boundary fencing, method statements/OPE, soundproofing, lighting and landscaping should be the subject of conditions, the reasons for which can include the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway. For the other matters we would be pleased if an informative could be attached to the decision notice.’
5.8.5 Having regard to the comments received from Network Rail above it is considered that all the issues can be addressed (as NR suggest) through planning conditions and notes on any subsequent decision notice.
5.9 Flood Risk / Drainage
5.9.1 In respect of matters of drainage and potential flood risk (having regard to policy CS7), it is noted that the application site lies adjacent to flood risk zones 2 and 3 (the river Drone lies to the north) and therefore risk from fluvial flooding has been considered with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) accompanying the application submission. In respect of drainage, the application details that the development is to be connected to existing mains drains for foul water and surface water would be directed to the existing watercourse.
5.9.2 The Councils Design Services (DS) team, the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the Environment Agency (EA) and Yorkshire Water Services (YWS) have all commented on the application raising no objections in principle to the development proposals.
5.9.3 The DS team have indicated that the FRA and Drainage Strategy submitted with the application are acceptable, but have requested that additional section drawings are provided showing FFLs of any dwellings above the level agreed in the accompany FRA. It is however considered that these levels would need to accompany any subsequent ‘appearance’ reserved matters submission (if outline permission is granted) therefore this requirement could also be imposed as an appropriate planning condition. The EA also commented that the development should be conditioned to be carried out in accordance with the FRA recommendation / mitigation measures setting FFLs no lower than 82.35m above AOD. In setting this measure this would also address the levels concerns / requirements raised by the DS team.
5.9.4 Comments specifically from YWS note the presence of a public sewer which crosses the application site and this would need to be protected from development with the form of 3m easements either side of the sewer line. In this case this would need to be taken into account as part of any subsequent ‘layout’ reserved matters submission and accordingly an appropriate planning condition can also be imposed to this effect.
5.9.5 The LLFA have agreed that the FRA accompanying the application submission provides acceptable principles on which to base the detailed drainage design; detailing surface water disposal to the watercourse restricted at a disposal rate of 5l/s and to achieve this rate 478sqm of attenuation will be required. The LLFA would therefore expect a detailed drainage design to demonstrate these rates and requirements and therefore these should also be subject to appropriate planning conditions.
5.9.6 Overall therefore in the context of the comments given above in order to meet the requirements of Policy CS7 of the CS (Managing the Water Cycle) appropriate planning conditions can be imposed on any subsequent decision requiring the drainage strategy details to be submitted, prior to any development commencing, and any approved details being implemented thereafter.
5.10 Other Considerations
5.10.1 S106 Contributions
Having regard to the nature of the application proposals, if the principle of development is accepted, several contribution requirements would be triggered given the scale and nature of the proposals. Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy seeks to secure necessary green, social and physical infrastructure commensurate with the development to ensure that there is no adverse impact upon infrastructure capacity in the Borough.
Internal consultation has therefore taken place with the Councils own Economic Development, Leisure Services and Housing teams, as well as externally with Derbyshire County Councils Strategic Planning team on the development proposals to ascertain what specific contributions should be sought.
The responses have been collaborated to conclude a requirement to secure S106 Contributions / Legal Agreements in respect of negotiations for up to a 30% Affordable Housing contribution (Policy CS11); negotiations up to 1% of the overall development cost for a Percent For Art scheme (Policy CS18); and appointment of an external management company to manage and maintain the on site green open space and SuDS infrastructure (Policies CS7 and CS9). Matters in respect of education and green infrastructure are now dealt with by CIL contributions (see section 5.11 below).
In respect of the remaining comments arising from the DCC Strategic Infrastructure team to the Council it will be necessary to look to secure by planning condition the requirement for local labour and the provision of on-site high speed broadband connections (Policy CS13).
5.11 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
5.11.1 Having regard to the nature of the application proposals the development comprises the creation of up to 48 no. new dwellings and the development is therefore CIL Liable.
5.11.2 The site the subject of the application lies within the medium CIL zone and therefore the full CIL Liability would be determined at the reserved matters stage on the basis of a cumulative charge of £50 per sqm of gross internal floor area created.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 The application has been publicised by site notice posted on 14/04/2016; by advertisement placed in the local press on 21/04/2016; and by neighbour notification letters sent on 12/04/2016. As a result of the application publicity there has been one letter of representation received as follows:
A Local Resident I agree with the D&A Statement. I support the redevelopment of this long-term derelict brownfield land, including retention of the mature trees. I’ve previously submitted this site during the local plan call for sites consultations.
Noted.
7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
7.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2nd October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show: Its action is in accordance with clearly established law The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom
7.2 It is considered that the recommendation is objective and in accordance with clearly established law.
7.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant.
7.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objector, the development affects their amenities, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control.
8.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH APPLICANT
8.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
8.2 It is accepted that on face value the development proposals are not entirely in accordance with the Local Plan, as the site is allocated employment land and the development proposals are residential in nature. Notwithstanding this the Council has had regard to all material considerations and where appropriate a balance has been considered in favor of supporting the development proposals.
8.3 Prior to the formal application submission and during the application process the applicant has sought to engage proactively with the Local Planning Authority. The applicant has sought to address and respond to any matters raised throughout the formal application process by consultees and officers accordingly.
8.4 In reaching the recommendation the Council has accepted on balance of all material planning considerations the development is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for.
8.5 The report will be made available to the applicant / agent and any objector informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusions.
9.0 CONCLUSION
9.1 The proposal the subject of the application is deemed to be contrary to some of the provisions of policies CS2 and CS13 of the Chesterfield Core Strategy: Local Plan in so far as the application site is situated on land allocated as employment land and the development is residential in nature. Approval of the application would be a departure.
9.2 Given the position above the Council has considered the proposals the subject of the application against all remaining development plan policies, including policies CS1 (Spatial Strategy), CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS4 (Infrastructure Delivery), CS6 (Sustainable Design), CS7 (Management of the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS10 (Flexibility in delivery of Housing), CS11 (Range of Housing), CS13 (Economic Growth), CS18 (Design), CS19 (Historic Environment) and CS20 (Demand for Travel) of the Core Strategy. In addition consideration has been given to the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Housing Layout and Design ‘Successful Places’.
9.3 It is considered that the proposed development is able to demonstrate compliance with some aspects of policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS4 of the Core Strategy in so far as its ability to provide connection (and where necessary improvement) to social, economic and environmental infrastructure such that the development broadly meets the definitions of sustainable development. The application submission is supported by the preparation of assessment and reports which illustrates the proposed developments ability to comply with the provisions of policies CS6, CS7, CS8, CS9, CS11, CS13, CS18, CS19 and CS20 of the Core Strategy and where necessary it is considered that any outstanding issues can be mitigated and addressed in any subsequent reserved matters submission or any appropriate planning conditions being imposed.
10.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION
10.1 That a S106 agreement be negotiated and signed concurrent with the planning permission and dealing with: Negotiations for up to a 30% Affordable Housing. Negotiations up to 1% of the overall development cost for a Percent For Art scheme The management and maintenance of any on site green open space and SuDS infrastructure.
11.0 RECOMMENDATION
11.1 That a CIL Liability notice issued as per section 5.11 above; and
11.2 That the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions / notes:
Time Limit etc
01. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with article 3 (1) of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).
02. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with sections 91, 56 and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
03. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
Reason - The condition is imposed in accordance with sections 91, 56 and 93 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Archaeology
04. A) No development shall take place until a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological work has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing, and until any pre-start element of the approved scheme has been completed to the written satisfaction of the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and 1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording 2. The programme for post investigation assessment 3. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording 4. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation 5. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation 6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation"
B) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A)."
C) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A) and the provision to be made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
Reason – To ensure that any archaeological interest is appropriately assessed and documented prior to any other works commending which may affect the interest in accordance with policy CS19 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF.
Drainage
05. The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.
Reason - In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.
06. No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal of surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Furthermore, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, there shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of the approved surface water drainage works.
Reason - To ensure that no surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for its disposal.
07. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, no building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 3.0 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the sewers, which crosses the site.
Reason - In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times.
08. No development shall take place until a detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of surface water drainage for the site, in accordance with Defra Non- statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (March 2015), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved drainage system shall be implemented in accordance with the approved detailed design prior to the use of the building commencing.”
Reason - To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal and sufficient detail of the construction, operation and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems is provided to the LPA in advance of full planning consent being granted.
09. The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by Sanderson Associates dated February 2016 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 82.35m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
Reason – To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.
Site Investigations / Contamination
10. Development shall not commence until intrusive site investigations have been carried out by the developer to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues and contamination on the site and approval for commencement of development given in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and conclusions shall include any remedial works and mitigation measures required/proposed for the remediation / stability of the site. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.
Reason - To fully establish the presence and / or otherwise of any contamination and / or coal mining legacy and to ensure that site is remediated, if necessary, to an appropriate standard prior to any other works taking place on site.
11. Concurrent with the first reserved matters submission the application shall be accompanied and informed by the results of a further Noise Survey and Assessment (the parameters of which shall first have been agreed by the Local Planning Authority). The subsequent Noise Assessment shall include details of the necessary measures to mitigate any adverse impact of noise upon the development, arising from the adjacent railway line. Only those details which are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented in full on site and maintained as such thereafter.
Reason – In the interests of residential amenity.
Railway
12. Prior to commencement of works, full details of excavations and earthworks to be carried out near the railway undertaker's boundary fence should be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority acting in consultation with the railway undertaker and the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Where development may affect the railway, consultation with the Asset Protection Project Manager should be undertaken.
Reason – In order to ensure the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway.
13. Where vibro-compaction machinery is to be used in development, details of the use of such machinery and a method statement should be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority acting in consultation with the railway undertaker prior to the commencement of works and the works shall only be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved method statement.
Reason – In order to ensure the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway.
14. All operations, including the use of cranes or other mechanical plant working adjacent to Network Rail’s property, must at all times be carried out in a “fail safe” manner such that in the event of mishandling, collapse or failure, no materials or plant are capable of falling within 3.0m of the nearest rail of the adjacent railway line, or where the railway is electrified, within 3.0m of overhead electrical equipment or supports.
Reason – In order to ensure the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway.
15. Concurrent with the submission of the landscaping reserved matters the development must include a suitable trespass proof fence adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary (minimum approx. 1.8m high) and make provision for its future maintenance and renewal; and an armco or similar barrier should be located in positions where vehicles may be in a position to drive into or roll onto the railway or damage the lineside fencing. Only those details which receive subsequent written approval shall be implemented on site prior to the occupation of the first dwelling. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged without prior approval.
Reason – In order to ensure the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway.
16. Concurrent with the submission of the landscaping reserved matters full details of the proposed soft landscaping and any external lighting shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Both elements of landscaping shall take into account the comments made by Network Rail in consultation on the outline planning permission dated 11/03/2016. Only those details which receive subsequent written approval shall be implemented on site.
Reason – In order to ensure the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway and in the interests of the appearance of the development as a whole.
Highways
17. Concurrent with the submission of the first reserved matters a detailed access design indicating the proposed junction with Sheffield Road with exit visibility measuring 2.4m x 73m in both directions and including all relocation and/ or removal of existing street furniture/ apparatus, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
18. Before any other operations are commenced the new junction with Sheffield Road shall be formed in accordance with the approved detailed designs and provided with visibility sightlines extending from a point 2.4 metres from the carriageway edge, measured along the centreline of the access, for a distance of 73 metres in each direction measured along the nearside carriageway edge. The land in advance of the visibility sightlines shall be retained throughout the life of the development free of any object above ground level relative to adjoining nearside carriageway channel level.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
19. Before any other operations are commenced, (excluding Condition 18 above), space shall be provided within the site for storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading, unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles, parking and manoeuvring of employees and visitors vehicles, laid out and constructed in accordance with detailed designs first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once implemented the facilities shall be retained free from any impediment to their designated use throughout the construction period.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
20. Throughout the period of development vehicle wheel cleaning facilities shall be provided and retained within the site. All construction vehicles shall have their wheels cleaned before leaving the site in order to prevent the deposition of mud and other extraneous material on the public highway.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
21. Notwithstanding the submitted information a subsequent reserved matters or full application shall include design of the internal layout of the site in accordance with the guidance contained in the 6C’s Design Guide.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
22. No development shall take place until construction details of the residential estate road and footways (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
23. The carriageway of the proposed estate road shall be constructed in accordance with Condition 18 above up to and including at least road base level, prior to the commencement of the erection of any dwelling intended to take access from that road. The carriageway and footways shall be constructed up to and including base course surfacing to ensure that each dwelling prior to occupation has a properly consolidated and surfaced carriageway and footway, between the dwelling and the existing highway. Until final surfacing is completed, the footway base course shall be provided in a manner to avoid any upstands to gullies, covers, kerbs or other such obstructions within or abutting the footway. The carriageway, footways and footpaths in front of each dwelling shall be completed with final surface course within twelve months (or three months in the case of a shared surface road) from the occupation of such dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
24. The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be occupied until space has been provided within the site curtilage for the off-street parking of residents/ visitors vehicles, located, designed, laid out and constructed all as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and maintained throughout the life of the development free from any impediment to its designated use.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
25. There shall be no gates or other barriers within 6.0m of the nearside highway boundary and any gates shall open inwards only, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
26. The proposed access driveways to the proposed estate street shall be no steeper than 1 in 14 for the first 6.0m from the nearside highway boundary and 1 in 10 thereafter.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
27. No part of the development shall be occupied until details of arrangements for storage of bins and collection of waste have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the facilities retained for the designated purposes at all times thereafter.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
28. Prior to the commencement of the development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of water from the development onto the existing and proposed highway. The approved scheme shall be undertaken and completed prior to the first use of the accesses and retained as such thereafter.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
29. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in Annex F of PPS25 (or any subsequent version), and the results of the assessment provided to the Local Planning Authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall:
i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and iii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
30. No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an Agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and maintenance company has been established.
Reason – In the interests of highway safety.
Ecology / Trees
31. Concurrent with the submission of the first reserved matters a reptile survey shall be undertaken and the results shall be submitted to confirm the presence and / or otherwise of reptiles within the site boundary. If the surveys do reveal any reptile presence a mitigation strategy shall be prepared alongside this submission that includes measures to avoid harm to any reptile population to be employed during the site preparation and construction process and thereafter measures to provide sufficient suitable habitat is incorporated within the final layout to protect and promote the recovery of any species. Development shall only commence thereafter (following written approval by the Local Planning Authority) in strict accordance with the approved strategy.
Reason – To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the wider NPPF.
32. No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following. a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”. c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction. d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason – To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
33. A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The content of the LEMP shall include the following. a) Description and evaluation of features to be protected, enhanced, created and/or managed. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period). g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan. h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures. The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery for a period of no less than 10 years. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The scheme shall include a timetable for implementation relative to the completion of dwellings hereby approved. Thereafter the approved ecological mitigation, compensation and enhancement scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timetable and retained as such thereafter. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason - To mitigate against the loss of existing biodiversity and habitats and provide biodiversity benefit, in accordance with Policy CS9 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
34. No works shall commence on site until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such approved measures shall be implemented in full and maintained thereafter.
Reason – In the interests of biodiversity and to accord with policy CS9 of the Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
35. Prior to development commencing a scheme of biodiversity enhancement (namely the provision of bat roosting features to at least 20% of the overall development and bird boxes to at least 25% of the overall development) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any subsequently affected dwelling and retained thereafter in perpetuity.
Reason – In the interests of biodiversity and to accord with policy CS9 of the Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011-2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
36. There shall be no removal of hedgerows, trees, shrubs, brambles or ground clearance take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of the area for active birds’ nests immediately before the work is commenced. Provided that the ecologist is satisfied that no birds will be harmed, and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site and the Local Planning Authority receive written confirmation of such (which shall subsequently need to be approved in writing), works will thereafter be permitted to take place in accordance with any protection measures recommended without restriction.
Reason – To ensure that any ecological interest on site is appropriately addressed and can be mitigated against, prior to any development taking place, in accordance with policy CS9 and the wider NPPF.
37. Prior to the commencement of development, an invasive non-native species protocol shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, detailing the containment, control and removal of Japanese Knotweed on site. The measures shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason - Japanese knotweed are invasive plants, the spread of which are prohibited under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Without measures to prevent its spread as a result of the development there would be the risk of an offence being committed and avoidable harm to the environment occurring.
38. Concurrent with the submission of the first reserved matters application a tree protection plan shall also be prepared demonstrating appropriate root protection areas and above ground construction techniques. Only those details which received written approval shall be implemented on site.
Reason – In the interest of safeguarding the protected trees, having regard to their root protection areas, and in the interest of the appearance of the surrounding area.
39. Prior to the commencement of works Root Protection Areas (RPAs) shall be established and protective fencing conforming to BS 5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, demolition and construction - Recommendations’ 2012 shall be erected to all hedgerows and trees which are legally protected or identified for retention. Within these areas there shall be no excavation work and no storage of building materials or plant / machinery. The protective fencing shall remain in situ during site clearance and throughout the life the construction phases. Any works to take place within the defined RPAs shall be by means of an approved above ground construction method only which shall first have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason – In the interest of safeguarding the protected trees, having regard to their root protection areas, and in the interest of the appearance of the surrounding area.
Other
40. Prior to development commencing an Employment and Training Scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and written approval. The Scheme shall include a strategy to promote local supply chain, employment and training opportunities throughout the construction of the development.
Reason - In order to support the regeneration and prosperity of the Borough, in accordance with the provisions of Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy.
41. The development hereby approved shall include the provision of appropriate infrastructure to enable the dwellings to have high speed broadband, in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason – In the interests of sustainable development and to ensure that the development is capable of meeting the needs of future residents and / or businesses in accordance with policy CS4 of the Core Strategy and para. 42 of the NPPF.
42. Work shall only be carried out on site between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm on a Saturday and no work on a Sunday or Public Holiday. The term "work" will also apply to the operation of plant, machinery and equipment.
Reason - In the interests of residential amenities.
43. Before construction works commence or ordering of external materials takes place, precise specifications or samples of the walling and roofing materials to be used shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Only those materials approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be used as part of the development.
Reason - The condition is imposed in order to ensure that the proposed materials of construction are appropriate for use on the particular development and in the particular locality.
Notes
01. If work is carried out other than in complete accordance with the approved plans, the whole development may be rendered unauthorised, as it will not have the benefit of the original planning permission. Any proposed amendments to that which is approved will require the submission of a further application. 02. This approval contains condition/s which make requirements prior to development commencing. Failure to comply with such conditions will render the development unauthorised in its entirety, liable to enforcement action and will require the submission of a further application for planning permission in full.
Railway
03. Method statements may require to be submitted to Network Rail’s Asset Protection Project Manager at the below address for approval prior to works commencing on site. This should include an outline of the proposed method of construction, risk assessment in relation to the railway and construction traffic management plan. Where appropriate an asset protection agreement will have to be entered into. Where any works cannot be carried out in a “fail-safe” manner, it will be necessary to restrict those works to periods when the railway is closed to rail traffic i.e. “possession” which must be booked via Network Rail’s Asset Protection Project Manager and are subject to a minimum prior notice period for booking of 20 weeks. Generally if excavations/piling/buildings are to be located within 10m of the railway boundary a method statement should be submitted for NR approval.
Once planning permission has been granted and at least six weeks prior to works commencing on site the Asset Protection Project Manager (OPE) MUST be contacted, contact details as below. The OPE will require to see any method statements/drawings relating to any excavation, drainage, demolition, lighting and building work or any works to be carried out on site that may affect the safety, operation, integrity and access to the railway.
Asset Protection Project Manager Network Rail (London North Eastern) Floor 2A George Stephenson House Toft Green York Y01 6JT Email: [email protected]
Highways
04. The Highway Authority recommends that the first 6m of the proposed access driveways should not be surfaced with a loose material (i.e. unbound chippings or gravel etc.). In the event that loose material is transferred to the highway and is regarded as a hazard or nuisance to highway users the Authority reserves the right to take any necessary action against the landowner
05. Pursuant to Section 163 of the Highways Act 1980, where the site curtilage slopes down towards the public highway/ new estate street measures shall be taken to ensure that surface water run-off from within the site is not permitted to discharge across the footway margin. This usually takes the form of a dish channel or gulley laid across the access immediately behind the back edge of the highway, discharging to a drain or soakaway within the site.
06. Pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, no works may commence within the limits of the public highway without the formal written Agreement of the County Council as Highway Authority. Advice regarding the technical, legal, administrative and financial processes involved in Section 278 Agreements may be obtained from the Strategic Director of Economy Transport and Communities at County Hall, Matlock (tel: 01629 538658). The applicant is advised to allow approximately 12 weeks in any programme of works to obtain a Section 278 Agreement.
07. Pursuant to Section 38 and the Advance Payments Code of the Highways Act 1980, the proposed new estate roads should be laid out and constructed to adoptable standards and financially secured. Advice regarding the technical, financial, legal and administrative processes involved in achieving adoption of new residential roads may be obtained from the Strategic Director of Economy Transport and Communities at County Hall, Matlock (tel: 01629 538578).
08. Highway surface water shall be disposed of via a positive, gravity fed system (ie; not pumped) discharging to an approved point of outfall (eg; existing public sewer, highway drain or watercourse) to be sanctioned by the Water Authority (or their agent), Highway Authority or Environment Agency respectively. The use of soakaways for highway purposes is generally not sanctioned.
09. Pursuant to Sections 149 and 151 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant must take all necessary steps to ensure that mud or other extraneous material is not carried out of the site and deposited on the public highway. Should such deposits occur, it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all reasonable steps (eg; street sweeping) are taken to maintain the roads in the vicinity of the site to a satisfactory level of cleanliness.
10. Car parking provision should be made on the basis of 1.5no., 2no. or 3no. spaces per 1 bedroom, 2/3 bedroom or 4/4+ bedroom dwelling respectively. Each parking bay should measure 2.4m x 5.5m with adequate space behind each space for manoeuvring.
11. Under the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004, all works that involve breaking up, resurfacing and / or reducing the width of the carriageway require a notice to be submitted to Derbyshire County Council for Highway, Developer and Street Works. Works that involve road closures and / or are for a duration of more than 11 days require a three month notice. Developer's Works will generally require a three months’ notice. Developers and Utilities (for associated services) should prepare programmes for all works that are required for the development by all parties such that these can be approved through the coordination, noticing and licensing processes. This will require utilities and developers to work to agreed programmes and booked slots for each part of the works. Developers considering all scales of development are advised to enter into dialogue with Derbyshire County Council's Highway Noticing Section at the earliest stage possible and this includes prior to final planning consents.
12. The applicant is advised that to discharge Condition ** that the Local Planning Authority requires a copy of a completed Agreement between the applicant and the Local Highway Authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or the constitution and details of a Private Management and Maintenance Company confirming funding, management and maintenance regimes.
CIL
13. You are notified that you will be liable to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to Chesterfield Borough Council as CIL collecting authority on commencement of development. This charge will be levied under the Chesterfield Borough Council CIL charging schedule and s211 of the Planning Act 2008. A CIL Liability Notice will be issued at the time of a detailed planning permission which first permits development, in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). The extent of liability will be dependent on the permitted Gross Internal Area. This will be calculated on the basis of information contained within a subsequent detailed planning permission. Certain types of development may eligible for relief from CIL, such as self-build or social housing, or development by charities. Further information on the CIL is available on the Borough Council’s website.
Drainage
14. The County Council do not adopt any private SuDS schemes. As such, it should be confirmed prior to commencement of works which organisation will be responsible for SuDS maintenance once the development is completed.
Any works in or nearby an ordinary watercourse require may consent under the Land Drainage Act (1991) from the County Council (e.g. an outfall that encroaches into the profile of the watercourse, etc) to make an application for any works please contact [email protected].
The Local Planning Authority should be mindful to obtain all the relevant information pertaining to the proposed discharge in land that is not within the control of the applicant, which is fundamental to allow the drainage of the proposed development site.
The applicant should ensure there is a sufficient buffer strip in place which will allow for efficient maintenance to take place. We would recommend an easement of approximately 3m if the swale is less than 2m in width and 4.5m for swales over 2m in width. Whilst this is not stipulated within any legal byelaw the County Council would recommend these distances in order to safeguard access for essential maintenance and inspection purposes.
The applicant should demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, the appropriate level of treatment stages from the resultant surface water in line with Table 3.3 of the CIRIA SuDS Manual C697. This type of development usually requires >2 treatment stages before outfall into surface water body/system which may help towards attainment of the downstream receiving watercourse’s Water Framework Directive good ecological status.
The County Council would prefer the applicant to utilise existing landform to manage surface water in mini/sub- catchments. The applicant is advised to contact the County Council’s Flood Risk Management team should any guidance on the drainage strategy for the proposed development be required.
To discharge the conditions the applicant should ensure all of the below parameters have been satisfied: The production and submission of a scheme design demonstrating full compliance with DEFRA’s Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems: o Limiting the discharge rate and storing the excess surface water run-off generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical duration rain storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off- site to comply with S2 & S3. o Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage to accommodate the difference between the allowable discharge rate/s and all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 30% (for climate change) critical rain storm to comply with S7 & S8. o Detailed design (plans, cross, long sections and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. o Details of how the on-site surface water drainage systems shall be maintained and managed after completion and for the lifetime of the development to ensure the features remain functional. o Production of a plan showing above ground flood pathways where relevant for events in excess of 1 in 100 year rainfall event to comply with S9. o Where reasonably practicable demonstrate that the runoff volume of the site reflects the requirements of S4/5.