Sheffield City Council Place Report to City Centre South and East Planning and Highways Committee Date 06/02/2012 Report Of

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL PLACE

7 REPORT TO CITY CENTRE SOUTH AND EAST PLANNING DATE 06/02/2012 AND HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEM SUBJECT APPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS ACTS/REGULATIONS SUMMARY

RECOMMENDATIONS

SEE RECOMMENDATIONS HEREIN

THE BACKGROUND PAPERS ARE IN THE FILES IN RESPECT OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS NUMBERED.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A PARAGRAPHS CLEARED BY

BACKGROUND PAPERS

CONTACT POINT FOR ACCESS Lucy Bond TEL 0114 2734556 Chris Heeley NO: 0114 2736329 AREA(S) AFFECTED

CATEGORY OF REPORT

OPEN

Application No. Location Page No.

11/03964/CHU DQ Late Bar Fitzwilliam Street 6 Sheffield S1 4JP

11/03883/FUL 15 Northumberland Road Sheffield 16 S10 2TT

11/03857/FUL Site Of Meeting House Williamson Road 23 Sheffield S11 9AR

11/03657/FUL Carter Knowle Seventh Day Adventist Church Montrose Road 45 Sheffield S7 2EE

11/03316/FULR Site Of 135 Dore Road Sheffield 55 S17 3NF

11/02759/FUL 56 Savage Lane Sheffield 82 S17 3GW

11/02706/CHU 308-310 London Road Sheffield 93 S2 4NA

11/01980/FUL 10 Birkendale Sheffield 106 S6 3NJ

11/01967/FUL Land Between 5 And 21 Holmhirst Road 113 Sheffield

3 11/01623/FUL Mylnhurst Preparatory School And Nursery Button Hill 128 Sheffield S11 9HJ

11/00567/FUL 135 Dore Road Sheffield 145 S17 3NF

4 5 SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL

Report Of The Head Of Planning To The SOUTH Planning And Highways Committee Date Of Meeting: 06/02/2012

LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION OR INFORMATION

*NOTE* Under the heading “Representations” a Brief Summary of Representations received up to a week before the Committee date is given (later representations will be reported verbally). The main points only are given for ease of reference. The full letters are on the application file, which is available to members and the public and will be at the meeting.

Case Number 11/03964/CHU

Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use

Proposal Temporary use of bar/restaurant as a nightclub (sui generis) for 3 years to open between 10:00 hours and 04:00 hours the following day on any day of the week

Location DQ Late Bar Fitzwilliam Street Sheffield S1 4JP

Date Received 14/12/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent G9 Design

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The hereby approved use (nightclub) shall cease on or before 6 February 2014.

In order to define the permission.

2 The unit shall only operate between 10:00 hours and 04:00 hours the following day on any day of the week.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

3 No live music or amplified sound shall be played within the building unless a scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed and thereafter retained. Such scheme of works shall be capable of restricting noise breakout from the building to the street to levels not exceeding:

(i) The background noise levels by more than 3 dBA when measured as a 15 minute LAeq.

(ii) Any octave band centre frequency by more than 3 dB when measured as a 15 minute linear Leq.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

4 No externally mounted plant or equipment for heating, cooling or ventilation purposes, nor grilles, ducts, vents for similar internal equipment, shall be fitted to the building unless full details thereof have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and once installed such plant or equipment should not be altered without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

5 No movement, sorting, or removal of waste bottles, materials or other articles, nor movement of skips, shall be carried on outside the building within the site of the development between 2300 hours and 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 2300 hours to 0900 hours on Sunday and Public Holidays.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

6 No deliveries to the building shall be carried out between the hours of 2300 to 0700 hours Monday to Saturday and 2300 hours to 0900 hours Sundays and Public Holidays.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

1. The decision to grant permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the relevant policies and proposals from the Sheffield Development Framework and the Unitary Development Plan set out below:

The decision to grant permission and impose any conditions has been taken having regard to the relevant policies and proposals form the Sheffield Development Framework and the Unitary Development Plan set out below:

7 Policy IB7: Development in Business Areas (Unitary Development Plan).

Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas

The City Centre Living Strategy.

Interim Planning Guidance on Night Time Uses.

Given the central location and nature of the approved use as a bar/restaurant the proposal will not place undue pressure on existing highway network.

The venue provides good access for all users with facilities such as an internal lift and level access.

Given that the approved use as a bar and/or restaurant could operate without restrictions on hours outside of the licence, which are currently 10:00 hours to 04:00 hours on any day, and that there would not be a significant increase in the venue’s capacity as a nightclub, it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposal for potential noise and disturbance caused to residents particularly, bearing in mind that the venue will be brought under control by the imposition of conditions to control its hours, which the current planning permission lacks.

The Environmental Protection Service have been informed of the possible disturbance being caused by music breakout form the venue and are going to monitor the situation. They will then remedy any problem through licensing if needed

This explanation is only intended as a summary of the reasons for grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planningonline or by calling the planning officer, contact details are at the top of this notice.

8 Site Location

9 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a two storey flat roofed building that fronts onto Fitzwilliam Street. The unit was granted planning permission to operate as a restaurant and public bar in July 2003 under planning reference 03/01006/FUL. This original approval did not impose any hours of opening on the venue. Over the course of time the venue appears to have become a nightclub operating over the two floors, with each floor able to operate separately from the other.

The distinction between a bar and nightclub is drawn by varying factors, including the type of music based events that take place and the amount of dance floor and standing areas vs. seating areas.

The applicant is now seeking planning permission to regularise this nightclub use for a temporary period of three years. It is proposed to open in accordance with the licensing hours which are 10:00 hours until 04:00 hours the following day on any day of the week. The venue would typically provide minimal seating at ground and first floor and have large dance floor/standing areas. Both floors provide separate bar areas and toilet facilities.

The surrounding area has a mixture of uses, including some light industry and offices. Of most relevance to this application however is the large number of residential and student accommodation in the vicinity, which includes the Opal One student scheme set to the immediate rear of the application building. Other residential uses in the area include an eight storey apartment block set 21-metres to the south and a number of private and Housing Association properties set across Fitzwilliam Street to the northwest.

The property is situated within a Business Area as defined in the adopted Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Planning permission was granted for the use of a warehouse as a restaurant and public bar and erection of glazed free standing canopy in 2003 under planning reference 03/01006/FUL.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

There have been 12 letters of representation from local residents received in respect of this application. These letters object to the proposal for the following reasons:

- People leaving the venue create noise and disturbance for existing residents through anti social behaviour, which includes singing and shouting, fighting, urinating and vomiting in the street and litter.

- People standing outside the venue queuing or smoking create noise and disturbance to surrounding residents.

10 - Music breakout from the venue is a problem for residents.

- Noise problems are more prominent for the Housing Association units across Fitzwilliam Street owing to these properties only having double glazing.

- The proposal will lead to increased alcohol consumption, which places pressure on the emergency services.

- The hours of opening proposed are far too late.

- There are other late night venues in the area, including The Corporation Nightclub, that only serve to increase the problems.

- Taxis beeping and waiting outside are a nuisance.

A petition with fourteen signatures has also been sent in by local residents objecting to the proposal. This states that the sleep of residents is massively impacted by loud music, noise and anti social issues until very late at night.

A letter of objection has been received from the management company for the student accommodation to the rear of the venue. This raises concerns that late night noise from the venue and its patrons would negatively impact on the sleep and studying of students and other residents nearby. In addition the extra traffic generated could impact on residential amenity.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use

Policy IB7: Development in Business Areas within the UDP lists a number of use classes that are regarded as preferred, acceptable and unacceptable in such areas.

Nightclubs are not included in this list as they are regarded as sui generis and therefore do not fall within a use class. The proposed use must therefore be considered on its own merits, which are discussed in detail below.

The existing approved use as a restaurant and/or bar (Use Class A3/A4) is listed as an acceptable use within Policy IB7.

Dominance

Section a) of Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development should not lead to a concentration of uses which would prejudice the dominance of the preferred business use in the area.

As the existing approved use is not for business purposes (Use Class B1) the proposal would not threaten the dominance of this preferred use and is therefore considered to be in accordance with section a) of Policy IB9.

Design

Section c) of Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development should be well designed and be of a scale and nature appropriate to the site.

There are no external alterations proposed as part of this application.

Highways

Section f) of Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development or change of use applications should be adequately served by transport facilities and provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off street parking.

Given the similar nature of the approved use (bar and/or restaurant) and the sustainable central location the proposal gives rise to no highway concerns.

Hours restrictions will be placed on service vehicles, which will ensure they will not have any undue impact on surrounding residential amenity.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable from a highways perspective.

Access

The building provides level access and an internal lift up to the first floor. In addition mobility compliant toilets are provided on both floors.

The venue is therefore considered to offer good mobility access.

Amenity

Section b) of Policy IB9: Conditions on Development in Industry and Business Areas within the UDP states that new development or change of use applications should not cause residents or visitors in any hotel, hostel, residential institution or housing to suffer from unacceptable living conditions.

The City Centre Living Strategy (CCLS) was approved by Cabinet in 2004 and forms Supplementary Planning Guidance. One of the key goals of this document is to ensure that potential conflict between residential uses and late night venues is managed.

The Interim Planning Guidance on Night Time Uses (IPG) aims to find a harmony and balance between city centre living and a vibrant night-time economy, in order to ensure a successful city centre in both senses. This document was approved by Cabinet in 2005 and identifies two areas of the city centre in which the amenity of existing and future residents should particularly be protected from undue noise and disturbance after a reasonable time of night. The IPG identifies 00.30 hours as this

12 reasonable time of night. The application site does not fall within these areas, although the boundary of one of the areas does sit to the immediate west, it must therefore be judged on its individual merits.

Guideline 2 within the IPG states that leisure and food and drink uses will only be allowed if: a) Conditions for nearby residents and people working in the area will not be harmed by noise breakout, traffic, parking on nearby streets, odours, street noise or general disturbance. b) They are unlikely to lead to anti-social behaviour that would disturb residents, workers or users of the area.

There are a number of residential and student accommodation schemes in the immediate area and the main concern from an amenity perspective is how this proposal would impact on the living conditions of these residents.

The venue already benefits from planning permission to operate as a bar and/or restaurant without restrictions on opening hours. There is no dispute that the nightclub use will create noise and disturbance for surrounding residents owing to activities outside the venue, and this disturbance will be felt even more acutely in the Housing Association properties across Fitzwilliam Street, which do not benefit from the higher specification glazing more modern apartments do. The question is how much worse would this disturbance be if the unit went back to the default position and began to operate as a bar once again.

The venue as a nightclub has a capacity of 600 (defined by the licence) and if it were to revert back into a bar, which would introduce more seating, this capacity would not be decreased significantly (around 500). Given this, and as the bar could operate within the same opening hours as are being applied for as part of this application, the potential for surrounding residents to suffer from noise and disturbance from activities outside the venue would not change significantly between the two uses. It would therefore be considered unreasonable to refuse the proposal on these grounds.

In relation to the amount of people smoking outside the venue and the general behaviour of patrons leaving the premises, there are conditions on the licence that control this. This includes limiting the amount of people smoking outside to 15 at any one time. The Environmental Protection Service (EPS) have been informed of the points made within the letters and are going to contact the individuals who have raised concerns in order to monitor the situation. Ultimately if the venue is operating in breach of its licence then it can be called in for review under the Licensing Act.

Through consultation with EPS before the application was submitted it was established that no notable complaints had been made about music breakout from the venue for a considerable time. EPS also confirmed that the applicant had undertaken substantial works to the venue in the past to ensure that music

13 breakout was not an issue. As a result a noise report was not required as part of this submission.

Subsequently, however several of the representations from surrounding residents have cited music breakout as an issue and this clearly needs more investigation. The original bar use did have a planning condition that restricted music breakout, but the more restrictive condition is placed on the licence, which requires a limiter to be fixed. The limit can then be looked at again if needed. Given that the licence is more restrictive it is not necessary to duplicate this condition. Instead EPS will monitor the situation and can then re-assess the set limit in order to improve the situation if needed.

Given the above circumstances it is only reasonable to consider the application, on balance, to be acceptable from an amenity perspective.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The majority of the issues raised within the representations have been addressed within the above assessment. The remaining issues are addressed below.

There are other venues in the vicinity of this site so not all the disturbance caused in the surrounding streets can be attributed to this venue.

Issues about taxis waiting outside the venue and creating noise would not be notably different if the unit was to revert back to the default use as a bar.

People drinking excessively and placing pressure on the emergency services is a licensing issue rather than planning consideration.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

Given the central location and nature of the approved use as a bar/restaurant the proposal will not place undue pressure on the existing highway network.

The venue provides good access for all users with facilities such as an internal lift and level access.

Given that the approved use as a bar and/or restaurant could operate without planning restrictions on hours (outside of the licence, which are currently 10:00 hours to 04:00 hours on any day), and that there would not be a significant increase in the venue’s capacity as a nightclub, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposal for potential noise and disturbance caused to residents, bearing in mind that the venue will be brought under control by the imposition of conditions to control its hours which the current planning permission lacks.

The application is therefore recommended for approval with conditions.

Case Number 11/03883/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Use as House in Multiple Occupation, erection of a garage and widening of vehicle entrance gate posts (Amended as per plans received on 4/1/2012)

Location 15 Northumberland Road Sheffield S10 2TT

Date Received 14/12/2011

Team CITY CENTRE AND EAST

Applicant/Agent Mrs Christine Finnegan

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Drawing ref: FJF/NOR/01A received on 4/1/2012 and FJF/NOR/04 received on 14/12/2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

3 Before the development is commenced the following samples shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

i) proposed facing materials and ii) proposed roofing materials.

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

16 4 Before the development is commenced, details of a compound in which to store bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

MU6 - Hanover Mixed Use Area BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas CS41 - Creating Mixed Communities

The proposed re-use of a stone built villa in the Northumberland Road Conservation Area as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) will not impact upon the character of the area but does contravene policy CS41 of the Core Strategy. However, given the areas designation as a Mixed Use Area (a Flexible Use Area in the emerging SDF), the low levels of housing and its proximity to the Hospitals and University, it is considered that use of No. 15 Northumberland Road as HMO is acceptable in this instance.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. It is noted that your planning application involves the construction or alteration of an access crossing to a highway maintained at public expense.

This planning permission DOES NOT automatically permit the layout or construction of the access crossing in question, this being a matter which is covered by Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980, and dealt with by:

Development Services Howden House 1 Union Street Sheffield S1 2SH

For access crossing approval you should contact the Highway Development Control Section of Sheffield City Council on Sheffield (0114) 2736136, quoting your planning permission reference number.

2. The developer should be aware that the size of the development is such that it would be prudent to investigate the ground conditions on the site before

17 proceeding further. Information and advice on ground conditions is available from Building Standards, Barkers Pool House, Burgess Street, Sheffield, S1 2HF. If any coal shaft, adit or other coal working is encountered, no work must be carried out without the authorisation of the Local Planning Authority.

18 Site Location

19 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Located on the southern side of Northumberland Road, in a designated Mixed Use Area (Hanover) as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), the application site comprises of a large detached stone built property elevated approximately 1.5 metres above the highway.

The former house sits within the Northumberland Road Conservation Area, an isolated pocket of Victorian residential development with a cohesive mid 19th century architectural character and appearance typified along Northumberland Road. The area has many good examples of mid 19th century middle-class houses in Gothic and Classical style and local stone is used prevalently for buildings, boundary walls, gate piers and within the floorscape.

The house lies opposite Sheffield Children’s Hospital and in close proximity to the Hallamshire and Weston Park Hospitals and the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital.

Until recently, the property was used by the University of Sheffield as office accommodation. Planning permission is now being sought for the use of 15 Northumberland Road as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). In addition, consent is also sought for the erection of a detached garage, the widening of the gate posts either side of the vehicle entrance and a small increase in the size of an existing two storey rear extension.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

04/02784/FUL Planning permission was granted in September 2004 for the demolition of outbuilding and alterations to offices.

00/01482/FUL In January 2001, planning permission was granted for widening the means of vehicular access and construction of a car park.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

5 objections have been received from local residents in connection with the proposed development. The concerns raised and comments made by objectors include:

- The proposal contravenes the local planning policy which seeks to ensure that no more than 20% of properties in the immediate area are used as HMOs.

- The proposals would be detrimental to local families in preference of students and professional renters who are already adequately catered for by the existing stock of rented accommodation.

- The site seems incapable of accommodating 4 parking places (including the garage).

20 - Proposed as a house for 6 doctors/professionals, 4 off-street parking spaces is insufficient and will lead to more on-street parking problems.

- It will be difficult to ensure that the house is only occupied by key workers as proposed by the applicant and is likely to be let by students, with all the accompanying problems.

- All alterations to the property should be in-keeping with the character of the building and wider conservation area.

- An adequate bin store should be provided to protect the visual amenities of the area.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use

A range of uses are considered to be acceptable in the Hanover Mixed Use Area as defined by Policy MU6 of the UDP including housing, residential institutions, small shops, offices, food and drink and business uses, as well as community and leisure facilities. The proposals are considered to accord with Policy MU6 of the UDP.

Policy CS41 of the Core Strategy (Creating Mixed Communities) attempts to promote mixed communities by encouraging a range of housing types, sizes and tenures. It does so by limiting purpose built student housing and HMOs to 20% within 200 metres of the application site where communities are already imbalanced by a concentration of such uses. The concentration in this area is currently 43%, well in excess of the 20% threshold. However, this figure is so high because of the very low number of residential properties in the locality (56 as opposed to the more usual range of between 400 and 500). The majority of properties are still owned and occupied by the hospitals, University and related uses, though the University has now moved out of and sold on a number of premises. Given the sites proximity to the hospitals, and taking into account their future expansion plans, it is considered highly unlikely that this area will become more orientated towards family homes and it is ideally located for young medical professionals. Furthermore, the proposal will not result in the loss of a family home as the building is in office use at present.

It has been brought to our attention that a number of properties along Northumberland Road previously sold by the University had a restrictive covenant imposed by the University preventing them from being used for student accommodation or as a HMO. However the property, which is the subject of this application, had no such covenant.

Residential Amenity

This is a relatively busy location given its close proximity to a number of hospitals. That said, the application site is a detached property of substantial size and its use

21 as a House in Multiple Occupation is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties.

A condition is proposed requiring the provision of a bin store/compound to protect the visual amenities of the locality.

Highways

The four parking spaces within the site are not independently accessible, and therefore not ideal. However, this is an existing situation and arguably more problematic when the property was in office use. What’s more, given the site’s accessibility, not only to nearby employers but to public transport and to local facilities in Broomhill and the City Centre, it is considered appropriate for the house to be designated car free/limited parking in order to ensure that it does not place further pressure on the existing residents parking scheme.

Impact on the Conservation Area

Policy BE16 of the UDP (Development in Conservation Areas) expects new development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation area. The proposals include the erection of a detached garage and the widening of the gate posts either side of the vehicle entrance. The proposed garage is to be built on the site of a previous outbuilding which was demolished about 6 years ago and as it will be clad in natural stone with a pitched roof it is considered to tie in with the character of the conservation area. It is also considered that the widening of the vehicular entrance by re-locating the existing stone gate post approximately 600mm to the east will have little impact upon the character of the area.

Taking down an existing two storey toilet extension to the rear of the property which measures 1470mm by 1625mm and rebuilding it, again in natural stone, at a slightly larger size of 1975mm by 2200mm in order to fit in showers on two levels will not harm the visual amenities of the area nor have a significant impact upon the appearance of the existing building.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed re-use of a stone built villa in the Northumberland Road Conservation Area as a House in Multiple Occupation will not impact upon the character of the area but does contravene policy CS41 of the Core Strategy as a result of the very low levels of housing in the area. However, given the areas designation as a Mixed Use Area (a Flexible Use Area in the emerging SDF), the low levels of housing and its proximity to the Hospitals and University, it is considered that use of the 15 Northumberland Road as HMO is acceptable in this instance. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions.

Case Number 11/03857/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of existing meeting hall and erection of 8 apartments with associated car parking area, internal bin and bicycle store, garden space and communal amenity area

Location Site Of Meeting House Williamson Road Sheffield S11 9AR

Date Received 13/12/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Journeyman Design Ltd

Recommendation Granted Conditionally subject to the completion of a Legal Agreement

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Before the development is commenced samples of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 A sample panel of the proposed masonry shall be erected on the site and shall illustrate the colour, texture, bedding and bonding of masonry and mortar finish to be used. The sample panel shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the building works and shall be retained for verification purposes until the completion of such works.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 Before the commencement of development, large scale details, including materials and finishes, at a minimum of 1:20 scale of the items listed below shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Windows Window reveals External doors Mock door surround Roof lights Chimneys Rainwater goods Eaves and verges Entrance canopy Entrance gates

Thereafter, the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

5 Before the development is commenced, full details of the proposed cellular confinement system and finishing treatment to the driveway shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the driveway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 Rooflights shall be conservation style whereby no part of the roof light shall project above the surface of the roofing slates unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

7 All proposed rainwater gutters, down pipes and external plumbing shall be of cast iron or cast aluminium construction and painted black unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

8 The proposed 1.2m retaining wall to the rear boundary of the site shall be constructed in natural stone in accordance with samples and details to have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation of the said wall.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

24 9 Prior to any work commencing on site, full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the construction shall only be progressed in accordance with the approved details: - construction vehicle routing - construction vehicles ingress and egress - location of site compound and temporary car parking arrangements for contractors

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

10 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs, hedges to be retained on and adjoining the site to be retained, shall be implemented in accordance with Weddle Landscape Design’s Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement (June 2011) and a plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the protection shall not be removed until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

11 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

12 The approved landscape works shall be implemented prior to the use of the development commencing or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed with the local planning authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

13 The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum standard of Code Level for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and before any dwelling is occupied (or within an alternative timescale to be agreed) the relevant certification, demonstrating that Code Level 3 has been achieved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

25 In the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change, in accordance with Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS64.

14 The apartments shall not be occupied unless all vehicular areas are constructed of permeable/porous materials unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved permeable/porous surfacing material shall be retained.

In order to control surface water run off from the site and mitigate against the risk of flooding.

15 Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, the second floor kitchen area window in the elevation facing No19 Kingfield Road shall be non-opening to a minimum height of 1700mm above the finished floor level of the kitchen area and such window shall be glazed with obscure glass to a minimum privacy standard of Level 4 Obscurity. The window shall not at any time be glazed with clear glass without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

16 The windows to the first floor bedrooms facing No. 19 Kingfield Road shall be installed strictly in accordance with the detail shown on the approved plans and such windows shall not be subsequently modified in any way without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.

17 The lighting within the communal stairwell shall comprise emergency escape lighting with any additional decorative lighting being on a separate circuit to be controlled by a timer. Prior to implementation, the screening to the private garden areas shown on the approved plans shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter such screen treatments shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and retained.

In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.

18 Prior to implementation, the screening to the private garden areas shown on the approved plans shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter such screen treatments shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and retained.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

19 The apartments shall not be used unless the car and cycle parking accommodation shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and thereafter such car and cycle parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

20 The gradient of shared pedestrian/vehicular access shall not exceed 1:12 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

21 At all times that demolition and construction works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

22 The apartments shall not be used unless all redundant access have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to boundary wall, footway and kerb, and means of vehicular access shall be restricted solely to those access points indicated in the approved plans.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

23 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Drawings W RD PL-02 Rev F W RD PL-03 Rev E W RD PL-04 Rev D W RD PL-05 Rev C W RD PL-06 Rev E W RD PL-07 Rev C

Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement (Weddle Landscape Design June 2011)

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE6 - Landscape Design BE15 - Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas BE17 - Design and Materials in Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest GE15 - Trees and Woodland H5 - Flats, Bed-sitters and Shared Housing) H15 (Design of New Housing Developments H7- Mobility Housing H11- Development in Housing Areas in Nether Edge and Broomhall H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas H15 - Design of New Housing Developments H16 - Open Space in New Housing Developments CF2 - Keeping Community Facilities CS26 - Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility CS41 - Creating Mixed Communities CS63 - Responses to Climate Change CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS67 (Flood Risk Management CS74 (Design Principles)

The proposed development has been designed to fully address a previous refusal of planning permission due to concerns about the impact on privacy in bedrooms in the adjoining residential care home (The Manse). Weight has been given to the benefits of the scheme which will increase the housing stock and enhance the residential character and appearance of the Nether Edge Conservation Area and, overall, it is considered that the proposals broadly comply with the relevant policies and proposals in the development plan, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. The developer should be aware that the size of the development is such that it would be prudent to investigate the ground conditions on the site before proceeding further. Information and advice on ground conditions is available from Building Standards, Barkers Pool House, Burgess Street, Sheffield, S1 2HF. If any coal shaft, adit or other coal working is encountered, no work must be carried out without the authorisation of the Local Planning Authority.

28 2. As the proposed development abuts the public highway you are advised to contact the Highways Co-ordination Group on Sheffield 2736677, prior to commencing works. The Co-ordinator will be able to advise you of any pre- commencement condition surveys, permits, permissions or licences you may require in order to carry out your works.

3. You are required as part of this development, to carry out works within the public highway: As part of the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (Section 54), 3rd edition of the Code of Practice 2007, you must give at least three months written notice to the Council, informing us of the date and extent of works you propose to undertake.

The notice should be sent to:-

Sheffield City Council 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road Sheffield S9 2DB

For the attention of Mr P Vickers

Please note failure to give the appropriate notice may lead to a fixed penalty notice being issued and any works on the highway being suspended.

4. The applicant should install any external lighting to the site to meet the guidance provided by the Institution of Lighting Engineers in their document "Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution". This is to prevent obtrusive light causing disamenity to neighbours. The Guidance Notes are available from the Institute of Lighting Engineers, telephone number (01788) 576492 and fax number (01788) 540145.

5. The applicant is advised that noise and vibration from demolition and construction sites can be controlled by Sheffield City Council under Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As a general rule, where residential occupiers are likely to be affected, it is expected that noisy works of demolition and construction will be carried out during normal working hours, i.e. 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. Further advice, including a copy of the Council's Code of Practice for Minimising Nuisance from Construction and Demolition Sites is available from the Environmental Protection Service, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB: Tel - 0114 2734651.

6. Section 80 (2) of the Building Act 1984 requires that any person carrying out demolition work shall notify the local authority of their intention to do so. This applies if any building or structure is to be demolished in part or whole. (There are some exceptions to this including an internal part of an occupied building, a building with a cubic content of not more than 1750 cubic feet or where a greenhouse, conservatory, shed or pre-fabricated garage forms part of a larger building). Where demolition is proposed in City Centre and

29 /or sensitive areas close to busy pedestrian routes, particular attention is drawn to the need to consult with Environmental Protection Services to agree suitable noise (including appropriate working hours) and dust suppression measures.

Form Dem 1 (Notice of Intention to Demolish) is available from Building Standards, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield S9 2DB. Tel (0114) 2734170

Environmental Protection Services can be contacted at DEL, 2-10 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9 2DB. Tel (0114) 2734651

7. The applicant is advised that the carrying out of any works to the existing trees, hedges or shrubs within the site, which are works authorised by this permission will constitute the commencement of work on the development. The unauthorised removal of any tree, hedge or shrub or any other works which threaten their future vigour and quality, may result in breach of condition action. It could also mean that the development is materially different from that which has permission and may be liable to enforcement action and the submission of a new planning application may be required.

8. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

9. The Council is responsible for allocating house numbers and road names to both new developments and conversions of existing buildings. Developers must therefore contact the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering Officer on (0114) 2736127 to obtain official addresses for their properties as soon as construction works commence.

Site Location

INTRODUCTION

This application is a resubmission of a similar scheme that was refused by the Committee on 7th November 2011 (ref 11/02698/FUL) having previously been deferred to allow Members to visit the site.

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The site is approximately 39.7m x 23.5m (933m2) and lies between two large Victorian villas in Williamson Road. It is currently occupied by a redundant Gospel meeting house for the Brethren community (Use Class D1). The meeting house is a c1950’s single storey building with shallow pitched roof. It is set back in excess of 25 metres from Williamson Road. The entire area in front of the building is tarmac and has previously been used for car parking. There is gated vehicular access from each side of the front boundary. The site falls approximately 1.8m from front to back.

There are Beech, Laurel and Leylandii hedges to the front and side boundaries. Between the building and the rear boundary is an approximately 3m strip of land which is overgrown with Ivy and Brambles. To the side and rear of the building are 6 mature and semi-mature trees and there are 3 more similar trees adjoining these boundaries.

The site adjoins a two and three storey stone villa to the south side boundary. This building lies at the junction of Williamson Road and St Andrew’s Road and has

33 recently been converted for use as a care home (‘The Manse’). The Manse has primary window openings on all 4 sides. An equally large 3 storey c1960’s building (No. 23 Kingfield Road) is linked by a 2 storey building (24A St Andrew’s Road) is attached to the rear elevation of The Manse. These buildings are in separate office uses (Class B1).

To the opposite side boundary is a two storey stone villa (19 Kingfield Road), also in use as offices (Class B1). This building has frontages to Williamson Road and Kingfield Road. There is a garden area to the Williamson Road frontage and a large car park to Kingfield Road.

To the rear of the site is a c1970’s two storey block of flats with a row of flat roofed garages adjoining the rear boundary. On the opposite side of Williamson Road is a substantial stone wall which screens the large raised car park to NHS premises at Argyll House. The remainder of Williamson Road is made up of private detached and semi-detached dwellings with a children’s nursery (‘Treetops’) sitting at the junction with Psalter Lane.

The application proposes a two storey mock Victorian villa with 8 apartments (6 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed) on 3 floors (including roof space). Car parking for 10 cars is proposed to the rear of the building. One of the two existing access points will be closed with the land in front of the building being landscaped to provide a communal garden.

The application has been amended in response to the previous refusal on grounds of overlooking of the adjoining care home at The Manse. The proposed building remains in the same location and provides the same accommodation but has been ‘handed’. This has resulted in a blank elevation facing the boundary with The Manse. The length of elevation in closest proximity to this boundary has been reduced by approximately 5 metres. The remainder of the side elevation is set back approximately 4.8m from the main side elevation.

The longer side elevation (with windows) will now face the boundary with the large villa at 19 Kingfield Road. This property is in use as offices and has frontages to both Kingfield Road and Williamson Road.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Planning permission was refused in November 2011, as referred to in the Introduction above (ref 11/02698/FUL). The reason for refusal was:

The Local Planning Authority considers that owing to the siting of first floor habitable room windows on the proposed south east elevation, within 5m to 7m of habitable room windows of the adjacent residential care home (The Manse), the proposed development would result in adverse overlooking, and loss of privacy to occupants of The Manse. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield.

34 A parallel application for conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing meeting hall was granted at the same Committee meeting (ref 11/02724/CAC).

Earlier proposals for demolition of the existing building and a similar new development for 8 apartments were withdrawn in July 2011 (refs 11/01354/FUL and 11/01355/CAC).

Planning permission for use of The Manse as a nursing home was granted in 2009 (09/02479/FUL).

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Representations have been received from both the owners (Jorand Ltd) and the operators of The Manse. The owners have no objection to development of the site in principle but, as previously, object to this particular scheme. The objections are summarised as:

- only half the issues raised at the last Committee have been addressed - reiterates that Jorand is happy with the principle of development of this site - handing of building and removal of primary windows looking into The Manse are welcomed but scheme fails to address overbearing impact on 3 bedrooms in The Manse that have views over the application site - all objections would be removed if access road were handed (using other existing entrance) to increase separation to The Manse - tree root protection zones could be adequately protected by handing access if designed carefully and flexibly (e.g. reduction in no of bedrooms, which would also help with parking concerns raised by local residents)

As in the previous application, Jorand and The Manse have provided NHS assessment criteria for registered care homes. They draw attention to their residents having ‘a variety of disabilities’ which would be compounded by the proposed development. The relevant registration criteria are:

- appropriate levels of privacy and dignity for patients - patients can choose to have visual privacy - good views inside and out of the building - patients and staff can easily see the sky - the view outside is calming - the view outside is interesting

They also state that a Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspector visited in the first week in January 2012 and confirmed that the revised scheme would still result in at least one bedroom being de-registered as it would not meet the required environment criteria in respect of the last four bullet points noted above. They also state that the CQC inspector would be ‘relatively satisfied’ if the building were moved further away and the access road moved to the opposite side (although some sound screening would be preferred against vehicle movements).

35 Jorand and The Manse go on to state that de-registering of affected rooms would result in considerable financial loss and loss of specialist beds, ultimately resulting in closure of the care home and the loss of a considerable number of newly created jobs.

Further information about the CQC’s comments to The Manse were requested by the planning Case Officer. The applicant has also written in response to the above representations. These matters are detailed later in this report (see ‘Response to Representations’ section).

5 letters of objection have been received from local residents. The objections do not raise any different concerns to those raised by the 12 residents that objected to the previous application. The objections are predominantly related to car parking issues although 2 of the letters do maintain concerns about privacy to the flats at Kingfield Court (two storey building to the rear of the site) due to overlooking from the proposed flats. They also refer to the capacity of drainage connections running through Kingfield Court and note that the boundary retaining wall between Kingfield Court and the application site is in need of repair. The highway issues are not fully stated for the purposes of this report as there is no change to parking requirements or provision arising from the amended scheme and such issues were not included in the reason for refusal.

2 letters of objection have been received from office users at 24A St Andrews Road (immediately to rear of The Manse):

- too close to care home with demonstrably harmful overbearing impact on 3 bedrooms - too close to office unit (24A St Andrews Road) – will be overbearing and create privacy issues for apartment owners - insufficient parking provision – notes two accidents due to parked vehicles in last 5 months, one of which damaged the wall to The Manse

The tenants of the offices in the adjoining building (19 Kingfield Road) have written to confirm their support for the proposals:

- appears to be adequate parking provision in the scheme - satisfied that facing windows have been designed so as not to overlook their property

The Conservation Advisory Group commented on the original (withdrawn) application (11/01354/FUL) which was essentially of the same scale and character as the current proposal. The CAG minute is not repeated here as the design and impact on the character of the Nether Edge Conservation Area has not changed and was not included in the reason for refusal.

36 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy

The site lies within a Housing Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and within the Nether Edge Conservation Area. There are no proposals to alter the policy areas in the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) Draft Proposals Map.

Principle of Proposed Use

Housing (Class C3) uses are the preferred land use in accordance with UDP Policy H11 (Development in Housing Areas in Nether Edge and Broomhall). The current lawful use of the site for religious worship (Class D1) is listed as an ‘acceptable’ use. The proposal represents the replacement of an acceptable use with a preferred use and is therefore acceptable, in principle, in accordance with Policy H11.

Density and Mix

The density and mix is as previously proposed.

The SDF Core Strategy Policy CS41 (Creating Mixed Communities) encourages housing development to meet a range of housing needs including a mix of prices, sizes, types and tenures. As highlighted in some of the representations, the area is predominantly family housing with a high proportion of owner-occupation. However, there are a number of purpose built flats schemes, including those to the rear of the site in Kingfield Court and larger scale schemes in close proximity in St Andrew’s Road and Clifford Road. The application proposal introduces new housing into the Housing Area and will not result in an over provision of flats or undermine the traditional stock of family housing. Overall, the development complements the existing housing stock and complies with Policy CS41.

Core Strategy Policy CS26 (Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility) indicates that a density of between 30 and 50 units per hectare is appropriate for this type of location. The development equates to approximately 85 units per hectare. However, apartments will invariably make more efficient use of land and achieve higher densities than single dwellings. In this instance, the density is comparable to the relatively recent flats schemes in St Andrew’s Road and at the junction of Clifford Road and is not out of character in the Nether Edge Conservation Area.

Conservation and Design

The handing of the building has no material impact on the previously reported conservation and design issues.

This part of the Nether Edge Conservation Area is noted for a wide range of residential environments including large Victorian and Edwardian villas on spacious plots, medium sized terraced and semi-detached Edwardian villas, inter-wars

37 semis, post-war bungalows and detached housing. Significantly unifying features are the spacious geometry of the streets and the dominance of trees, planting and boundary walls within the street scene.

The existing single storey 1950’s building on the site has consent for demolition (11/02724/CAC). The building has no particular architectural or historic merit and does not make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area in the context of the character described above. The extensive tarmac surface in front of the building is a negative feature. Redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity to significantly enhance the street scene and strengthen the positive aspects of the Conservation Area in accordance with UDP Policies BE15 (Areas and Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest) and BE16 (Development in Conservation Areas), SDF Core Strategy Policy CS74 (Design Principles) and the general principles set out in national planning policy in PPS5 (Planning for the Historic Environment).

The building has been designed to reflect the character of the large villas that are key drivers of the Conservation Area designation. The building is proposed to be constructed in natural stone and slate and includes a hierarchy of timber framed window openings to the front elevation, bay windows, gables, chimneys and steep roof pitches. These features are better articulated than on the original application for planning permission (ref 11/01354/FUL). It is proposed to be sited forward of the existing building and No19 and in line with the corner of The Manse and Nos 4–12 Williamson Road. The ridge height is approximately 1300mm below the highest ridge at The Manse and approximately 550mm above the height of the other adjoining property (19 Kingfield Road). One of the two existing vehicular access’ will be closed and the land in front of the building will be soft landscaped with 5 new trees planted. Matching stone boundary wall treatment and additional beech hedging will be provided to the closed access and an automated timber panel gate and separate pedestrian gate will replace the large vertically barred steel gate to the retained access.

The details described above all contribute positively to the street scene and help to reinforce and enhance the Conservation Area in accordance with the policies quoted above. They also accord with UDP Policies BE5 (Building Design and Siting), BE17 (Design and Materials in Areas of Special Architectural or Historic Interest) and H14(a) (Conditions on Development in Housing Areas).

As in the previous application, there are some negative aspects to the design of the scheme. These relate to upvc window treatments to the side and rear elevations, unorthodox window design to two bedroom windows, mock front door, extensive car parking to the rear and large front roof slope. However, notwithstanding overlooking issues, these details were previously considered to be outweighed by the more positive aspects of the development in contributing to the Nether Edge Conservation Area.

Sustainability

The sustainability issues remain as reported and accepted in the previous application. The key points are:

- Development of a brownfield site in a reasonably sustainable location, albeit not within easy walking distance of local shops and high frequency public transport - Design to achieve a minimum of Level 3 against criteria in the Code for Sustainable Homes - Reduction of almost 25% in carbon emissions compared to the target emission rate (thereby reducing the need for on-site energy regeneration) - Reduction in surface water run-off

The proposals remain in compliance with SDF Core Strategy Policies CS64 (Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments) and CS67 (Flood Risk Management) and reflects the over-arching principles in CS63 (Responses to Climate Change). The scheme also remains broadly in compliance with CS65 (Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction).

Residential Amenity for Occupants

The ‘handed’ building continues to provide generally good living conditions for future occupiers. There is a mix of private and communal amenity space of marginally over 130m2. Although to the front of the building, the communal space is well designed and will be well screened to afford sufficient privacy for residents.

As previously, two of the flats at first floor level are designed with unorthodox windows to one of the two bedrooms. The windows project into the bedrooms in a ‘V’ shaped arrangement above fitted furniture. One side of the ‘V’ is fixed and obscure glazed, the other being clear and openable. A conventional clear glazed window is proposed in the external wall in front of the ‘V’ windows. This arrangement was originally designed to maintain adequate privacy to facing bedrooms in The Manse but will now direct views away from the Williamson Road elevation of the adjoining offices to the opposite side boundary (19 Kingfield Road).

As previously, the design solution results in less than ideal living conditions in terms of outlook from the bedrooms. However, the nature of the layout of the flats and their anticipated occupation is such that the bedrooms are unlikely to be used for much other than sleeping. Nevertheless, they will receive sufficient natural light. The primary living areas have adequate light and outlook.

The one bedroom apartment in the roof space relies on roof lights to serve the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom with only the living room having a conventional window. The rooflights to the bedroom should provide some outlook albeit limited.

The reduced amenity in these rooms was accepted previously, the sole concern being restricted to overlooking of The Manse.

The handing of the building has resulted in two ground floor bedrooms directly facing the vehicular/pedestrian access to the rear of the building. Small secondary windows to two living areas will also face the access. Mirrored film is proposed to be applied to these windows. This will allow views out of the windows but will prevent pedestrians using the driveway from having views into the rooms.

As previously, two of the apartments are designed to achieve ‘mobility housing’ standards in accordance with UDP Policy H7 (Mobility Housing) and the external layout is fully accessible.

Overall, the proposals continue to provide adequate amenity for occupiers and the proposals comply with UDP Policies H5 (Flats, Bed-sitters and Shared Housing) and H15 (Design of New Housing Developments).

Residential Amenity for Neighbours

In the previous application, the key issue was the impact of the building on bedrooms in The Manse nursing home adjoining the site. Concerns have been raised in objections about the new building being overbearing on The Manse and overlooking existing bedrooms in that building. Members visited the site and were satisfied that the building would not be unreasonably overbearing. Planning permission was refused solely on the basis of overlooking issues.

The ‘handing’ of the building has completely removed any potential for windows to overlook, or be perceived to overlook, any windows in The Manse. This appears to be accepted in the representations made by Jorand.

Although not a reason for the previous refusal, the handed building results in less massing in closest proximity to the boundary with The Manse. The length of elevation in closest proximity to this boundary has been reduced by approximately 5 metres to approximately 10.4m. This elevation remains at between 2.4m and 3m from the boundary at the nearest point. The remainder of the side elevation is set back a further 4.8m. Consequently, any perceived overbearing effect will be significantly reduced in comparison to the previous application.

The previously proposed unorthodox internally located ‘V’ shaped window arrangement with part obscure glazing to two of the bedrooms at first floor level is retained in the current proposal. As previously, the arrangement significantly restricts outlook from the two bedrooms which will maintain adequate privacy over the garden area to 19 Kingfield Road. A small secondary window at second floor level can be conditioned to be obscure glazed and partly non-opening to prevent views over No19. Whilst privacy is not an issue in terms of the current office use of that building, the arrangement will ensure that the site is not compromised by the proposed development in the event that No19 ever reverts to residential use.

Overall, the relationship is considered acceptable and adequate privacy and daylight can be provided and maintained in accordance with UDP Policy H14(c).

The rear elevation of the building remains at approximately 25m from the rear elevation of the flats to the rear of the site (Kingfield Court). This was previously considered to be acceptable and exceeds the guideline (21m) required to maintain privacy between directly facing windows. Low level emergency lighting is proposed to light the stairwell to the rear of the building which is served by a large window. A PIR lighting system will also operate for safety. These measures will prevent unreasonable light spillage to the rear boundary.

As previously, the garage block at the rear of Kingfield Court will buffer activity from the new car parking area.

Landscape

Relatively minor alterations to the external areas have no greater impact on trees than the previous application proposals and the scope for new landscape treatments is not compromised.

The proposals result in the loss of 6 trees on the site. These trees are relatively small (max 10m high) and the submitted tree survey report indicates that they are all relatively low quality specimens. They are all towards the rear of the site and do not make any significant contribution to the street scene.

The existing hedges to the front and side boundaries are to be retained and additional hedge planting is proposed where the vehicular access is to be closed.

The proposals incorporate new tree planting to the front of the site. This treatment will strengthen the street scene and more than compensates for the loss of the trees to the rear of the site. The proposals also include a soft landscaped front garden area which will enhance the residential character of the street scene and the Conservation Area.

In view of the above, the proposals continue to comply with UDP Policies BE6 (Landscape Design) and GE15 (Trees and Woodland).

Highway Issues

The car parking layout has been modified to take account of the handed building. There is no reduction in the number of spaces and the layout, if anything, encourages easier manoeuvring. The level of parking provision was not a previous reason for refusal and must therefore continue to be regarded as acceptable.

As previously, the proposals provide 10 car parking spaces to serve the 8 apartments. This includes provision of 2 disabled parking bays. Secure cycle parking is proposed in a dedicated space within the building. This level of provision is consistent with other flats developments in the area and is considered sufficient to serve the development in accordance with UDP Policies H5(c) and H14(d). It should be noted that the existing meeting house has the potential for greater traffic generation and more concentrated movements than this proposal.

Loss of Community Facility

UDP Policy CF2 (Keeping Community Facilities) permits the loss of community facilities if they are no longer required or equivalent facilities are available in the same area.

The former owners of the site (Williamson Gospel Hall Trust) have confirmed that the building was used solely for Gospel services and worship for the Brethren

41 community in Sheffield. No other groups used the building. The displaced services are now offered at halls at Ecclesall and Millhouses and the Trust no longer has need for the Williamson Road hall.

The statement provided, and the fact that the hall has been vacant for some time, is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Policy CF2. This was accepted in considering the previous application.

Open Space

UDP Policy H16 (Open Space in New Housing Developments) requires developers to ensure that there is sufficient open space to meet the needs of occupiers of new housing developments. In this instance there is a shortfall in local open space within the catchment area of the site and provision must therefore be made by the developer.

The applicant provided a Section 106 obligation in respect of the previous application to secure such provision. There is a small increase in the commuted sum required to take account of recently updated index linked figures, in accordance with the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance. A fresh obligation for a commuted sum of £5,819.50 is expected to be in place prior to the Committee meeting.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The CQC standards referred to in the representations are not designed to influence the development of surrounding sites and are not Planning documents. They are therefore not a material planning consideration. However, it is acknowledged that they do give an insight into the quality of environment that registered care homes should seek to achieve. It is noted that Members were interested in the points made by The Manse/Jorand’s representatives regarding CQC standards and potential for de-registration of rooms when the previous application was considered.

There is some disagreement between the applicant and Jorand concerning the CQC’s views of the implications of the proposed development. For this reason, Jorand were asked to provide written comments from the CQC regarding their position. Jorand have confirmed that the CQC have a policy of not formally commenting on planning applications and not providing letters of need or demand for future care development planning applications. The applicant has provided written confirmation from the CQC that endorses this position. The response from the CQC to the applicant does confirm that the CQC can vary a condition of registration in relation to the number of service users that might be accommodated in premises when there are concerns about the quality of care and treatment and a reduction in numbers may ameliorate the particular problem. However, the system does not provide for the registration of individual rooms.

There is no correspondence provided by either party from the CQC concerning the consideration of the effect of the massing of adjoining buildings on care home service users.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed apartment building (8 units) replaces a redundant community facility (Gospel meeting hall). It will strengthen the residential character of the Housing Area and will not create an undesirable concentration of flats in the area. The building is a sustainable form of development and generally representative of the built form within the surrounding area. Despite the mock ‘front door’ and expansive front roof slope, it will contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Nether Edge Conservation Area. The loss of trees to the rear of the site is adequately compensated for by soft landscaping and tree planting to replace the existing expanse of tarmac to the front of the building. Car parking is adequate to serve the development (10 spaces) and the developer is expected to have completed a unilateral Section 106 obligation in advance of the Committee meeting in respect of provision for local recreation space.

The application is a resubmission of a proposal for a similar scheme that was refused planning permission in November 2011 (ref 11/02698/FUL). Refusal was on the grounds of overlooking and loss of privacy to bedrooms in the adjacent residential care home at The Manse. The revised scheme ‘hands’ the building so that there are no longer any windows in the side elevation facing The Manse. This completely addresses the sole reason for refusing the previous scheme. In addition, the massing of the side elevation of the building is also reduced facing The Manse due to the configuration of the handed building.

The side elevation containing windows on three levels now faces the opposite side boundary adjoining a Victorian villa (19 Kingfield Road) which has a long history of office use. Whilst privacy is not an issue in terms of the current office use of that building, the same window arrangement is proposed as in the previous application. This will ensure that the site is not compromised by the proposed development in the event that No19 ever reverts to residential use. The relationship is considered acceptable and adequate privacy and daylight can be provided and maintained in accordance with UDP Policy H14(c).

A commuted sum of £5,819.50 is required in respect of provision for recreation space within the locality.

Overall, it is considered that the proposals broadly comply with the quoted policies and guidelines and it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions and the completion of a legal obligation to secure provision for recreation space in accordance with UDP Policy H16.

HEADS OF TERMS FOR PLANNING OBLIGATION

The owner shall, on or before the commencement of development, pay to the Council, the sum of £5,819.50 to be used towards the provision or enhancement of Open Space within the vicinity of the site.

In the event of a satisfactory S106 Planning Obligation, covering the Heads of Terms set out in the preceding paragraph, not being concluded by the 10th

43 February 2012 (in order to meet Government target time for the determination of the application), it is recommended that the application be refused for failure to make provision in this regard.

Case Number 11/03657/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Alterations and extension to church, including raising roof height, extension to form front lobby and provision of disabled access ramp and entrance steps.

Location Carter Knowle Seventh Day Adventist Church Montrose Road Sheffield S7 2EE

Date Received 18/11/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Tatlow Stancer Architects

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Before the development is commenced, details of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

11862 A1_02, 11862 A1_12, 11862 A1_04, 11862 A1_03, 11862 A1_13, 11862 A1_15, 11862 A1_14, 11862 A3_18, 11862 A3_07, 11862 A3_07, 11862 A3_08, 11862 A3_06, 11862 A3_16, 11862 A3_19, 11862 A3_20 and 11862 A3_17

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

45 4 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

5 The soft landscaped areas shall be managed and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that period shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the landscape works are completed.

To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can confirm when the maintenance periods specified in associated conditions/condition have commenced.

7 Before the commencement of development, large scale details, including materials and finishes, at a minimum of 1:50 of the items listed below shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Window reveals

Thereafter, the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

8 Prior to the commencement of development, details and locations of signs encouraging visitors to park in the car park associated with the Bannerdale Centre shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed signs shall be placed at the agreed locations prior to the completion of the development and retained thereafter.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

9 Before work on site is commenced, full details of suitable inclusive access and facilities for disabled people, both to and into the building(s) and within the curtilage of the site, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be used unless such inclusive access and facilities have been provided in

46 accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter such inclusive access and facilities shall be retained. (Reference should also be made to the Code of Practice BS8300).

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

10 The window on the elevation of the extension facing No. 152 Carterknowle Road shall be glazed with obscure glass to a minimum privacy standard of Level 4 Obscurity and shall not at any time be glazed with clear glass without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas CF1 - Provision of Community Facilities CS31 - Housing in the South West Area CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS74 - Design Principles

Overall it is considered that the development complies with the relevant policies and proposals, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

Site Location

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The site is located at the junction of Carter Knowle Road and Montrose Road and the thin, triangular site contains the brick built Seventh Day Adventist church with an open area at the east side where the site reduces to a point at the road junction. To the south, across Carter Knowle Road, is open space and a car park associated with the Bannerdale Centre. All other surrounding uses are residential. The topography is such that the land rises from east to west and the church is located at the higher end, close to adjoining housing.

The church was constructed in the 1950’s and is a one and a half storey building with a dual pitch roof of natural slate and the main building houses the principal worship area. On the northern side, facing Montrose Road is a single storey flat roofed extension of matching brick which contains the main entrance and lobby and toilets. On the opposite side, facing Carter Knowle Road is a smaller single storey extension which houses a meeting room and boiler store. At the south eastern corner, a third flat roofed extension contains the vestry and this is elevated because of falling land. Access to this is gained by steep steps. The land within the site to the south east is part landscaped but also used for car parking. The remainder of the space around the church is landscaped.

This application, as amended, proposes the raising of the main roof height by about half a storey, the two flat roofed side extensions would be increased in height by a storey and a dual pitched roof incorporated above both. The existing vestry area at the south east end would also be increased in height with a pair of dual pitched roofs so the building would step up to the main roof. This area would also be extended by one metre in length. Currently this area houses the vestry, which would be moved, as part of this proposal, and this would become the main entrance and would contain the entrance lobby and toilets. A disabled access ramp would also be added here.

Internally, apart from moving the entrance lobby and vestry, little would change and the main worship area would remain within the main building occupying the same space. As part of the plans, the applicant has submitted drawings showing a possible first floor plan which would be a meeting and function room but this is not part of this application.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

90/01012/FUL. Alterations and extensions to church refused on 15 July 1991 because of inadequate car parking, detrimental impact on highways safety and the intensification of use and social activities causing an unacceptable level of disamenity to local residents. The subsequent appeal against this decision upheld the decision on all grounds and the appeal was dismissed.

This appeal decision is a material consideration and reference to the Inspectors Decision Letter will be made in the assessment of the application.

49 91/03242/FUL. Alterations and extensions to church and provision of car parking refused on 18 May 1992 for similar reasons as the previous application.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

19 letters have been received from neighbours objecting to the application for the following reasons.

Increase in traffic and lack of parking within the site.

People attending the church park on both sides of Montrose Road, restricting two way traffic flow. The vast majority of people attending the church arrive by car.

Associated problems with people using the Bannerdale Centre playing fields cause problems with inconsiderate parking.

The church has access to existing parking at the Bannerdale Centre and this should be used.

An earlier, similar application was dismissed on traffic grounds.

The increase in size will result in additional people attending the church.

The alterations to the building will not be in keeping with the area.

The increased size of the church will mean that it would dominate the area.

Loss of light would affect the adjoining house.

The site is too close to housing.

The site is too small for this use.

The new space would be used for a variety of different events.

The noise from the Saturday service would increase and there would be more minibuses attending early in the morning taking people on days out.

Concern about an increase in amplification serving the sermon and music increasing.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy

The adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) shows that the site is part of a housing policy area. Policy H10 says that housing is the preferred use but community facilities and institutions are acceptable. This application proposes that this use continues on the site. Policy CF1 deals with the provision of community facilities and this promotes such facilities.

Layout, Design and External Appearance.

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new extensions should be well designed and in scale and keeping with the neighbourhood. Policy BE5 of the UDP also requires good design and the use of good quality materials.

Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy deals with design principles and expects high quality development. Policy CS31 deals specifically with housing in the south west of the city, saying that priority will be given to safeguarding and enhancing its areas of character.

The existing church rises to about a storey and a half in height, topped by a dual pitched roof and there are three flat roofed extensions that adjoin at either side and the south east end. It is the intention to raise the height of the main building at eaves and ridge level to 6.7 and 9.5 metres respectively. This is an increase from existing heights of 4.2 and 6.6 metres. With respect to the three flat roofed side extensions, these would all be subject to similar increases in height and all would be subject to dual pitched roofs although the eaves and ridge heights would be lower than and subservient to those of the main building. The extension at the front would add a further one metre to the length of the building and the impact of this would be negligible.

At present, the church has a strong horizontal emphasis created by the low height when compared with adjoining houses and the flat roofed extensions. The proposal would create a building that would be better balanced and closer in scale and massing to existing buildings. The loss of the flat roofs would be an improvement. The increased height would still be less than the ridge height of the nearest house, which lies to the north west, so the proposal would not dominate surrounding development.

Tall windows would be introduced along the two storey side elevations introducing a strong and regular vertical element. A strong glazed feature would be placed at the new main entrance which would face towards the Carter Knowle Road and Montrose Road junction which, as well as being a clean and modern feature, would clearly announce the location of the entrance. This would be complemented by metal and clear glass rails and barriers at the edge of the stairs and ramp.

The external material is a red brick and a close matching brick will be used for the extensions. The line of the existing eaves heights will be marked by a string course of contrasting pale brick which would break down the external appearance. At the south eastern end the land falls away beneath the new entrance and the disabled ramp, which wraps around the end of the building and has the appearance of a plinth beneath the main body of the building, would be of a contrasting material to enhance this impression.

It is considered that the proposal can be accommodated as the site and would be in keeping with the scale and appearance of the neighbourhood in terms of massing, design and external treatment. Details of materials and window recesses

51 would be controlled by appropriate conditions but the design is in line with relevant policy criteria.

Sustainability.

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy says that all new buildings should achieve a high standard of energy efficiency and make use of solar energy, passive heating and cooling, natural light, water recycling and other sustainable building methods. Policy CS65 expects all significant developments to provide a minimum 10% of predicted energy needs from renewable sources. This application is of such a scale that it falls outside the formal scope of these policies but the applicant has indicated that the following sustainable elements will be incorporated into the design.

The damp proofing and insulation of the existing building will be improved to bring it in line with existing standards.

New windows will be introduced that would be constructed to modern thermal requirements or better.

The new roof would have improved thermal qualities compared with the existing one.

Impact on the Amenities of Local Residents.

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new extensions should not result in disturbance or harm to the amenities of local residents.

A number of the objection letters say that the increased size will lead to an increase in the congregation and also an increase in levels of noise and disturbance. The applicant has confirmed that this is not the case and the numbers of those attending the church would remain the same. The intention of this application is to improve worship and community facilities for the existing people who attend the church. Consequently, it is considered that there would be no increase in any disturbance.

Application no. 90/01012/FUL was refused on grounds that include increased levels of disturbance to adjoining residents and the appeal upheld this as part of the appeal dismissal. However, the earlier application retained the existing main entrance close to houses on Montrose Road and, notably, the Inspector made it clear that he did not feel that the disturbance would come from activities within the building but from people congregating outside and from movements to and from the building. As part of this proposal, the main entrance is being moved away from the houses to the far end of the building, which would resolve this issue. Any disturbance would be well away from the houses that might be affected and would also be partly absorbed into the background noise of traffic on Carter Knowle Road and Montrose Road. In addition, the improved thermal qualities of the building would contain noise, such as the amplified sermon, much more efficiently, reducing any noise breakout.

52 It is noted that the weekly time of worship at the church is limited to Saturday afternoons so the potential for disturbance is limited to this period and other, more irregular, events and celebrations sometimes linked to the wider community.

There is very little potential for loss of privacy because the principal elevations face on to the public domain. There is a first floor window in the side elevation of the adjoining house, 152, Carter Knowle Road, which serves the attic but because the proposal would be lower, the light reaching this would not be affected. There are also new windows proposed for the elevation facing towards this house that could possibly result in limited views into the adjoining house so these windows would have opaque glass.

There is not considered to be any significant concern over the potential loss of light to the neighbouring dwelling. The only dwelling possibly affected by this is No.152 Carter Knowle Road due to an increase in eaves height of approximately 1.7 metres in the portion of the building to the north west of the site. However, this increase is not considered sufficient to cause significant loss of light, due to its location to the north east of the dwelling and the fact that No.152 is elevated above the church site, meaning the increase in height has minimal impact.

Potential Future Internal Development.

There are plans submitted, not part of this application, which show a possible first floor being introduced. This would resolve the current issue of ground floor space doubling up for all uses within the church and does not imply that there would be additional people visiting the church. However, it would mean that views across the neighbouring garden may be available but the windows would be of opaque glass, as set out in the preceding paragraph. Members should be aware that the internal alterations outside the scope of this planning application would be permitted development, outside planning control, if implemented in the future.

Transport, Access, Parking and Highways.

Policy H14 says that there should be adequate on site parking with safe access to the highway.

It has already been set out in this report that this proposal does not seek to provide extra accommodation for additional people but, instead, would improve provision for the existing congregation. There would, therefore, be no requirement for additional car parking. Local residents have raised concerns about existing car parking on the surrounding road network and the problems this causes. Members are reminded that existing problems cannot be included in the assessment of a planning application for a new proposal so the existing issues cannot be addressed.

The earlier 1990 application was refused, partly, on highways grounds because, in the absence of suitable car parking, there would be increased on street parking that would be detrimental to highways safety. The Inspector, in his decision letter, commented that the church were trying to secure access to alternative parking provision opposite the site at the Bannerdale Centre but this had not been

53 achieved. In the intervening period, the church do have access to the parking here and it will be possible to encourage patrons to park here by the introduction of signs indicating this provision, a matter which has been agreed by the applicant. This would be controlled by a condition. The fact that the new entrance at the end of the church is nearer to the entrance to the Bannerdale Centre should encourage people to park away from the current entrance on Montrose Road.

It is unlikely that there would be increased pressure on parking locally, but if this does occur the improved signposting to the Bannerdale parking will assist in dealing with this.

Disabled Access.

Policy BE5 of the UDP and policy CS74 of the Core Strategy both say that new development should cater for the needs of disabled people.

A new ramp would be placed at the main entrance to allow people in wheelchairs and with other disabilities to access the building. At present, they have great difficulty in doing this because access is by stairs only. The details of such provision will be controlled by way of an appropriate condition.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application proposes an increase in the height of the main roof and those of the three flat roofed extensions, a small extension to create an improved entrance lobby and disabled provision at the relocated entrance.

The scale, massing and design is considered to be acceptable and the application would not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighbourhood. The amenities of neighbours in terms of potential for loss of privacy and overdominance would not be harmed.

There would be no additional people attending the church so there would be no increase in the possibility of noise and disturbance or car parking. The church is able to use the nearby Bannerdale Centre car park and people attending the church will be encouraged to use this rather than parking on the street.

An earlier application, in 1990, proposed a very similar scheme and this was refused and also dismissed at appeal. The reasons for refusal, being noise and disturbance to residents and an increase in car parking causing a road safety hazard, have been addressed as part of this application.

The application does not conflict with policy criteria, is considered to be acceptable and is, therefore, recommended for conditional approval.

Case Number 11/03316/FULR

Application Type Full Replacement Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 8 dwellinghouses with garages (application to extend time limit for implementation of 08/04806/FUL)

Location Site Of 135 Dore Road Sheffield S17 3NF

Date Received 11/10/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Wireframe Studio Ltd

Recommendation Granted Conditionally subject to the completion of a Legal Agreement

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Before the development is commenced the following samples shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

i) proposed facing materials and/or ii) proposed roofing materials and/or iii)proposed windows and doors and/or

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out using the approved materials

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

55 works and shall be retained for verification purposes until the completion of such works.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 Before the commencement of development, large scale details, including materials and finishes, at a minimum of 1:20 of the items listed below shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Ridge Valleys Eaves Verges Rainwater goods

Thereafter, the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

5 The dwellings shall not be used unless the sight line, as indicated on Drawing No 106 rev P3, has been provided. When such sight line has been provided, thereafter the sight line shall be retained and no obstruction to the sight line shall be allowed within the sight line above a height of 1 metre.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

6 The dwellings shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation as shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

7 The gradient of the access road/driveway shall not exceed 1:20 for the first 10metres from the highway and thereafter not exceed 1:12, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

8 The gradient of shared pedestrian/vehicular access to the individual dwellings shall not exceed 1:12 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

9 The dwellings shall not be used unless all redundant access have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to verge and kerb and means of

56 vehicular access shall be restricted solely to those access points indicated in the approved plans.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

10 Before the development is commenced, details of the means of ingress and egress for vehicles engaged in the construction of the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the arrangements for restricting the vehicles to the approved ingress and egress points. Ingress and egress for such vehicles shall be obtained only at the approved points.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

11 At all times that construction works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

12 The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site.

In the interests of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

13 No development shall take place until details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any balancing works and off-site works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure that the development can be properly drained.

14 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 and no buildings shall be occupied or brought into use prior to completion of the approved foul drainage works.

To ensure that no foul or surface water discharges take place until proper provision has been made for their disposal.

15 Surface water discharge from the completed development site shall be restricted to a maximum flow rate of 5 litres per second per hectare. Before

57 the development is occupied written confirmation shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that the necessary equipment has been installed on site to achieve the required restricted rate of discharge.

In order to mitigate against the risk of flooding.

16 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

17 The soft landscaped areas shall be managed and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that period shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

18 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the landscape works are completed.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

19 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

20 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained shall be provided, in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall include a construction methodology statement and plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 (its replacement) and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the protection shall not be removed until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

21 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008, Part 1 (Classes A to H inclusive), Part 2 (Class A), or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order, no extensions, porches, garages, ancillary curtilage buildings, swimming pools, enclosures, fences, walls or alterations which materially affect the external appearance of the shall be constructed without prior planning permission being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property, bearing in mind the restricted size of the curtilage.

22 The development shall not be commenced used unless suitable access and facilities for people with disabilities, both to and within at least 25 % of the units and also within the curtilage of the site, have been provided but, before such access and facilities are provided, full details thereof shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. When the access and facilities have been provided, thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained. (Reference should also be made to the Code of Practise BS8300).

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

23 The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to achieve a minimum standard of Code Level for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and before any dwelling is occupied (or within an alternative timescale to be agreed) the relevant certification, demonstrating that Code Level 3 has been achieved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change, in accordance with Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS64.

24 Before any work on site is commenced, a report shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority identifying how the following will be provided: a) a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs of the of the completed development being obtained from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy;

Any agreed renewable or low carbon energy equipment, connection to decentralised or low carbon energy sources or additional energy efficiency measures shall have been installed before any part of the development is occupied and a post-installation report shall have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the agreed measures have been installed. Thereafter the agreed equipment, connection or measures shall be retained in use and maintained for the

59 lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to ensure that new development makes energy savings in the interests of mitigating the effects of climate change, in accordance with Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CS65.

25 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Drawing Numbers: Type B - Proposed Details Rev P4 Type A - Proposed Details Rev P5 Site Plan and Typical Perspectives Rev P12 Proposed House Type Variations Plot 3 & 8 Entrance Junction Visibility Splays rev P3 Proposed Boundary Treatments Rev P1

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting GE4 - Development and the Green Belt Environment GE11 - Nature Conservation and Development GE15 - Trees and Woodland H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas H15 - Design of New Housing Developments H16 - Open Space in New Housing Developments CS31 - Housing in the South West Area CS74 - Design Principles

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. To ensure that the road and/or footpaths on this development are constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the work will be inspected by representatives of the City Council. An inspection fee will be payable on commencement of the works. The fee is based on the rates used by the City Council, under the Advance Payments Code of the Highways Act 1980.

If you require any further information please contact Mr S A Turner on Sheffield (0114) 2734383.

2. The development will require the issuing of a formal postal address(s) by the City Council. This will apply even if the development is an infill site. Contact Lynn Fox on Sheffield 2736127 for details. Failure to carry out this process at an early stage may result in statutory undertakers refusing to connect services. The agreed address must be clearly displayed at each individual property before occupation in order to ensure that the postal service can correctly locate each property for delivery purposes.

3. As the proposed development abuts the public highway you are advised to contact the Highways Co-ordination Group on Sheffield 2736677, prior to commencing works. The Co-ordinator will be able to advise you of any pre- commencement condition surveys, permits, permissions or licences you may require in order to carry out your works.

4. Before the development is commenced, a dilapidation survey of the highways adjoining the site shall be jointly undertaken with the Council and the results of which agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any deterioration in the condition of the highway attributable to the construction works shall be rectified in accordance with a scheme of work to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

6. The applicant should be aware that a legal agreement has been completed in respect of this proposal.

61 7. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported to the Coal Authority. Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires the prior written permission of The Coal Authority.

Property specific summary information on coal mining can be obtained from The Coal Authority’s Property Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com

62 Site Location

63 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site is located to the south of Dore Road. It currently incorporates a single, detached dwelling within a substantially sized garden containing trees and planting. Some of these trees are covered by a number of Tree Preservation Orders.

Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is currently gained via two separate points, broadly located at the eastern and western points of the site frontage. In broad terms the site is currently level.

The surrounding land uses include other dwellinghouses, a Doctor’s Surgery at the site immediately to the west, and an allotment site to the south-east. The open fields on the opposite side of Dore Road are allocated as being within the Green Belt. In general terms the dwellings in the vicinity are typically large, detached houses in plots of reasonably substantial size.

The application seeks consent to extend the time limit of a previously granted planning permission, under reference number 08/04806/FUL. The approval granted under 08/04806/FUL was for the erection of 8 detached dwellinghouses with garages. This included 5num. x 3 bedroomed dwellings and 3num. x 4 bedroomed dwellings.

Vehicle access to the site would be via a point centrally located at the Dore Road frontage. All 8 dwellings would be served from this access point.

As an application to extend the time limit for implementation of the permission, the previous approval represents a material consideration, and must be taken into account, along with any changes in circumstances that have occurred since the grant of the previous permission.

The previous approval has now expired (as of 21 st January 2012), however, the Council retains jurisdiction to determine the application, it is still described as an extension of the time limit and a decision is required to be made in relation to it. If granted the approval would represent a new planning permission.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

08/04806/FUL; Erection of 8 dwellinghouses with garages. Approved 21 January 2009 - Expired on 21 January 2012.

09/02316/FUL; Erection of 6 dwellinghouses with garages. Approved 23 December 2009 – due to expire on 23 December 2012.

11/00567/FUL; Erection of 14 apartments in 2 no. blocks, with associated car parking and landscaping.

This application currently remains under consideration. Members will note that this application is also being considered as part of the current committee agenda.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

The separate application, relating to the same site, seeking consent for 14 apartments has met with approximately 2,000 objection letters, referring to matters such as overdevelopment, traffic safety, garden grabbing, ecology, landscaping.

Following neighbour notification, 9 individual responses have been received from 6 different addresses. The comments made can be summarised as follows:

Highways Issues

-The traffic consultant’s report carried out on behalf of a local resident, concludes that scheme should have been refused in 2008. No documents on previous file to prove that scheme was appropriately assessed at that stage. -Site is located at a blind corner, and partly shares the access to the Surgery. -Absence of visitor parking, concerns regarding overspill parking. -Scale/Principle of development -Overdevelopment, and excessive in density. Scheme does not adequately respect the building line. -Infill developments are spoiling the character of Dore, which consists of single dwellings on single plots, and proposal is therefore out of character. -Proposal is contrary to national planning policy, and central government policy regarding garden grabbing. -Scheme is contrary to numerous UDP policies and should be withdrawn. -Village is overcrowded, further pressure on parking, traffic, drainage, education, dental and medical services.

Impacts on Neighbours

-Overlooking and privacy impacts (raised by occupant of Num. 17 Vicarage Lane, Num. 127 Dore Road and Num. 2a Gilleyfield Avenue). Overlooking to the Num.127’s garden, which is the area of the garden that is used most during summer months, in addition to the rear balcony. -Significant changes have been made to neighbouring properties surrounding the site, meaning scheme does not meet planning policies. Windows inserted into the side of Num.127 Dore Road at inadequate separations from proposed dwellings, specifically plots 7 and 8. Num. 2a Gilleyfield Avenue has been granted approval to add a conservatory on August 2011, at closer proximity to proposed houses, which would be below minimum separation distances. Application should be made invalid for these reasons. -Windows inserted at Num.127 Dore Road will lead to overlooking onto garden of proposed plots 6, 7 and 8. Also into rear windows at Plot 8. Would also occur from balcony at Num.127.

-Plot 8 only 6metres from side windows of Num.127 Dore Road. -Overlooking to gardens of proposed houses from Num.127’s balcony. -Proposal does not satisfy Council’s 45 degree rule. -Would result in poor outlook from neighbouring dwellings. -Loss of light to neighbouring dwellings.

65 -Plot 8 will cause serious loss to amenity of neighbouring properties.

Process

-The previous approval is partly based on inaccurate / inadequate information. Current application should only be considered after they are corrected, allowing appropriate assessment to be made. Application should be made invalid. -90% of neighbours notified have objected. This is due to residents believing that integrity of the original application due to decisions being made on basis of inaccurate and inadequate information. -Previous committee report included misleading statements undermining assessment and approval. -Inconsistencies between officer’s correspondence with applicant/agent, and comments made by officer in previous committee report. Committee report did not summarise views of the Urban Design Officer. -Objections raised in relation to original application still apply. -Neighbours were not consulted on amended drawings within previous scheme.

Ecology

-The previous application should have been subject to wildlife surveys. Trees have been removed from site and habitats have been destroyed. -Residents have reported bats and great crested newts and bats in immediate locality, which are both protected species, and the presence of barn owls at site. Council has taken no action to address these issues. -Points raised in the previous committee report regarding ecology have not been acted upon. -Comprehensive wildlife surveys should be undertaken.

Trees

-The previous committee report did not refer to the need to impose emergency TPOs when trees were removed from the site.

Drainage

-Yorkshire Water have commented that developer has not applied for the necessary consents from Yorkshire Water despite been notified of issues as part of previous application. The current planning application should only be considered when YW grant the necessary consents, and these matters should not be covered by condition.

Unitary Development Plan Policies

-Application does not comply with H14, H15, BE5, GE4, GE11 or GE15.

Additionally, 22 standard type letters have been submitted. The comments within these can be summarised as follows:

66 -Earlier approvals partly based on inadequate / inaccurate information, compromising their validity, and current application should only be considered after these are corrected and re-assessment is carried out. -Yorkshire Water letter submitted to planning department state that since approval the appropriate consent/s have not been sought. (Planning permission should not be granted until this is resolved). -Significant changes to neighbouring properties since approval, meaning an approval of current application would be contrary to planning policies.

COUNCILLORS

Correspondence in objection to the scheme has been received from Cllr Colin Ross. The comments made can be summarised as follows:

-Since approval, significant changes have been made to other properties, and approval of current application would be contrary to planning policies. -Lack of visitor parking. Would result in parking on Dore Road, at dangerous position. Access to Doctor’s Surgery is separated by less than the recommended distance. -Earlier consents partly based on inaccurate / inadequate information. These should be corrected to allow appropriate assessments to be undertaken. -Letter from Yorkshire Water makes it clear that the Applicants have not sought the necessary consents. The application should only be considered when these are granted.

Transportation Planning Engineers

A civil and transportation planning engineer has submitted a representation in regards to the application on behalf of a neighbouring resident. The comments can be summarised as: -Proposed access is situated on a tight bend, with limited forward visibility. -No visitor parking is provided, and visitors will park on Dore Road, representing a highway safety concern. -Close proximity of proposed access to surgery access (25metres), which is not in accordance with South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide 2011 suggested 40metres. The access into the Doctor’s Surgery is of insufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass, leading to vehicles waiting on Dore Road. -Proposal would be contrary to UDP policy H14(d). -Query position of the scheme in regards to Building for Life.

These comments will be responded to below in the main body of the report.

Ecologist’s Appraisal Additionally, an Ecology Consultant has submitted a desk based review of the site, in relation to its potential for use by protected species. The report can be summarised as follows: -Site lies in a semi-rural location surrounded by mature trees. There are allotments to the south-east and open pasture fields to the north, and there is excellent habitat connectivity across the site and in the local area.

67 -13 individual protected species would be expected to occur within 500m of the site. A good population of certain nesting birds would be expected in the local area, and these are identified as priority species. - The building at the site appears superficially suitable for bats and certain nesting birds, which are listed as being in decline. -All local authorities should be aware that they have a duty to regard conservation of biodiversity (as per the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Planning Policy Statement 9 and DEFRA Circular 01/2005). -Where a bat presence is possible local authorities should consult with English Nature, and an assessment will be needed if bats are likely to be affected. -A recent court case found a local authority to have not discharged its duty correctly, and a planning permission was overturned. -Given the information provided there may be a direct impact on bat species and possibly Great Crested Newts. May also be a direct impact on Badgers, slow worms, common lizards, barn owls and other listed birds. - A failure to meet these obligations would make the local planning authority subject to a judicial review. - The planning authority should require a full set of ecological surveys and assessments.

These comments will also be responded to in the main body of the report.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) And Planning for Growth Agenda

Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) (PPS3) reflects the Government’s commitment to improving the affordability and supply of housing in all communities. It focuses on the issue of housing delivery in a sustainable manner, utilising underused sites. Additionally, Central Government’s ‘Planning for Growth’ agenda requires local planning authorities to facilitate housing provision. This agenda also requires planning authorities to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for housing, and also to make every effort to identify and meet the housing, business and other development needs of their areas and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.

The proposal involves the re-development of a site including a dwellinghouse and its garden. PPS3 was modified in June 2010, to include private residential gardens within the list of exclusions from previously developed land. Therefore the garden element of the proposal constitutes greenfield development. With only the footprint of the original house and the hardstanding areas being classified as previously developed land.

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

The Government has issued the above document for consultation, with the intention of it replacing all existing national planning policy guidance. The

68 consultation closed in October 2011. The draft NPPF is a material consideration, to be taken into account in determining planning applications; however the weight to be given to it is limited due to its draft status, and likelihood of change.

It is important however to acknowledge that the key message that can be taken from the draft NPPF is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. The document summarises delivering sustainable development as planning for prosperity (economic role), for people (social role), and for places (environmental role).

Specifically with regard to Housing, the NPPF confirms the Government’s key objective as increasing significantly the delivery of new homes, including increasing the supply of housing; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes and opportunities for home ownership; and creating sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

In addition, the NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, and seeks to ensure planning decisions optimise site potential to accommodate development whilst responding to local character, and reflecting the identity of local surroundings.

Housing Land Availability

Based upon the most current information available, a deliverable supply of housing land over the coming 5 years (2012-2017) cannot be demonstrated. The net supply for this period is less than 50% of the net housing requirement.

This issue of a shortage in housing land availability supports the principle of residential development at this site.

Housing Demand Issues

The most recent Sheffield Housing Market Assessment was published in 2007 and is now somewhat out of date. In particular, it does not take into account the impact of the 'credit crunch' and economic recession which has severely affected the ability of people to buy homes on the open market. The market assessment is due to be updated this year. The 2007 Assessment showed that, in SW Sheffield, the greatest demand for private market housing was for 2-bedroom houses (33% of moving households) and 3-bedroom houses (32%). 16% wanted 1 or 2-bedroom flats and 11% of households wanted 4+ bedroom houses. Only 1% wanted 3 or 4- bedroom flats.

The proposal would respond, in part, to these findings. It is therefore considered that there would be a demand for the type of housing proposed in this case.

69 Efficient Use of Land

Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy promotes efficient use of housing land, but identifies that high densities are not acceptable where they would be out of character with the surrounding area.

In regards to density, the proposal would involve a density of 18 dwellings per hectare. Core Strategy policy CS26 states that a density range of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare would be appropriate in this area. Having said this, the policy would allow densities outside of this range where schemes achieve good design or reflect the character of the area. A density of 12 dwellings per hectare would be typical in the local area. The scheme is considered to reflect the character of the area, and increasing this density would undermine this view.

Principle within Unitary Development Plan and SDF Core Strategy

The application is located within a Housing Area under the provisions of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

Policy H10 of the UDP states that Housing is the Preferred use in this location. This is subject to the provisions of Policy H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’. Amongst other things, this requires developments to be well designed and in scale and character with neighbouring buildings, access to developments of more than 5 dwellings to be of an adoptable standard, not to represent over-development of the site or to deprive residents of light or privacy and provide safe access to the highway network and appropriate off-street parking.

Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) (PPS3) reflects the Government’s commitment to improving the affordability and supply of housing in all communities. It focuses on the issue of housing delivery in a sustainable manner, utilising underused sites. Additionally, Central Government’s ‘Planning for Growth’ agenda requires local planning authorities to facilitate housing provision. This agenda also requires planning authorities to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for housing, and also to make every effort to identify and meet the housing, business and other development needs to their areas and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.

In addition to these points, it is worth pointing out that PPS3 does not rule out development on greenfield sites. Additionally, Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy sets a target of no more than 12% of new housing to be developed on greenfield land. The policy gives a number of circumstances where this would be acceptable, and part (b) allows greenfield sites to be developed for housing ‘on small sites

70 within the existing urban areas and larger villages, where it can be justified on sustainability grounds’. The site is within the urban area in a relatively sustainable location. As such the proposed development would be considered to not be contrary to these particular provisions of PPS3, and also to comply with the criteria set out within Policy CS24.

Furthermore, it should also be re-iterated that the previous approval for 8 houses (reference 08/04806/FUL) could have been implemented up until 21 st January 2012, and that the approval for 6 houses (reference 09/02316/FUL) remains live until December 2012.

Therefore, it is not considered that it would be possible to support an argument for refusal based upon these issues.

Relevance of Planning Consents

The previously approved scheme (ref. 08/04806/FUL) has now expired, as detailed above. Notwithstanding this, it remains a material consideration of some weight.

Also the approval of 6 houses (09/02316/FUL) remains extant. This approval also forms a material consideration of greater weight in the assessment of the current application.

Overall, these previous permissions confirm that the principle of residential development was considered to be acceptable. The Unitary Development Plan policies which were applied to the assessment of the previous applications continue to apply. Therefore, those same policies would deem the principle of the currently proposed application development to be acceptable.

SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

Since the original application was approved, a relevant change in circumstances is that the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy has been adopted (March 2009). This includes Policies CS64 and CS65 covering sustainability issues.

Policy CS64 would require the development to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 as a minimum. The applicant is aware of this policy requirement, and has outlined means by which this would be achieved. Notwithstanding this, it is necessary to apply an appropriate condition to any consent granted to ensure that the policy is appropriately satisfied.

Policy CS65 would require a minimum of 10% of a development’s predicted energy needs to be from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy. Similarly, the applicant is aware of this requirement and a condition can be added to any consent granted to secure future implementation of suitable measures.

71 DESIGN ISSUES

The proposal was previously assessed against the provisions of UDP policies BE5 ‘Building Design and Siting’, which requires new buildings to complement the scale, form and architectural style of surrounding buildings, as well as, Policy H14 which covers ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’ and requires development to: (a) be well designed and in scale and character with neighbouring buildings and (c) not over-develop the site.

Since the approval of the previous application, the Core Strategy has been adopted which incorporates policies CS31 and CS74. CS31 covers ‘Housing in the South West Area’ and states that priority will be given to safeguarding and enhancing the areas of character, and that the scale of new development will be largely defined by what can be accommodated at an appropriate density through infilling, windfall sites and development in district centres. Also of relevance is policy CS74, which states that high-quality development will be expected, which takes advantage of the distinctive features of the city’s districts and neighbourhoods.

The character of this part of Dore Road was described in the previous committee report as being different from the character further east along Dore Road, which is predominantly made up of larger dwellings in wider plots. In closer proximity to the site the character is broadly made up of properties which tend to fill the majority of the width of their narrower plots.

Whilst a building line could be said to exist, it is frequently interrupted to an extent where it is not considered to be rigid. Additionally there is a variety in architecture types along the portion of the road within the vicinity of the application site.

The two proposed dwellings on the Dore Road frontage occupy plot widths which would closely mirror the details characteristic in the vicinity. The 5 dwellings at Num’s 121 to 127 are accommodated within a frontage span of approximately 112metres (an average of 22metres per dwelling). The proposal would accommodate two dwellings across the site frontage, which is approximately 43metres in width (at an average width of 21 metres per dwelling). Therefore, the development would be sympathetic to the character of the vicinity in this regard. Their positions would be considered to reflect the somewhat varied building line to an acceptable degree, and also to comply with this element of the street scene’s character.

The proposed layout was amended during the course of the assessment of the previously approved application. This resulted in one of the dwellings set to the front of the site being re-orientated so that its front elevation addressed Dore Road. Additionally, its attached garage building was re-positioned so that it did not project forward of the house toward the street.

These amendments to the positions of the dwellings toward the front of the site were considered to have adequate regard to the nature of the building line within the vicinity of the site. Local circumstances and current policies have not changed to a degree that would now lead to a different conclusion being drawn.

The layout retained the front perimeter boundary wall across the site, and the overall layout was considered to result in a street arrangement which responds to surrounding character by the incorporation of front curtilage stone perimeter walls. These elements of the proposal represent further examples where the scheme responded appropriately to the area’s local character.

Overall, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant requirements of UDP policies BE5 and H14, and Core Strategy policies CS31 and CS74.

HIGHWAYS ISSUES

The scheme included 5 num. x 3 bedroom dwellings and 3num. x 4 bedroom dwellings. Each of the dwellings included a minimum of two off-street parking spaces, inclusive of one internal garage space, with 1 of the dwellings having 3 spaces, and 2 having 4 spaces. The 3 dwellings served with more than 2 spaces are the 4 bedroom dwellings.

This level of parking provision is considered to exceed the Council’s parking guidelines, which seek 2 spaces per 3 bed property, and 2-3 spaces per 4 bed property. In addition these guidelines would seek 2 visitor parking spaces. It is considered that these 2 cars could be accommodated on the new access drive, without resulting in impacts on traffic movements along the access drive. Consideration has been given to requiring the developer to fund waiting restrictions along the Dore Road frontage as a precautionary measure. However, given the level of parking provision, and that the required level of visitor parking would be considered to be capable of being accommodated on the access drive, the additional requirement of parking restrictions would not be considered to be reasonable.

A number of representations have referred to concerns regarding the detrimental impacts of additional traffic accessing/exiting Dore Road at a dangerous point on the highway. In regards to the previous application a traffic count on Dore Road was referred to in order to assess this matter. This recorded two way traffic flows of 297 vehicles per hour (a.m. peak), 318 vehicles (p.m.peak) and 3418 vehicles over a 12 hour period. It was stated that it was expected that the proposed development would generate 5 vehicle movements (a.m. peak), 6 vehicle movements (p.m. peak) and 50 vehicle movements over the 12 hour period. The level/s of generated vehicle movements from the proposed scheme, within the context of the existing movement numbers on Dore Road was not considered to have a material impact on the surrounding highway network. This situation is still considered relevant to the current application.

The amended drawings received as part of the original submission were considered to provide adequate visibility splays out onto Dore Road. Therefore, an appropriate condition was imposed to ensure that this splay was provided as part of the scheme.

The scheme has been re-assessed and the conclusions which were previously drawn are considered to continue to apply in regards to the current application.

73 The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide 2011, may seek minimum junction spacing of 40metres, but also states that these will “generally” apply. Given the limited number of properties, and vehicular usage at the new access the junction spacing is considered to be acceptable.

In summary, on highways matters, the development remains acceptable, and there have been no significant changes in circumstances that would warrant withholding permission on highway safety grounds.

NEIGHBOURS’ AMENITY ISSUES

Representations from neighbours have referred to the changes in circumstances since the previous approval. These changes are the installation of side windows in the dwelling at Num.127 facing toward the application site, and the granting of planning approval for a conservatory at the facing side elevation of Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue.

In regards to the windows in Num.127 Dore Road, it should be noted that confirmation was sought from the Planning Department prior to installation regarding the potential need for permission. The planning officer responded, stating that a planning permission would not be required. Following subsequent assessment of this matter, it has been concluded that this response was incorrect. Amendments made in 2008 to the householders’ permitted development rights, stipulated that any installation of windows in the upper floors of side elevations to dwellings, would be required to be obscurely glazed and fixed up to a height of 1.7metres above internal floor level.

As such, despite the owner having acted upon incorrect advice, the windows in the side elevation of Num. 127 are not currently authorised, and on this basis it is considered that limited weight and protection ought to be attributed to them. This is because if the windows were fitted with obscure glazing, and made to be fixed up to the specified height, they would not generate overlooking or be affected by the proposed dwellinghouses.

These newly installed windows are considered to be secondary to the previously existing windows serving the bedroom in question. As such regardless of whether they are authorised or not, any impacts on the amenities of the room have to be considered in this regard. The 90 degree angle relationship with the proposed house at Plot 8 means that overlooking to the windows in question would not be expected to occur.

The side conservatory at Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue does not currently exist, but it is understood to be the intention of the householder to implement this consent which does not expire until 16 August 2014. Supplementary Planning Guidance would require a separation of 21metres between facing main windows of neighbouring houses at equivalent levels. The side of the conservatory would be separated by approximately 17metres from the nearest of the proposed first floor windows. In this case, views from the approved conservatory up to the first floor windows of the proposed houses in question, and vice versa, would be largely prevented from occurring by the angle of view and the existing boundary

74 treatments. In combination these factors are considered to combine to result in the conservatory being attributed limited weight in the assessment of the current application.

As such it is considered that the scheme would continue to be considered to have an acceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, since the scheme would meet the required separation distance of 21metres between facing habitable room windows.

Comments have been made by the occupier of Num.127 Dore Road stating that overlooking of the rear portion of his garden and balcony would particularly harm their amenity since this portion of the garden is most commonly used. These issues were considered as part of the assessment of the previous consent, and no legitimate change in circumstances has occurred. It is important to note that in suburban settings an element of overlooking of the rear portion of a garden is extremely common, and therefore it is considered that it would be unreasonable to resist the granting of an extension of time in this instance due to this issue. In addition the main views onto the balcony from the rear windows of Plot 8 would cover only a very limited portion of the balcony. It is therefore not considered that a significant loss of amenity would occur as a result of overlooking of Num.127’s garden or balcony.

The occupier of Num. 127 has also stated that the proposed dwelling at Plot 8 would breach a 45 degree line from that property, in contravention of Council guidelines. This would only apply from the front elevation windows of Num.127 Dore Road, and the proposed dwelling would be separated by approximately 9metres (when measured along a line taken at 45degrees). Given these circumstances, and as front elevation windows are generally considered to be less sensitive to overbearing impacts from neighbouring buildings this relationship was considered to be acceptable.

On the basis of the above comments it continues to be concluded that the proposal would continue to have an acceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. As such the proposal would be considered to continue to meet the relevant requirements of UDP policy H14.

AMENITIES FOR POTENTIAL OCCUPIERS OF PROPOSED DWELLINGS

The internal arrangements within the proposed dwellings are considered to be satisfactory, providing adequate room sizes which would be well ventilated and lit in a natural manner. The external spaces associated to each dwelling would be considered to be acceptable; providing rear garden spaces of a minimum 10metres in depth, covering areas of at least 50 sq metres. These spaces would satisfy the requirements set out within the Designing House Extensions – Supplementary Planning Guidance.

The outlook from the rear of unit 8 was described as part of the previous committee report as being somewhat compromised by its relationship to proposed plot 7 and Num.127 Dore Road. However, it was also identified that the identified neighbouring dwellings would be set some distance away from plot 8, and as such

75 it was considered that unit 8 would not be subject to overbearing impacts arising from these two neighbouring developments that which would result in it being provided with unacceptable amenity provisions.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the amenities which would be provided to the potential occupants and to meet the requirements of Policy H15 (b).

LANDSCAPING ISSUES

The site incorporates a number of trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders. The previously approved scheme was considered to be acceptable in regards to these trees. In total the scheme proposed to remove 3 trees. This was considered to be acceptable, as they were not considered to be worthy of formal protection via a Tree Preservation Order, and as such were formally removed from the Order. In regards to those trees which remained formally protected by the TPO, the proposal was considered to be acceptable, and to pay sufficient regard to the future viability of the protected trees and their root protection areas. A condition was imposed upon the previously granted scheme which required the agreement and implementation of a landscaping scheme, and appropriate replacement trees would have been able to be secured in this manner.

Since the proposal remains the same as previously approved, there is no reason to raise different conclusions to those previously drawn. Therefore, the scheme is acceptable in this regard and would continue to satisfy UDP policy GE15 which requires mature trees to be retained.

ECOLOGY ISSUES

Within representations received in regards to the current application a number of comments have been made about the implications upon the ecological value/features of the site, and suggestions that the previously approved scheme did not assess these matters.

More specifically it has been stated that residents have reported bats and great crested newts in the immediate locality of the site, and that barn owls have been present at the site.

The Ecology Consultant’s submission identifies the potential for habitats for protected species to exist, but provides no evidence of this. Prior to receipt of this desk-top review the City Ecology Unit had previously visited the site (during daytime hours in June 2011). The house was checked externally, where it was observed to be fairly well maintained, and no gaps where bats may be able to gain access were seen. All roof tiles were intact, and there were no gaps between windows and doors. The garages were also checked, and although there was a gap in the roof, there was no separate roof space and no evidence that bats or barn owls used them. It has been additionally pointed out that the building may have changed in the intervening period, and that the building might need to be re-assessed.

76 The garden at that time was noted as being extremely overgrown, and no features were apparent which would support Great Crested Newts.

A large number of animal paths criss-crossing the site that are consistent with being badger or fox paths were observed. The paths showed entrance / exit points on and off site. The number of brambles made it impossible to search the site thoroughly, but a sett could not be seen at the site. However, it is recommended that if the site is cleared, the bramble should be cut back with hand tools rather than machinery to check that a sett was not concealed. Were badgers to be found work would be required, by non-planning legislation (Wildlife and Countryside Act) to stop.

The loss of habitat is not considered to be detrimental, because of the large areas of private gardens around the site, and the fields and woodland on the opposite side of Dore Road, all of which offer suitable alternative habitats.

There was no evidence of where barn owls may roost or nest. Although the long grass within the site will be likely to have a good small mammal population, the area opposite would also provide habitat for a small mammal population. As such there would be no detrimental impact in this regard.

As a precaution it is recommended that any vegetation should be cleared outside of the bird breeding season to avoid any birds nesting. This is standard advice, and good practice.

Based on the findings of the City Ecologist it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon protected species or undermine the ecological value of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be contrary to the provisions of UDP policy GE 11, which requires the natural environment to be protected and enhanced.

The previous committee report covered the concern which had been raised by neighbouring occupiers in relation to this issue. Neighbours commented that a number of trees had been felled and that the proposal led to the reduction in green spaces for wildlife. This led to the comment in the “Response to Representations” section of the report that concern regarding the loss of green spaces was noted, however, the proposal involved the retention of trees covered by the amended TPO, and that the other trees at the site were not afforded any formal protection, and would therefore be capable of being removed without restriction. It was also commented that the “green space” within the garden would not be afforded special protection in planning terms and that it could therefore be removed. A thorough ecological assessment did not take place as part of the previous application, since there were not considered to be any particular merits associated to the site which would have necessitated this. Additionally, neighbour representations referred to the loss of trees and green space as being potentially detrimental to wildlife in general terms, than as having a damaging impact upon protected species.

On the basis of the above comments the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of UDP policy GE11 ‘Nature Conservation and Development’ which seeks to protect and maintain the natural environment.

DRAINAGE

Yorkshire Water (YW) have reiterated the comments they provided in response to the original proposal. This recommended certain conditions, but stated that the Flood Risk Statement and drainage plans submitted at that stage had been rejected by the Engineer’s officer at YW. Technical details and a lack of certain items of information regarding the submitted statements, represented the reasons for this non acceptance. However, it is important to note that there is not considered to be a fundamental problem with the proposal from YW’s perspective, but that further information / extra details would be expected.

In making these statements YW commented that as a last resort there would be scope to connect onto the surface water network. However, this would be limited to existing run-off levels which were secured by the appropriate conditions. As a way of supplementing the limiting of surface water run-off amounts, the previously granted approval stated that surface water discharge rates should be limited to 5 litres per second per hectare.

Overall, the proposal was considered to be satisfactory in relation to its implications upon drainage. Outstanding issues were considered to be able to be controlled by appropriate conditions. Therefore, the scheme continues to be considered acceptable in this regard, as circumstances have not changed.

OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTIONS

Given that the proposal includes more than 5 dwellings a commuted sum toward off-site open space improvements will be required under UDP policy H16, as following an assessment of existing provisions it has been established that the existing provisions fall below the minimum guidelines. Therefore the developer is required to make a contribution to the provision of informal recreation space provisions and children’s play facilities and a contribution toward the enhancement of youth / outdoor sports area. Based upon the provisions of the Open Space in New Housing Development Supplementary Planning Guidance a contribution of £9805.60 is required. Therefore, the below recommendation is subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement relating to this issue.

OTHER ISSUES

The Coal Authority have commented that the northern part of the site is likely to have been subject to historic unrecorded underground coal mining at shallow depth.

They state that as the scheme is an application for an extension of time, and the current scheme could be implemented the Coal Authority do not wish to comment on the current application.

78 Notwithstanding this the previously granted consent expired on 21 January 2012. However, the Coal Authority have confirmed that they would raise no comments in relation to the application having acknowledged the expiry of the previous consent, and would advise that their standing advice is added to any consent granted.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

The majority of points raised within representations have been covered in the main body of the report. In relation to the remaining items the following points can be made:

The areas of inadequate/inaccurate information within the previously approved drawings, have been specified as relating to errors in the width and layout of Dore Road and inaccurately stated ridge height of Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue. These points are also described as bringing into question the remaining dimensions of the drawings in other regards.

As a result of these concerns amended surveys and plans have been requested in relation to the drawings submitted in relation to the 14num. apartments application (ref. 11/00567/FUL). These alterations accurately show the width and layout of Dore Road in regards to that application.

More specifically in regards to the assessment of the previously dealt with application, it is important to note that the actual dimensions and the layout of Dore Road were understood and appreciated by officers. Officers visited the site during the assessment of the application and observed the highway arrangements at and within the vicinity of the site. These observations formed the basis for the assessment of the proposal, rather than the drawn dimensions of Dore Road. It is also important to note that the kerb line on the site’s side of Dore Road was drawn accurately, and was fundamental to the assessment of the visibility splay’s provided by the proposal.

Therefore, the errors in the drawings relating to Dore Road were not material to the assessment of the previous application, and there is therefore no need to seek correct drawings in this case.

A further suggested error is the difference of 0.55m between the ridge height of Num. 2A Gilleyfield Avenue as shown on the previously approved drawings, and the ridge height as surveyed separately on behalf of the occupier of Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue.

As part of the application proposing 14 apartments, a fresh survey of the dwelling at Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue on behalf of the Applicant has re-stated the ridge height by 1cm than previously. This results in a difference of 0.54m between the Applicant’s and the Neighbour’s survey.

However, even allowing for discrepancies in the two surveys, a difference of either 0.55m or 0.54m in surveyed ridge height of a property located 8metres beyond the site boundary would not have resulted in different conclusions been drawn as part

79 of the last application. As such this is not considered to be a significant issue in this case.

The suggestion that misleading statements were made in the previous committee report has been dealt with above.

Reference has been made to inconsistencies between officer correspondence to the agent and the final committee report, including suggestions for reduction in the level of development on the site. It is important to note that there are often different initial views between officers within the different disciplines, who would advise on a planning application. Through further discussions and consideration of the issues raised by others (e.g. highways) then thinking and conclusions can change. The role of the Development Management is to come to a balanced overall view, and makes a recommendation in the application reports. This is quite normal, and there was no reason to summarise these matters as part of the previous committee report. Ultimately, all officers were satisfied with the scheme that, as amended, was proposed for the site, and recommended approval accordingly. Members accepted the recommendation on that basis and planning permission was granted.

Emergency TPOs were applied to the site. This exercise was completely separate from the previous application process and there was no requirement to make reference to them.

The canopy spreads of trees are assessed by Landscaping Officers through out the course of the assessment of proposals. Whilst it is helpful for submitted drawings to accurately depict canopy spreads it does not prevent full assessment.

Neighbours were notified in the normal way of the amended drawings as part of the assessment of the last application, and were given the opportunity to make comments upon the amended drawings.

A scheme involving this number of units would not necessitate additional pressure on local facilities (e.g. schools) to be assessed.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The application seeks an extension of time for a previously granted planning consent. The consent was for 8 detached dwellinghouses within a site occupied by a single dwellinghouse and its garden. Whilst this permission has now expired the Council retains jurisdiction to determine it.

The principle of residential development at the site would be supported by certain aspects of PPS3 (Housing), and by the draft National Planning Policy Framework. The site is located within a Housing Area under the Unitary Development Plan, and therefore the principle of housing development at the site would be considered acceptable.

The proposal has been reassessed in regards to the new, relevant policy circumstances. Core Strategy polices CS31 and CS74 would be considered to be

80 satisfied by the proposal. Policies BE5 and H14 are also satisfied, and therefore the scheme is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the character of the area.

The alterations or proposed alterations to neighbouring properties would not be considered to result in the scheme having a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers, and therefore the scheme would be considered to be acceptable in regards to impacts on neighbouring occupants.

The proposal has been assessed in highways terms and continues to be considered as acceptable. The impacts of the scheme on ecology and trees/landscaping has been assessed and are considered to be acceptable.

Overall, the scheme is considered to continue to be acceptable, and approval of the application to extend time is recommended, subject to the completion of a legal agreement.

HEADS OF TERMS FOR LEGAL AGREEMENT

The owner shall, on or before the commencement of development, pay to the Council the sum of £9805.60 to be used towards the provision of enhancement of Open Space within the vicinity of the site.

In the event of a satisfactory S106 Planning Obligation covering the Heads of Terms set out in the preceding paragraphs not being concluded before the 27 TH February 2012, it is recommended that the application be refused for the failure to make adequate provision in this regard.

Case Number 11/02759/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of existing dormer bungalow and erection of 2 dwellinghouses with integral garages

Location 56 Savage Lane Sheffield S17 3GW

Date Received 30/08/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Space Design Partnership Ltd

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

82 4 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

5 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 Before any work on site is commenced, measures to protect the existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained shall be provided, in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall include a construction methodology statement and plan showing accurate root protection areas and the location and details of protective fencing and signs. Protection of trees shall be in accordance with BS 5837, 2005 (its replacement) and the protected areas shall not be disturbed, compacted or used for any type of storage or fire, nor shall the retained trees, shrubs or hedge be damaged in any way. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the protection measures are in place and the protection shall not be removed until the completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

7 Prior to the commencement of development, details shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority of a method statement in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction - Recommendations for the demolition of the garage and outbuildings, hard surfaced areas and associated construction works. The implementation of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed statement.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

8 The first floor window on the elevation of the dwellinghouses facing south west shall be glazed with obscure glass to a minimum privacy standard of Level 4 Obscurity and shall not at any time be glazed with clear glass without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.

9 Prior to the commencement of development, details of the finished floor levels shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with such agreed levels.

83 In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

10 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Drawings numbered 01165_001, 01165_002, 01165_003, 01165_04 and 01165_005.

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

11 Before development is commenced, full details of all hard surfaced areas within the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall consist of porous materials, or shall direct surface water run off from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Thereafter the hard surfacing shall be implemented in accordance with approved details.

In order to control surface water run off from the site and mitigate against the risk of flooding.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE16 - Development in Conservation Areas GE15 - Trees and Woodland H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas CS24 - Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing CS26 - Efficient Use of Housing Land and Accessibility CS31 - Housing in the South West Area CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS74 - Design Principles

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

85 Site Location

86 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application site lies at the northern edge of Bushey Wood Drive, a residential - de-sac in Dore, which currently accommodates a dormer bungalow set within a substantial garden. There are also some single storey outbuildings cul located between the bungalow and the western boundary. Access to the site is gained by way of an access track taken from Savage Lane which serves two other properties as well as the bungalow. There are houses on all sides and along all boundaries are mature trees and hedges.

This application proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow and outbuildings and the erection of two houses that would be of a modern, contemporary design rising to two storeys. Access would be retained along the access track.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Seven letters of objection have been received from neighbours, whose comments are listed below.

This is an intrusive development, particularly plot 2 due to the height and close proximity to the neighbour.

Loss of privacy affecting the neighbour at ‘Elmsley’.

The contemporary design is not in keeping with the traditional style of houses in the area.

The density of two houses on this plot is too great.

Access to the site is along a narrow, gravel drive, which is about 70 metres in length and shared with two other houses. The extra traffic would place too much pressure on this.

The drive is accessed from Savage Lane and there is limited visibility here in one direction because of the bend on Savage Lane. The extra traffic would make this worse.

44, Savage Lane would suffer a loss of privacy. Trees currently provide screening.

Detrimental to the adjoining Dore Conservation Area by way of design, materials and design.

The loss of garden space is contrary to Government policy.

The application is contrary to policy CS74(c) of the Core Strategy and policy H14(a) of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

The application would not retain the distinctive neighbourhood character so would be contrary to policy CS31 of the Core Strategy.

87 Dore Village Society object to the application.

The application is out of character with the neighbourhood, would result in a loss of space around the dwelling and would not enhance the locality so would be contrary to policy CS31 of the Core Strategy.

The bulk and massing does not complement the surrounding area, it would be visually detrimental to the surroundings and it would be contrary to policy CS74 of the Core Strategy.

It would be contrary to policy H14 of the UDP because of the loss of garden space, adverse impact on neighbours and loss of privacy.

There would be an adverse impact on Dore Conservation Area.

The extra traffic at the blind corner of Savage Lane close to the access point would be dangerous.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy.

The UDP shows that the application site lies within a housing policy area and policy H10 of the UDP says that housing uses are the preferred use in such areas. The broad principle of the application is, therefore, acceptable.

Use of Gardens for Development.

The changes set out in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3, Housing, have changed the status of private gardens. Previous to this, they were classed as ‘brown field’ sites but the revised guidance now classes them as being ‘green field’. There is an emphasis on developing brown field sites first and in assessing this, reference needs to be made to Sheffield’s housing land target for 2004-2026, which sets a target of 88% of new dwellings to be built on brown field sites. Current data indicates that this target will be met, which would make it acceptable for the remaining green field sites to be developed.

Weight also needs to be given to policy CS24 of the Core Strategy which gives priority to development on previously developed sites but does allow housing on small green field sites within the existing urban area where it can be justified on sustainability grounds. In principle, therefore, developments in gardens of less than 15 dwellings can be allowed. In this instance one extra house would be introduced to this site.

With respect to density, the plot is 0.12 hectare so the current density is 8 dwellings per hectare with one house on the site. The proposal would double this to 16 dwellings per hectare. Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy deals with the efficient use of housing land and this indicates a preferred density of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare. The policy also states that densities outside this range will be allowed where they achieve good design, reflect the character of the area or

88 protect a sensitive area. The density proposed does reflect very closely that of the immediate area and higher density as preferred by the policy would be likely to be out of character.

Design, Layout and External Appearance.

Policy H14 of the UDP requires new buildings to be well designed and in keeping with the scale and character of nearby development.

Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy says that high quality development will be expected that would enhance the city’s neighbourhoods.

Policy CS31 of the Core Strategy identifies housing in the south west area as being an area of distinctive character and priority will be given to safeguarding and enhancing this area.

Included within this application is the proposal to demolish the existing dormer bungalow on the site. This building is not of sufficient visual quality to merit it being retained and this quality needs to be set against the design and appearance of the two proposed houses.

The existing bungalow is sited at the centre of this triangular site and each of the two new houses would occupy about half of the site. Plot one would be at the south eastern side aligned in a northwest/southeast direction and plot two would take up the remainder of the plot, aligned in a north south direction. The access to plot one would be an extension to the existing access road with a right angled turn serving plot two. The garden of plot one would be at the rear and would vary between 10 and 15 metres deep. The garden for plot two would be at the rear where it would vary between 2.5 and 10 metres and the south side being 5 to 12 metres to the side boundary. The areas of useable private garden space for plots one and two are 300 and 120 square metres respectively. The garden sizes meet the criteria for useable garden spaces. There is also other space around the two houses providing space between buildings and for parking and access.

Both houses would be two storeys high with a mix of flat and very shallow pitched roofs. There would be extensive areas of glazing set within a mixed exterior of pale render, brick and wood. Each house would also have an inset balcony. The houses are a complete contrast to surrounding development which is mainly of brick with pitched and gable roofs. The design is considered to be acceptable, the exterior broken down by changes in material and texture and variations in the massing. The objections from local residents and the Dore Village Society regarding the design and external appearance are noted but if the design is considered to be of a good quality, then simply because it differs from existing built form and design is not a reason to resist a proposal. It is also noted that there are already two houses of contemporary, modern design built nearby on Dore Road.

The layout, design and external appearance is considered to be acceptable and of considerably better quality than the existing bungalow that is currently located the on site. Although many of the nearby houses are of a more traditional appearance, it is considered that these contemporary style houses would be appropriate by way

89 of their contrast, in this neighbourhood. They would, therefore, comply with all relevant policy criteria.

Sustainability.

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy deals with climate change and the sustainable design of development. This requires the achievement of a high standard of energy efficiency, making the best use of solar energy, passive heating and cooling, natural light and ventilation and minimising the impact on existing renewable energy installations.

Policy CS65 deals with renewable energy and carbon reduction and sets a target of significant development being required to provide a minimum of 10% of their energy needs being provided from renewable or low carbon energy. However, this proposal does not qualify as significant development so this policy does not strictly apply.

The applicant, in supporting submissions, has said that both houses would be built to a high sustainability specification. Heat pumps and solar panels on the roofs would be a source of renewable energy, solar gain would be maximised by way of orientation and large expanses of glazing, a rainwater harvest system and the use of AAA white goods.

This is considered to be acceptable and in line with policy criteria.

Impact on Residents’ Amenities.

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new development should not harm the amenities of existing local residents.

There are three boundaries to this site and the impact on each of these and the adjoining residents will be examined in turn.

The side elevation of plot one faces the south east boundary which is with the rear garden of 2, Bushey Wood Grove. The side of plot one would face the narrow strip of garden at the end of the neighbour and not face the house. Beyond this narrow garden strip is the highway. Along the boundary would be a close boarded wooden fence. Any oblique angled views between properties would be severely restricted because of the set back of plot one from the edge of the site.

With respect to the south west facing boundary, which is with the garden of King’s Croft, plot one would be between 10 and 15 metres away from the boundary and there would be no overlooking or overdominant impact. There is a balcony on the first floor facing this garden, but this is inset into the elevation so it is not possible to look from the sides. The balcony, in terms of looking out, would have the same impact as a window.

Plot two is closer to the south west boundary and there is a two storey elevation with a flat roof that runs for 12 metres along the boundary and it’s distance away varies from 2.5 to 4 metres. With respect to the possibility of overlooking, the

90 ground floor windows would face the hedges and boundary planting and at first floor, there would be no openings apart from one of opaque glass blocks. This would be controlled by a condition to ensure clear glass could not be introduced.

With respect to the possibility of the elevation being overbearing, part of the elevation faces outbuildings associated with King’s Croft and part faces the garden and would be well away from the house. Also, there is mature planting within the adjoining garden which would screen the house.

A 1.8 metre close boarded fence would be placed along the north east boundary, which is with the adjoining house, ‘Elmsley’. Plot one would face towards the garden and be 9 metres from the boundary, which is the same distance as the existing dormer bungalow on the site. The end elevation of plot two would face the garden of ‘Elmsley’ and be only about a metre away from the edge of the site. However, the house is single storey here with a blank wall that would be screened by the fence. The first floor element would be between 4 and 9.5 metres away from the boundary and the single bedroom window in this elevation would be 9 metres away at an angle of about 145 degrees to ‘Elmsley’.

It is considered that there would be no harm to neighbours by way of overlooking or overdominance.

Impact on the Dore Conservation Area.

Policy BE16 of the UDP requires development to preserve or enhance the character of Conservation Areas. Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy expects new development to respect and enhance the distinctive heritage of the city.

The site lies beyond the eastern edge of the Dore Conservation Area and is separated by trees and mature planting. The design of the houses is acceptable and they would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation area. Consequently, there is no policy conflict.

Parking and Access.

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new housing development should have adequate parking and safe access to the highway.

Each of the two new dwellings would have parking for three cars, which is acceptable. Residents and the Dore Village Society have raised concerns about the safety of the access because of limited visibility caused by the blind corner on Savage Lane. As a result of a net increase of one more house and estimated increases in vehicle movements of between six and eight each day, it is considered that continued use of the access would not be a hazard to traffic.

The site is within easy walking distance of the Dore local shopping centre and there are good bus services located here.

91 Trees and Landscaping.

Policy GE15 of the UDP seeks to encourage the retention and protection of trees and woodland.

There are three mature trees that have the potential to be affected by this development. Close to where the access road enters the site, there is a mature cherry tree and the canopy of this tree is close to the front elevation of plot one. However, the distance will be sufficient to ensure the continuing health of the tree. Along the south west boundary, there are two trees, a sycamore and a beech, that lie in adjoining gardens and the canopies of both are separate from both houses and would not be affected. It is considered appropriate to attach conditions which protect existing trees, retain boundary planting, require existing and proposed levels and details of hard and soft landscaping.

There is no conflict with policy GE15.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Most of the representations have already been dealt with earlier in this report but one response is still required.

It is considered that, because the scheme is considered to be acceptable in terms of all material planning considerations, then the site density is also acceptable and not, as asserted, excessive.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This application proposes the demolition of the existing dormer bungalow on site along with the associated outbuildings, which would be replaced by two detached dwellinghouses. They would be of a modern, contemporary design, which, although different from the surrounding houses, would be acceptable in terms of design, siting and external appearance. The impact on trees and landscaping, neighbours and the adjoining Dore Conservation Area is acceptable. Also, the houses would be constructed to a high sustainable specification.

The good design, physical site constraints and proximity to the Conservation Area render the density of 16 dwellings per hectare to be acceptable even though it is outside the range set out in policy CS26.

It is considered that the proposal complies with national guidance in PPS3.

There is no conflict with appropriate planning policy, the application is acceptable and the proposal is, therefore, recommended for conditional approval.

Case Number 11/02706/CHU

Application Type Planning Application for Change of Use

Proposal Change of Use from Class A1 (Shops) to Class A3 (Restaurant and Cafe) with external flue, outside seating with awing and bin store

Location 308-310 London Road Sheffield S2 4NA

Date Received 24/08/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent NADA Architects - Mr Ahmed Choudhry

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 Notwithstanding the submitted drawings and details, the proposed access ramp shown on the submitted plans is not approved. Before the use of the restaurant is commenced, disabled access shall be provided to the building in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning authority. Thereafter, such provision shall be retained.

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

3 The premises shall only be operated for the use hereby permitted between the times of 0800 hours and 2330 hours (Mondays to Saturdays) and, 0900 hours and 2300 hours (Sundays and Bank Holidays).

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

4 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the ground floor windows on the rear elevation of the premises (facing Mount Pleasant Road) shall at all times be fixed non-openable windows.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

5 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the restaurant use hereby permitted shall not be used unless appropriate sound insulation measures have been implemented to protect occupants of adjoining flats from noise, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation. Thereafter the approved sound insulation measures shall be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.

6 Before the use of the development is commenced, a Validation Test of the sound attenuation works shall have been carried out and the results submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such Validation Test shall:

a) Be carried out in accordance with an approved method statement,

b) Demonstrate that the specified noise levels have been achieved. In the event that the specified noise levels have not been achieved, then notwithstanding the sound attenuation works thus far approved, a further scheme of sound attenuation works capable of achieving the specified noise levels and recommended by an acoustic consultant shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the development is commenced. Such further scheme of works shall be installed as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced and shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of adjoining property.

7 No live music or amplified sound shall be played within the building unless a scheme of sound attenuation works has been installed and thereafter retained. Such scheme of works shall:

a) Be based on the findings of an approved noise survey of the application site, including an approved method statement for the noise survey,

b) Be capable of restricting noise breakout from the building to the street to levels not exceeding:

(i) the background noise levels by more than 3 dB(A) when measured as a 15 minute Laeq,

(ii) any octave band centre frequency by more than 3 dB when measured as a 15 minute linear Leq.

Before such scheme of works is installed full details thereof shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

8 No externally mounted plant or equipment for heating, cooling or ventilation purposes, nor grilles, ducts, vents for similar internal equipment, shall be fitted to the building unless full details thereof have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and once installed such plant or equipment should not be altered without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

9 No deliveries to or from the building shall be carried out between the times of 23:00 hours to 08:00 hours (Mondays to Saturdays) and 22:30 hours to 09:00 hours (Sundays and Bank Holidays).

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

10 The fire exit doors shall only be used as an emergency exit and shall not at any other time be left standing open.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

11 The fire exit doors shall only be used as an emergency exit and shall not at any other time be left standing open.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

12 No movement, sorting or removal of waste bottles, materials or other articles, nor movement of skips or bins shall be carried on outside the building within the site of the development (shown on the plan) between the times of 23:00 hours and 08:00 hours Monday to Saturdays, and between 22:30 hours and 09:00 hours on Sundays and Public Holidays.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

13 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the outdoor seating area shall only be used by patrons between the times of 09:00 hours and 21:00 hours on any day.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

95 14 Prior to the use of the restaurant commencing, full details including drawings (to a scale of 1:50) and details of materials of the proposed bin storage enclosure area shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter, the approved details shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

15 Prior to the use of the restaurant commencing, full details (including specifications, drawings, materials and dimensions) of the proposed retractable awning shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter, the approved details shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

16 Prior to the use of the restaurant commencing, full details (including specifications, dimensions, powder coating and colours) of the proposed externally mounted flue shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, such approved details shall be implemented prior to the use of the restaurant commencing.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

17 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

- drawing number 11-036 (08)001 revision PL2 (received on the 5th December 2011), - drawing numbers 11-036 (02)001 revision PL0 and 11-036 (01)001 revision PL0 (both received on the 23rd of August 2011), - agent’s correspondence dated 24th of January 2012 - agent’s correspondence dated 5th of December 2011

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

S10 - Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas

96 Overall it is considered that the development complies with the relevant policies and proposals in the development plan, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

2. As the proposed development abuts the public highway you are advised to contact the Highways Co-ordination Group on Sheffield 2736677, prior to commencing works. The Co-ordinator will be able to advise you of any pre- commencement condition surveys, permits, permissions or licences you may require in order to carry out your works.

3. The developer's attention is drawn to:

(i) Sections 4 and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended; and

(ii) the code of Practice for Access of the Disabled to Buildings (British Standards Institution code of practice BS 8300) or any prescribed document replacing that code.

Section 4 sets requirements for access to, and facilities at, premises. Section 7 requires a notice or sign to be displayed, indicating that provision is made for the disabled.

If you require any further information please contact Brian Messider or Simon Ovendon on Sheffield 2734197.

97 4. For larger restaurants advice on the discharge and arrestment of kitchen fumes and odours is given in the document ‘Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems’, Annex B, ‘Information required to support a planning application for a commercial kitchen’ by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

5. You may need a Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003, you are advised to contact Health Protection Service (Health & Safety) for required standards before any works are undertaken on Telephone Number 0114 273 4616.

6. The applicant is advised that the signage indicated on the submitted drawings is not approved as part of this permission and will require separate Advertisement Consent. To discuss arrangements for obtaining such consent, and to request application forms, the applicant should contact Development Control Section, Development Services, on Sheffield (0114) 2039183 or go to www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/planning-and-city- development

98 Site Location

99 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

This is an application in the London Road District Shopping Centre for a change of use from a retail shop (Use Class A1) to a restaurant (Use Class A3). This proposal also seeks consent for a new external flue, a new wall-mounted awning for an outdoor seating area, an access ramp and a new bin enclosure/storage area.

The application property is the ground floor accommodation of a large two-storey building that occupies a prominent corner position at the junction of London Road and Ward Place. The property is a double-fronted unit that had previously been used as a printing shop but, is now currently vacant. The property has a large 2- storey rear off-shot extension which occupies the majority of the rear yard area of the site. The accommodation at first-floor level and in the roof-space is understood to be used as separate residential accommodation accessed via an external staircase at the rear of the property. The application site immediately backs onto the gardens of residential dwellings on Mount Pleasant Road.

In conjunction with on-going discussions throughout the application process, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed hours of operation of the proposed restaurant will be 08:00 hours to 23:30 hours (Mondays to Saturdays) and 09:00 hours to 23:00 hours (on Sundays and Bank Holidays).

The applicant has confirmed that the proposed bin storage area will be enclosed by way of hit and miss timber screening which should ensure that the commercial waste bins for the site are not obtrusive in the street scene and do not lead to nuisance for motorists or nearby residents.

The proposed awning will be a retractable styled awning that when fully deployed will measure approximately 7 metres in length by approximately 1.3 metres in depth and, is intended to provide cover for an existing forecourt area that the applicant is proposing to be used as an outdoor seating area for customers. The forecourt/outdoor seating area will be on the side elevation of the building that faces Ward Place. An access ramp is being proposed at the front of the site fronting London Road.

In order to prevent odour nuisance, the applicant’s proposal incorporates fume extraction equipment being installed and this will include a proposed flue at the rear of the property. The proposed flue would run up the external rear wall, up along the external rear roof slope and up against an adjoining chimney stack. The proposed flue would be 450mm in diameter and would be fitted with an in-line fan and a silencer and a vertical discharge cowl. The applicant has agreed to have the flue powder colour coated in order to minimise its visual impact. The flue would therefore be coloured in a cream colour up to eaves level (to match the cream colour of the existing render of the property) and a dark grey colour beyond eaves level to match the colour of the slate roof on the property.

The application site is located at the end of a short shopping parade consisting of 7 units (2 of which are double-fronted units). Other uses within the shopping parade include a sandwich shop (Class A1) next door at 306, a grocery retail shop at 304,

100 a hair and beauty salon at 300 – 302 and, a further grocery retail shop at number 298. At present therefore the whole block consists of retail Class A1 shops (the application site being the only vacant shop unit within the block).

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Previous relevant planning applications relating to the premises include:-

94/01065/FUL – This was an application for an extension to the print room and erection of a new shop front. This application was conditionally approved in July 1994.

94/01609/FUL – This was an application for a first floor extension to offices. This application was conditionally approved in September 1994.

05/00364/FUL – This was an application for alterations to 1st and 2nd floors to form 3 flats and installation of 2 dormer windows. This application was conditionally approved in July 2005.

10/02018/FULR – This was a renewal application of an earlier approval for alterations to 1st and 2nd floors to form 3 flats and installation of 2 dormer windows (application to extend the time limit for implementation imposed by application 05/00364/FUL). This application was conditionally approved in August 2010.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters of representation have been received from local residents and both letters have raised some objections to the proposal. The residents that have objected live opposite the site on Ward Place and at the rear of the site on Mount Pleasant Road. The reasons for objection have been summarised and are listed below:-

- With customers sat outside facing directly opposite, the proposal would lead to loss of privacy. - The proposal will lead to increased nuisance from noise and smells. - There is a small public car parking area (for approximately 5 vehicles) directly opposite the site on Ward Place (immediately adjacent to one of the objector’s properties), customers and staff associated with the proposed use would park in those parking spaces and as a consequence, parking for nearby residents would be displaced leading to an increase in on-street car parking in the area. This would be a problem particularly in the evenings when local residents and customers of the restaurant would all be competing for parking spaces. - The proposed flue and external bins will be located close to residential gardens and this is likely to cause odour nuisance particularly in warmer weather. - If the bins are not managed adequately, the proposed waste will attract vermin.

101 The applicant has submitted further comments in support of the application, those comments highlight that this property is at one end of the District Shopping Centre (the end in most need of regeneration) and therefore is detached from the main core shopping area, the applicant has also indicated that the property has been vacant for a considerable while now and is proving difficult to let as a retail (Class A1) shop. The applicant also states that the only interest being generated for the property is for use as a restaurant (Use Class A3). The applicant has also stipulated that bringing the property back into use will benefit the area.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy Issues

The site is located within the London Road District Shopping Centre (DSC) as defined in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The residential properties located at the rear of the site (on Mount Pleasant Road and on Ward Place are also designated as being within the London Road District Shopping Area.

Whilst the preferred use in District Shopping Policy Areas is for retail shops (Use Class A1), the Unitary Development Plan does identify food and drink outlets (Class A3, A4 and A5 Uses) to be acceptable in principle (subject to there not being a dominance of non-Class A1 retail uses and also subject to there being no detrimental harm for existing residents, no highway safety issues and, that the scheme is well designed).

UDP Policy S10 (Conditions on Development in Shopping Areas) seeks, amongst other things, to preserve the dominance of retail uses within District Shopping Centres in order to protect the primary shopping function.

Although the development plan interprets dominance as generally looking at floor area, it’s not the only methodology that can or should be used to assess dominance. Alternative methods to establish ‘dominance’ include assessment on the actual number of units rather than actual floorspace and the Council has regularly used this approach (this has been due to the fact that accurate floorspace details have never been available or were too vague). However, information now available from the Valuation Office makes it easier to record more accurate figures for actual floorspace and therefore, Members may now wish to also be informed of the implications of the proposal when the dominance issue is assessed against actual floorspace as well as the actual number of units.

At present, when the ‘dominance issue’ is assessed based on actual number of units, the figures show that the number of retail uses only occupy approximately 39% of the London Road District Shopping Centre which, clearly is well below the 50% threshold level. It is also worth pointing out that the figures show that the London Road District Shopping Centre has a 14% vacancy rate which is slightly higher than the Sheffield average of 10%. Clearly therefore, to lose another retail unit (albeit a vacant unit) would reduce the 39% retail use even further.

102 However, if the ‘dominance issue’ is assessed based on actual retail floor-space, then the data suggests that there is currently a 62% figure for Class A1 retail use in the District Centre and as such, this proposal would not affect the Class A1 retail dominance of the Centre. It should be noted that the floor-space figures for Class A1 retail use in the centre is high because of the inclusion of the nearby Waitrose superstore which although is only one Class A1 retail unit does have a very large Class A1 retail floor-space.

It’s also worth pointing out that although designated as being within the London Road District Shopping Centre, the Waitrose Superstore is at the extreme end of the district shopping location and as such is almost a stand-alone shopping location in its own right that has limited bearing on the character or viability of the main London Road district shopping centre.

The issue of dominance is therefore a finely balanced consideration that requires a more site specific and localised approach to fully assess the impact of the proposal on the viability and vitality of the District Shopping Centre (DSC). In this regard officers have assessed various factors such as the need to ensure retained operational daytime activity (as opposed to closed-up shop frontages) and, the need to ensure a healthy mix of uses in the centre whilst also recognising an above average vacancy rate. The application site is located within an existing shopping parade of 7 units within a defined block that nestles between Ward place and Sitwell Place (of the 7 units in this block, the application site and one other unit are double-fronted units). If approved, in this particular block/shopping parade, the proposal would result in 5 out of the 7 units being Class A1 retail units (71.5%) and 2 units being non-Class A1 retail (28.5%). When officers have analysed the street frontage and looked beyond the immediate block/parade i.e. looked at the units extending 50 metres either side of the application site, the results show that there are 2 double-fronted units in non-A1 retail use (i.e. a double-fronted restaurant unit and a double-fronted dental practice), the analysis also shows that there are 8 units in Class A1 retail use and 4 vacant Class A1 retail units. Therefore based on this localised assessment there are 25% (2 double-fronted units) being in non- Class A1 use, 50% (7 single units and 1 double-fronted unit) being in active Class A1 use and, 25% (4 single units) being vacant Class A1 units. In a much localised sense therefore, there would still remain a feeling and general appearance of this stretch of the shopping parade being dominated by Class A1 retail uses.

To conclude the policy position therefore, floorspace for the whole District Shopping Area shows that A1 retail use is dominant, but actual retail unit numbers show A1 retail to be weak and, localised assessments (of occupied units) show retail dominance to be high at well over 66%. The floorspace is heavily skewed by Waitrose and it is questionable as to whether or not it really functions as part of the centre. The perception/context of the DSC is very much of reduced/limited A1 facilities, highlighted by the information of numbers of units across the Centre. However the perception of this particular stretch of London Road is still very much of Class A1 retail uses. Therefore, taking into consideration the localised nature of this stretch of London Road (particularly with the unit being at one end of the District Shopping Centre and away from the main hub/core of commercial activity) and, the general perception and feel of retail use in the localised area, it is considered that in this instance the loss of the retail use of the property (albeit a

103 vacant unit) would not adversely affect the retail function of the centre and as such it is considered (on balance) that the proposal would not be in conflict with Policy S10 (a) of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

Amenity Issues

There are some late night uses in the immediate area, and the site is aligned along one of Sheffield’s main arterial routes into and out of the City Centre, and therefore, given that the site is also located within a District Shopping Area, it is unreasonable to impose onerous restrictions on the operating times of the premises that are tighter than the standard opening times (23:30 hours Mondays to Saturdays and, 23:00 hours on Sundays), however, it would be reasonable and also in the interests of local residents to control the hours that the outdoor seating areas are used and therefore, for this reason it is proposed to restrict the use of the outdoor seating area to 21:00 hours on any night.

It’s also worth noting that the applicant has minimised the number of openings at the rear of the site to just one emergency fire exit door and two ground-floor non- openable windows on the rear elevation, this should ensure that noise and odour breakout from within the premises will have a minimal impact on nearby residents.

Given that the upper floor premises have consent to be used as residential flats, it is felt appropriate to ensure that there is suitable sound attenuation works between the ground floor premises and the first floor accommodation to prevent possible late night noise nuisance between the premises.

The proposal will see the introduction of a new bin enclosure area to help minimise odour and other forms of nuisance and to also ensure some visual improvement to the street-scene by not having waste bins openly on display.

Although the proposed flue will be externally mounted, its siting will not be appear visually prominent from the public domain because of the existing off-shot two- storey rear extension which will screen the flue from open view. The flue will however be seen from the residential properties on Mount Pleasant Road and from the residential flat above the adjoining property (306 London Road) and for this reason, the applicant has agreed to reduce the diameter of the flue to 450mm and to have the flue powder-coated in colours that will help camouflage the flue. The flue will terminate at a height that will be at least one metre above the nearest window and therefore, odours and fumes from the flue should not pose a problem for local/nearby residents.

On balance, officers feel that the proposal (subject to compliance with planning conditions) will not lead to any adverse or detrimental impact on amenity for local residents, and therefore in regard to impact on residential amenities, the proposal will accord with Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

Highway Issues

Whilst the site has no provision for off-street car parking, the site is considered to be within a highly sustainable location, being close to regular public transport

104 routes along London Road and Abbeydale Road, there is also some capacity within the immediate area for on-street parking without causing displacement nuisance or inconvenience for local residents. Officers therefore do not feel that the lack of off-street car parking provision in this location will lead to any increased highway safety problems or nuisance for existing residents.

The proposal (as originally submitted) incorporated a new access ramp at the front of the property, however, there are concerns that the proposed ramp would leave a very narrow public footpath which could lead to highway and pedestrian safety issues. Officers therefore recommend that the disabled access ramp as proposed is not approved and that revised details are submitted as part of a planning condition and that the applicant seek an alternative proposal to ensure that the premises will be accessible without compromising pedestrian/highway safety. For example, this may necessitate re-contouring of the forecourt area to create a level threshold without the need for a full ramp and handrails.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an application for a change of use from a vacant retail shop (Class A1) to a restaurant (Class A3) use. The proposal also incorporates a new externally mounted flue, a wall mounted retractable awning and the formation of a bin enclosure area. Two neighbour representations in objection to the proposal have been submitted. The objections have either been addressed through amendments to the scheme or will be addressed by imposed planning conditions. With the exception of the access ramp, the proposal does not raise any highway safety issues and it is proposed to resolve this by use of a planning condition.

In land use policy terms, the policy position is finely balanced with retail use dominant in floorspace terms but not when assessed in relation to actual numbers of units. The localised mix of units is however still retail (Class A1) dominant. Although noting the wider context and perception of a lack of a1 uses within the centre, given the localised context and the visual impression of the local area still being predominantly retail in character, it is considered that the further loss of an A1 unit would not lead to a concentration of uses which would prejudice the dominance of preferred uses in the area and as such, officers feel that the proposal is compliant with Policy S10 of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan.

For all of the reasons outlined above, it is considered that on balance, the proposal is unlikely to seriously affect the amenities of local residents and is compliant with the appropriate land use policies of the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan and Sheffield Core Strategy, and as such, it is recommended that this application be conditionally approved.

105

Case Number 11/01980/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Application under Sec 73 to remove condition No.4 (Barn remaining incidental to the main dwelling and not been sold or let as a separate dwelling) imposed by 06/03253/FUL (Alterations to existing barn to form ancillary living accommodation)

Location 10 Birkendale Sheffield S6 3NJ

Date Received 22/06/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Plainview Planning Ltd

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority consider that condition 4 of the 2006 planning consent 06/03253/FUL is reasonable and meets the requirements of Circular 11/95 'The use of conditions in planning Permissions'. It is not considered to unduly restrict the use of the outbuilding so as effectively nullify the benefits of the consent. The removal of condition 4 would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area and the amenities of the occupants of the original dwelling and the converted barn. As such, the removal of condition 4 would be contrary to the provisions of policies H14, BE5, BE16, of the Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield.

106 Site Location

107 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a large detached dwellinghouse (10 Birkendale) and a detached outbuilding which is situated within it’s curtilage. The large stone built property sits above the narrow public highway and within grounds which slope up from the southeast to the northwest. The property is fronted by a stone wall and wrought iron gates. The setting and grandeur of the property is typical of this residential area.

The subject site is set approximately 3km out of Sheffield city centre within a leafy suburb. The property is sited within a Housing area and the Birkendale Conservation Area as defined in Sheffield City Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

The area is characterised by generally large properties set within large grounds. The properties vary in size and architectural style and various detached outbuildings are located within the grounds of the neighbouring properties.

A large detached outbuilding is present within the site and has been converted into residential living accommodation. The conversion of said building was approved in 2006 by the Local Planning Authority.

The living accommodation was proposed as ancillary living accommodation by the applicant in 2006. The application was considered to be acceptable and not harmful to the character of the area or the living conditions of the neighbouring properties, owing to the nature of the outbuilding as being ancillary accommodation. Permission for such alterations was therefore granted subject to a condition being attached to the permission restricting the outbuildings use. It stated that the use of the barn shall at all times remain incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling and shall not be sold or let as a separate dwelling.

Since the works were carried out, the outbuilding has been occupied. Enforcement complaints have been forwarded to the Local Planning Authority’s enforcement team which suggests that the building is being let to people outside the family unit who occupy the main dwelling. A Breach of Condition Notice was served upon the applicant and this application has subsequently been submitted to remove condition 4 of the original approval 06/03253/FUL.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The subject property and associated outbuilding has been the subject of several planning applications. Over the course of 11 years, between 1995 and 2006, three applications have been submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority to use the outbuilding as ancillary living accommodation. The last of the three applications was application 06/03253/FUL. Condition 4 of the 2006 application stated that:

- The use of the barn shall at all times remain incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling, No. 10 Birkendale, and the barn shall not be sold or let as a separate dwelling.

108

Since the 2006 approval, the outbuilding has been converted and is currently being occupied. A complaint was received by the Local Planning Authority and investigations were made as to whether or not a breach of condition 4 had occurred.

In February 2011, authority was given by Members to take enforcement action against the unauthorised use. A Breach of Condition Notice was served upon the owner and this was ignored. The Local Planning Authority started to prosecute the applicant for Non- Compliance with A Breach of Condition Notice.

Various court hearings were adjourned before this current application was submitted. This application was submitted prior to the last scheduled Court hearing of 19 October 2011. A decision was made by the Local Planning Authority to withdraw the criminal proceeding relating to the applicants Non- Compliance with A Breach of Condition Notice. It was considered appropriate to do so as the outcome of the hearing could be affected by the determination of this application.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

There have been 14 representations received in connection with this application. However, the 14 letters have been received from seven persons. Two people support the application, whilst the other five raise objections to it.

One of the objection letters has also been supported by six neighbouring persons.

The representations objecting to the proposal can be summarised as the following:

- The site is within a valued, quiet Conservation Area which is noted for its period houses which are set within large and mature gardens. Letting/ selling the outbuilding will be detrimental to the character of this historic area; - There is only one route for traffic which is via Birkendale Road. All the streets within the area are all dead ends and parking and access is already a major problem. The proposal will make the traffic problems worse; - The proposal will increase noise and other disturbance to the neighbouring properties; - The same condition is attached to other permissions within the street and the proposal would set a dangerous precedent; - The characteristics of the proposal are similar to infill proposals which have been refused within Sheffield; - The main dwelling is possibly being converted into a House in Multiple Occupation which would exacerbate the above issues further.

Contrary to the above comments, the two supporting representations in summary state that:

- The use of the outbuilding by people who are not related to the family of the main dwelling would not be detrimental the character of the area or the amenities of the neighbouring properties;

109 - The refurbishment of such a building should be welcomed and put to a practicable use; - The living accommodation would provide more affordable accommodation within the area and would accord with the policy aims of the UDP in terms of noise and other disturbance.

It is noted that representations refer to works being carried out to the main dwelling and these works could include the alterations of the dwelling to form a House in Multiple Occupation. At this moment in time, officers understand that the main dwelling is still being occupied by the family of the applicant and this forms the basis of the planning assessment.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The key issue for this application is to determine whether condition 4, as attached to planning consent 06/03253/FUL, remains appropriate. To assist a conclusion, the following assessment must outline the reasons for granting approval of the original application with the condition imposed and consider whether the condition is just and, therefore satisfactory with regards to Circular 11/95 ‘Use of Conditions in Planning Permission’, which sets key tests for planning conditions.

The application seeks to demonstrate to the Council that the condition was worded incorrectly and is therefore an unreasonable planning condition. It is argued by the applicant that the Local Planning Authority has confused the meaning of the words ancillary and incidental, and in doing so, has attached a condition which fails to meet the six tests for conditions that are outlined in Circular 11/95. In particular, the applicant contends that the test of ‘reasonableness’ is failed. They state that to restrict the use to ‘incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse’ is at odds with the original intention of the application and its description.

The applicant has tried to demonstrate that the words incidental and ancillary have two meanings in planning terms. The application tries to define incidental, but at no point defines ancillary. The meaning of the two words is one and the same and cannot be distinguished between. The appeal references made by the applicant are not strictly relevant and refer to cases where Planning Inspectors or the courts have ruled on matters relating to Permitted Development.

For Members information, the erection of an outbuilding within a residential curtilage is permitted development (ie does not require planning permission) if it meets size and location criteria and is required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling.

In the Design and Access statement which accompanied the 2006 application, it was suggested that the proposal was primarily to provide ancillary living accommodation for a dependant relative. It did, however, also propose that the accommodation may also be used as a home office, staff accommodation and/or guest accommodation.

The application was therefore considered as described for a use incidental or ancillary to the main family unit; regardless of the size of the unit. The proposed

110 use was not considered to increase the intensity of the existing use of the site to an extent which would be detrimental to the amenities of the surrounding area or the occupants of the original dwelling or those inhabitants of the proposed outbuilding.

The applicant seeks to remove Condition 4 of the permission 06/03253/FUL because they consider the condition to be unreasonable. In Circular 11/95, paragraph 35 states that:

“A condition may be unreasonable because it is unduly restrictive. Although a condition may in principle impose a continuing restriction on the use of land (provided that there are good planning reasons for that restriction), such a condition should not be imposed if the restriction effectively nullifies the benefit of the permission”.

To understand whether the condition has been ‘unduly restrictive’ the reasoning behind granting planning application 06/03253/FUL should be examined.

The application in 2006 was assessed using the adopted Unitary Development Plan. The application was considered prior to the adopted Core Strategy of the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF). Policies BE5, BE16 and H14 were all relevant. (As the SDF has not superseded the UDP, the UDP policies are still relevant, where identified as saved as these are).

UDP policy H14 seeks to ensure that all new developments are well designed and do not impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Policies BE5 and BE16, however, seek to protect the character of the original building and the surrounding Conservation Area.

The condition did not prevent the use of the building for the purpose originally applied for. The use of the building for persons outside the family unit are considered to alter the nature of the site and the relationship between the occupants of the original building and those of the converted outbuilding.

If the accommodation is sold or let separately, the number of persons occupying the curtilage of 10 Birkendale would increase. The increase in both pedestrian and vehicular traffic is to be considered as having a detrimental impact upon the living conditions of the occupants of the original dwelling and the converted barn. Furthermore, the close proximity to other neighbouring properties would also raise concern, as a significant increase in occupants of the site is considered to impact upon the amenities of the wider surrounding area in terms of noise and other disturbances. For these reasons, had no condition been attached to the original planning consent, the application 06/03253/FUL would have been refused and considered to be contrary to UDP policy H14.

Similarly, the subsequent use of the outbuilding by persons unconnected to the main dwelling would have resulted in its occupants having no defined curtilage for amenity purposes and also in direct overlooking of the private garden area of the host dwelling from the habitable room windows of the outbuilding. This would be in conflict with Policy H14.

111 Subdivision of the curtilage in order to provide separate private amenity areas would impact adversely upon the character and grain of the Conservation Area in conflict with policy BE16.

The importance of the condition was not only to preserve the amenities of the area but also the character and appearance of the conservation area. The area is characterised by large properties that are situated within modest sized grounds. Whilst various properties do have modest sized outbuildings within their grounds, the buildings are ancillary to the main dwelling. The grounds of the property are modest in size and the narrow driveway snakes down to the narrow road. The potential introduction of new driveways and/ or other accesses – that would be necessary to reduce potential impact on the living conditions of the various occupants – would severely alter the character of the original dwelling and have a negative impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. Again, without the proposed condition the proposal would have been, again, considered to be contrary to UDP policy H14 and BE16.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

It is considered by the Local Planning Authority that the original application could not be satisfactory in terms of UDP policies H14 and BE16, without a condition limiting the use of the converted outbuilding.

Although the outbuilding does have two bedrooms, the size of the outbuilding was already decided due to the fact that the proposal was a conversion. It was considered that regardless of the size of the building, the use of the barn should remain incidental to the main dwelling house as reasonably stated by the applicant in the original Design and Access Statement of 2006. The condition is not considered to be unduly restrictive, or unreasonable, and was necessary in order to create a consent which would satisfy the policies of the UDP.

Whilst the applicant disputes the wording of the condition and tries to distinguish between the words ancillary and incidental, no definition of ancillary is made. This is considered to be the case because for the purposes of this application, the words ancillary and incidental are one and the same.

The condition is considered to be worded correctly and is necessary to enable the application to meet the provisions of the UDP. It is considered that the removal of the condition would present a situation whereby the application would become contrary to policies BE16 and H14 of the UDP.

As such, the application to remove condition 4 of the 2006 planning consent 06/03253/FUL is recommended for refusal.

112

Case Number 11/01967/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 14 apartments in 1 No. 2/3 storey block with associated car parking and landscaping (amended plans received 5/12/11)

Location Land Between 5 And 21 Holmhirst Road Sheffield

Date Received 16/06/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Self Architects

Recommendation GRA GC subject to Legal Agreement

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

2 No development shall commence until details of the implementation, adoption, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The system shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include a timetable for its implementation, and a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the effective operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime.

In the interests of sustainable development.

3 No development shall commence until a report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority identifying how the following will be provided:

113 a) a minimum of 10% of the predicted energy needs of the of the completed development being obtained from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy;

Any agreed renewable or low carbon energy equipment, connection to decentralised or low carbon energy sources or additional energy efficiency measures shall have been installed before any part of the development is occupied and a post-installation report shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the agreed measures have been installed. Thereafter the agreed equipment, connection or measures shall be retained in use and maintained for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4 Details of all proposed external materials and finishes, including samples when requested by the Local Planning Authority, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before that part of the development is commenced. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

5 Before any hard surfaced areas are constructed, full details of all those hard surfaced areas within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall provide for the use of porous materials, or for surface water to run off from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Thereafter the hard surfacing shall be implemented in accordance with approved details.

In order to control surface water run off from the site and mitigate against the risk of flooding.

6 The building shall not be used unless the access and facilities for people with disabilities shown on the plans have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained.

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

7 The soft landscaped areas shall be managed and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that period shall be replaced in accordance with the approved details.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

114

8 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when the landscape works are completed.

To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can confirm when the maintenance periods specified in associated conditions/condition have commenced.

9 The existing landscaped areas within the site shall be retained and protected from construction activity. Any damage during construction / demolition works shall be made good by reinstating to the condition/appearance prior to the commencement of the works.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

10 Unless otherwise indicated on the approved plans no tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

11 The approved landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and they shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that five year period shall be replaced unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

12 The building shall not be used unless 2.0 metres x 2.0 metres vehicle/pedestrian intervisibility splays have been provided on both sides of the means of access such that there is no obstruction to visibility greater than 600 mm above the level of the adjacent footway and such splays shall thereafter be retained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

13 The building shall not be used unless the car parking accommodation for 14 cars as shown on the approved plans has been provided in accordance with those plans and thereafter such car parking accommodation shall be retained for the sole purpose intended.

To ensure satisfactory parking provision in the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

14 The building shall not be used unless all redundant accesses have been permanently stopped up and reinstated to kerb and footway and means of

115 vehicular access shall be restricted solely to those access points indicated in the approved plans.

In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the locality.

15 There shall be no gates or barriers erected at the means of access to the site unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

To ensure access is available at all times.

16 Unless otherwise approved, the proposed green roof (vegetated roof system) shall be provided on the roof in the locations shown on the approved plans prior to the use of the buildings commencing. Full details of the green roof construction and specification, together with a maintenance schedule shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to foundation works commencing on site and unless otherwise agreed in writing shall include a substrate based growing medium of 80mm minimum depth incorporating 15-25% compost or other organic material. Herbaceous plants shall be employed and the plants shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any failures within that period shall be replaced.

In the interests of biodiversity.

17 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing upon completion of the green roof.

To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can confirm when the maintenance periods specified in associated conditions/condition have commenced.

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE6 - Landscape Design BE9 - Design for Vehicles H5 - Flats, Bed-sitters and Shared Housing H7 - Mobility Housing H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas H15 - Design of New Housing Developments H16 - Open Space in New Housing Developments GE10 - Green Network GE17 - Rivers and Streams CS24 - Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing CS46 - Quantity of Open Space

116 CS63 - Responses to Climate Change CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS74 - Design Principles

The proposed development is considered to be sympathetically designed so as not to greatly impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding locality.

Situated within the centre of the site the proposal is considered not to impact on the amenities of the area and as such, accords with UDP and Core Strategy policies: BE5, BE6, BE9, H5, H7, H10, H14,H15, H16, GE10, GE17, CS24, CS46, CS63, CS64 and CS74.

Attention is drawn to the following directives:

1. Green / brown roof specifications must include drainage layers, growing medium type and depths (minimum 75mm, but depends on system and type employed) and plant schedules.It should be designed to retain at least 60% of the annual rainfall. A minimum of 2 maintenance visits per year will be required to remove unwanted species (as is the case with normal roofs). Assistance in green roof specification can be gained from the Sheffield Green Roof Forum - contact Officers in Environmental Planning in the first instance: 2734198 / 2734196. Alternatively visit www.livingroofs.org or see the Local Planning Authorities Green Roof Planning Guidance on the Council web site.

2. From the 6th April 2008, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 2008 require that all requests for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions require a fee payable to the Local Planning Authority. An application to the Local Planning Authority will be required using the new national standard application forms. Printable forms can be found at www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning or apply online at www.planningportal.gov.uk. The charge for this type of application is £85 or £25 if it relates to a condition on a householder application for development.

For Listed Building Consent and Conservation Area Consent applications an application for confirmation of compliance with planning conditions is still required but there is no fee.

117 Site Location

118 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a parcel of land on Holmhirst Road. The site is situated approximately 4 km from Sheffield city centre and is sited within a defined Housing Area as stipulated within Sheffield’s adopted Unitary Development Plan. The parcel of land is sited just off Chesterfield Road which is an arterial route into Sheffield’s city centre.

The site is currently occupied by various mature trees and mature, self set shrubs and bushes. There are also large areas which are covered with Japanese knotweed. The site boundary is an irregular shape and the topography varies significantly across the site. The parcel of land is approximately 2,750 square metres in size.

The site is surrounded mostly by residential properties. These are set up from the site and along the north and west boundaries. Along the eastern boundary of the site, almost parallel with Chesterfield Road, there is a culvert which over the years has been blocked up. The culvert is set within the lowest area of the site and is believed to vary in depth. Above the culvert, to the south, there are various commercial properties. These premises on Chesterfield Road are set significantly higher than the site.

The surrounding properties vary in built form and architectural style. The majority of the buildings are brick and slate built properties although there is a mixture of styles within the surrounding area.

To the southwest of the site there is a small irregular shaped plot of land which is similar to the subject site. It is approximately 350 square metres in size and is set up from the subject property. It is accessed from Osmaston Road and although currently vacant, it benefits from an extant planning consent for the erection of two residential units.

The site is accessed from Holmhirst Road. Along the boundary of the site fronting Holmhirst Road there is a concrete panelled fence. The street scene at this point is fairly bland and there are no prominent views down into the site from Holmhirst Road.

The application seeks planning permission to erect 14, two bedroomed apartments set within a 2/3 storey building. The building’s design has been revised by the applicant and the architectural style has changed considerably. This proposal has remodelled the building and takes on a more traditional style with materials more akin to the majority of the surrounding buildings.

The proposal would sit within the centre of the site and would be accessed from Holmhirst Road. The access would lead to a car parking area of 14 car parking spaces. The levels of the site would be raised slightly, however, the subject site would still be set significantly lower than the surrounding buildings.

119 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The site has been the subject of previous planning applications. The most relevant planning history associated with this application is an outline planning application (04/00954/OUT) for 28 apartments that was submitted in 2004. This application was withdrawn.

Whilst there is no other application history for this parcel of land, an application for 2 apartments was approved by the Local Planning Authority in 2011 for an adjacent site. The application sought permission to erect a building on the parcel of land to the rear of the site facing Osmaston Road. The apartments are proposed to be sited within the centre of the site which is higher up than the land relating to this application.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

There have been 15 representations received in connection with this application. The comments are summarised as follows:

- The ecological value of the site continues to be underplayed by the applicant and there are concerns that protected species will not be adequately protected by the proposed development; - The proposal would increase noise and other disturbance due to the comings and goings of the residents and also the air source heat pumps; - The visual appearance of the building is not acceptable and will be unsightly; - The proposal will result in a substantial loss of privacy; - The proposal will increase traffic and the volumes of traffic will affect highway safety and will put pressure on the amount of existing car parking; - The location of the proposed entrance to the site on Holmhirst Road is already busy and often dangerous; - The nature of the site would leave ground floor windows of the proposed building in the shade; - There are other sites within the area, including apartments, which cannot be sold. It is therefore questionable whether this is a suitable location.

The above comments are discussed in the subsequent report.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Policy Issues

The application relates to a parcel of land which is overgrown and unkempt. The shrubs and plants are mostly self set, although there are mature trees present both within and around the site boundaries. The site is set within a Housing Area as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP); although the site is a greenfield site which is part of the UDP’s Green Network.

The most relevant local planning policies are outlined in both the UDP and the adopted Core Strategy. The policies identified are:

120

BE5 – Building Design and Siting BE6 – Landscape Design BE9 – Design for Vehicles H5 – Flats, Bed – Sitters and Shared Housing H7 – Mobility Housing H10 – Development in Housing Areas H14 – Conditions on Development in Housing Areas H15 – Design of New Housing Developments H16 – Open Space GE10 – Green Network GE17 – Rivers and Streams CS24 – Maximising the Use of Previously Developed Land for New Housing CS63 – Response to Climate Change CS64 – Climate Change Resources and Sustainable Design of Development CS65 – Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS74 – Design Principles

The use of the land for residential purposes is the preferred use as stipulated in UDP policy H10. The majority of the site does not appear to have been built upon in the past. The green nature of the site and its location within the Green Network therefore means that the proposal needs to meet policies GE10, GE17 and CS24.

Policy CS24 states that priority will be given to development on previously developed land. However, it does permit development on greenfield sites when there are fewer than 15 units and the proposal does not prevent the Council’s target of 88% of development on brownfield sites being achieved. The proposal for 14 residential units would not challenge this target and therefore complies with policy CS24.

Policy GE10 relates to the Green Network. The purpose of the Green Network is to link various elements of the city and provide for a wide range of activities as well as sustaining a rich wildlife. The policy seeks to prevent development which would detract from the general green and open character of the area or cause serious ecological harm.

The parcel of land fronts a street which is defined by brick and tile built structures and is set to the south of a larger greenfield site. The proposed building would be sited within the centre of the site. Although the proposal does introduce areas of hardstanding, as well as the buildings footprint, it would be set within a large site that would be landscaped to enable the site to respect the openness of wider green network.

Policy GE17 encourages the reopening of culverts where possible, and to enhance the Green Networks. The site is occupied by a culvert which runs through the parcel of land from the southwest to the northeast. However, the watercourse is set at a significant depth of approximately 3.5 metres at the centre of the site. As such, the reopening of the culvert is not considered to be viable. Although the culvert will not be reopened, the proposal does provide a range of other ecology benefits – e.g the provision of a Green Roof and large areas of soft landscaping. As such, in this

121 instance whilst the culvert would not be reopened, the enhancement of the site is considered to comply with the Green Environment policies of the UDP. The above issues are discussed further in the subsequent report.

The parcel of land would be tidied up and the removal of unwanted foliage such as the Japanese knotweed would be carried out. This together with further comprehensive landscaping, in turn would enhance the visual amenities of the site and the ecological balance of the site and the surrounding area. Rather than detracting from the green and open character of the site, the proposal would enhance the appearance of the land whilst retaining its ecological value. The building is sited so as to reduce the impact of the proposal on the green network and as such, it is considered that the principles of development are acceptable in terms of policies GE10 and CS24.

Design Issues

UDP policies BE5, H5, H14, H15 and Core Strategy policy CS74 seek high quality designs which respect and enhance the surrounding area within which the development sits.

The proposal seeks planning permission to erect a two/ three storey building within the centre of the site. The proposal has changed dramatically in its appearance since the submission of the original proposal. The built form is more traditional and will use materials which are similar to the residential properties that surround the site. The original built form of the building was a contemporary design with various mono pitched roofs and a palette of materials mostly comprising of render. The amended proposal has simplified the frontage of the building and created a more subtle built form. The pitched roofs are proportionate to the brick elevations and there is a hierarchy to the window fenestrations.

The units are modest in size and all units have an element of external amenity space - whether that is in the form of a balcony or the surrounding grounds. The building has a main entrance which is defined by a fairly large area of glazing. The main entrance provides a lift to all the floors of the building and as such, 25% of the units are designed with mobility and access needs in mind.

The building will be set down from Holmhirst Road. Although it will be partially three stories in height, its location within the site will reduce the overall built form and massing to a level which is not considered to be visually prominent within the street. The building has been set back into the site because the ground level differences would not favour a car parking area to the rear. The ground levels would prevent the car parking from meeting the Council’s desired gradients; and furthermore, a frontage facing the road would also mean that the landscaped areas and views into the Green Network would be compromised. The buildings position allows the front to be landscaped and views through the site that minimise the impact of the development upon the green network.

Policy CS74 requires all developments of 10 or more residential units to achieve a Building for Life rating of ‘good’ as minimum. A Building for Life assessment has been made of this residential scheme. Following amendment, this scheme is

122 considered to meet the requirements of Building for Life. The proposal is constrained by the levels of the site. However, it is considered that this proposal provides the best residential solution which can meet a substantial number of the Building for Life criteria.

The scale, massing, siting and detailing of the proposed scheme is considered to be acceptable and fully compliant with the Council’s design policies. As such, in this respect, the proposal meets the requirements of Core Strategy policy CS74.

Sustainability Core Strategy policies CS63, CS64 and CS65 all seek to ensure that new developments are sustainable and address the issues of climate change.

The building is sited on a very accessible site with good public transport links to the city centre. It has a density which is considered to be acceptable for this location and the buildings shell has been designed to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3.

As the proposal will include a green roof, air source heat pump and sustainable drainage systems, it is considered that the proposal would meet the criteria stipulated in Core Strategy policies CS63, CS64 and CS65.

Access and Mobility Issues

Policy H7 of the UDP, ‘Mobility Housing’, encourages the provision of a proportion of mobility housing. For the purpose of clarity, this is considered to be general purpose housing which is suitable for easy adaptation to provide access for disabled people.

The development is purpose built retirement living accommodation. The end users are more likely to have special requirements and needs, and therefore 25% of the units meet the requirements of UDP policy H7.

Access to and from the building complies with British Standards and internal provisions have been made for persons who are, or may, become disabled. (For instance, all apartments can be accessed from a lift.) The provisions made will also meet the requirements of building regulations part M and it is therefore considered that the proposal meets the requirements of UDP policy H7.

Amenity Issues

Policy H14 of the Unitary Development Plan, seeks to provide reasonable standards of living for both occupants of the proposed development and those who neighbour the site.

The building would be set within approximately 2750 square metres of land. Even when the buildings footprint and areas of off street car parking are taken into account, the site would still provide approximately 1600 square metres of external amenity space. The majority of this, despite the ground level differences, would be

123 usable by the occupants. This is considered to be more than sufficient for 14 apartments.

The site would be landscaped with both hard and soft landscaping to provide quality amenity space for the residents. Furthermore, all first and second storey apartments also have balconies which provide further exclusive amenity space.

Concerns have been raised both by officers and in the representations regarding the amenities of the ground floor flats, in particular to the amount of light and outlook that they would have. The buildings floor levels have been raised slightly and the retaining walls of the gardens have been sited as far back from the ground floor windows of the units as possible. Levels of light and the general outlook of these flats are therefore as amended considered to be acceptable.

The layout of the site and the positioning of the building are such that the impact upon the neighbouring properties is considered to be minimal. The building is set in from the boundaries and approximately 8 metres from the nearest neighbouring boundary. The proposal is a two/ three storey building which is set down lower than all neighbouring properties. The element of the building which is two stories in height is the section of the building which is closest to the neighbouring residential boundaries.

The distance from the boundaries, together with the ground level differences, are considered to be acceptable in order to prevent significant overbearing/ overshadowing issues. Furthermore, given that various self set trees and bushes are to be removed, the opening up of the site will provide more light to the neighbouring properties. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would overbear/overshadow the neighbouring properties.

The building is set down from all neighbouring properties. The balconies and windows are located approximately 10 metres from the shared boundaries, whilst there is a distance in excess of 21 metres from the rear elevations of the existing residential buildings to the subject building. The proposal is not considered to significantly overlook the amenities of the neighbouring properties and the distances are considered to be acceptable, especially given that building is sited down lower than the neighbouring properties.

Concerns have been raised regarding further noise and disturbance to the neighbouring properties. The site is located just off Chesterfield Road which is a main arterial route into the city. As such, there is a significant ambient noise level. The proposal would provide boundary treatments to the site and further soft landscaping. The number of people accommodated within the building, together with its setting and location, are considered to prevent the proposal from affecting the living conditions of the neighbouring properties to an unacceptable degree.

Representations also raised concerns with the air source heat pump. This element of the proposal will be subject to a condition requiring full details, however, owing to the siting of the proposed unit, it is not considered that this machinery would be detrimental to the occupiers of the existing neighbouring properties.

124 The siting and design of the proposal is such that the impact upon the neighbouring properties is considered to be negligible. The proposal provides good levels of amenities for the occupants and the neighbouring properties. As such, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of UDP policy H14.

Ecology/ Landscaping Issues

As previously mentioned in this report, the proposal seeks to enhance an unkempt piece of land. The proposal would include the removal of various trees, scrub and Japanese Knotweed. UDP policies, GE10 and GE17 seek to enhance the quality of the green networks and prevent serious ecological damage.

The applicant has submitted various ecological surveys and the most recent one was undertaken at the end of October 2011. Protected species have been recorded on the site, however, at the time of the last survey no evidence was collected to suggest the site was still in use. Natural England has been consulted and they have advised that the evidence found is not sufficient to refuse this application.

The boundaries would be treated with various fences/ railings and the frontage of the site will be enhanced significantly with soft landscaping. The site will be enhanced and the proposal would include features such as a green roof. Whilst some mature trees will be lost, a significant number will be retained and the site will still provide a diverse environment for wildlife.

The alterations are not considered to be detrimental to the mature trees or the ecological value of the site. Furthermore, with the retention of various mature trees and the opening up of the frontage of the site, views into the green areas of the site will be provided which will link the site to other areas of Green Network. This is considered to be a big improvement to the Green Network when it is considered that there is currently a high concrete panel fence preventing significant views into the site.

Conditions can be attached requesting details of the comprehensive landscaping schemes and protective measures to be taken around the trees. Furthermore, any protected species will also be covered by separate legislation and the applicant is aware that if further evidence is found regarding protected species, Natural England will need to be contacted, and any licences obtained as necessary. Provided that conditions are attached, the proposal is considered to enhance the site and enable the proposal to mesh with the wider Green Network.

The proposal would still provide large areas of open space which contribute to the ecological value of the site. It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal can be accommodated on this site without being detrimental to the habitats of any protected species or the surrounding Green Network. Provided that a high quality landscape scheme is secured through condition, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of UDP policy GE10.

125 Provision of Open Space

The site is situated within an area which has been marked as an area which is deficient in both informal and formal public open spaces. UDP policy H16 ‘Open Space in New Housing Developments’, requires the developer to contribute to the provision, or improvement of, informal open space within the surrounding area; where it can be demonstrated that there is a shortfall in the provision, or where existing provisions are in need of enhancement.

In this instance, following assessment, the catchment areas for informal and formal open space are well below the minimum guidelines required. A contribution is therefore required. The financial contribution required is £5,263.30 and such a sum will be secured by a Planning Obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A signed agreement has been submitted with the application and it is considered that the requirements of UDP policy H14 have been satisfied.

Highways Issues

The proposal seeks permission for 14, two bedroom apartments which are set within grounds which can accommodate 14 vehicle parking spaces and a modest sized turning point. The size of the apartments and number of off street car parking spaces are considered to be in accordance with the Council’s car parking guidelines. Furthermore, as the ground level is to be increase the gradient of the access is also considered to be acceptable. The level of the drive will also help increase visibility and is therefore considered to be satisfactory with regards to highways safety. As such, in this respect the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan.

It is noted that cars do park on the Holmhirst Road frontage of the site. However, the existing entrance is to be stopped up and the kerb reinstated and, therefore, the proposal would not be a loss in off street car parking which would be detrimental to local area. The proposal is not considered to generate a significant volume of traffic and any traffic generated would be accommodated for within the site. As such, the proposal is not considered to be detrimental to highways safety or contrary to the Council’s planning policies.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The proposed building and its siting is considered to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The materials, built form, massing and detailing are considered to be acceptable and the proposal provides a building which provides a good standard of living for both occupants and neighbours.

The proposal would enhance a site which has been neglected. The improvements are welcomed and considered to strengthen the sites relationship with the neighbouring sites and the wider Green Network.

126 The principle of the development within such a site, and the details of the proposed residential units that have been provided, meet the criteria stipulated within both UDP and Core Strategy policies BE5, BE6, BE9, H5, H7, H10, H14,H15, H16, GE10, GE17, CS24, CS46, CS63, CS64 and CS74.

Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.

127

Case Number 11/01623/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Demolition of existing nursery block, erection of replacement nursery and reception block (amended scheme)

Location Mylnhurst Preparatory School And Nursery Button Hill Sheffield S11 9HJ

Date Received 11/05/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent Cordonier Escafeld

Recommendation Grant Conditionally

Subject to:

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

3 Before the development is commenced samples of all proposed external materials and finishes, including windows, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In order to ensure an appropriate quality of development.

4 No tree, shrub or hedge shall be removed or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

128

5 Before any work on site is commenced, a comprehensive and detailed hard and soft landscape scheme for the site shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use or within an alternative timescale to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the landscaped areas shall be retained and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. They shall be cultivated and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that 5 year period shall be replaced.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

6 The soft landscaped areas shall be managed and maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any plant failures within that period shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

7 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified when the landscape works are completed.

To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can confirm when the maintenance periods specified in associated conditions/condition have commenced.

8 The development must be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved documents;

Drawings numbered 11.25 (TR) 01B, 11.25 SP 01B, 11.25 (PL) 05A, 10.32 (PL) 04C, 11.25 (PL) 03D and 10.32 (PL) 02B

unless otherwise authorised in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

In order to define the permission.

9 The proposed green / brown roof (vegetated roof system) shall be provided on the roofs in accordance with the locations shown on the approved plans prior to the use of the building commencing unless otherwise agreed in writing. Thereafter the green/brown roof shall be retained. Prior to works commencing on site details of the specification and maintenance regime shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plants shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of implementation and any failures within that period shall be replaced.

In the interests of sustainable development.

10 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified upon completion of the green roof.

129

In the interests of biodiversity.

11 The nursery shall not be used unless the access and facilities for people with disabilities shown on the plans have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter such access and facilities shall be retained.

To ensure ease of access and facilities for disabled persons at all times.

12 The hedge along the northern boundary of the site where it adjoins gardens associated with dwellings facing Woodholm Road shall be planted 2 metres high and form a meaningful screen between the site and the adjoining properties. The hedge shall be put in place prior to the commencement of the use and retained thereafter.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

13 The building shall be restricted to teaching, nursery provision and all associated activities which form part of the school's day to day running.

In the interests of the amenities of the locality and occupiers of adjoining property.

14 The existing car parking accommodation within the site, as indicated on the approved plans, shall be retained for the sole use of the development hereby permitted.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

15 Before the development is commenced, details of the means of ingress and egress for vehicles engaged in the construction of the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the arrangements for restricting the vehicles to the approved ingress and egress points. Ingress and egress for such vehicles shall be obtained only at the approved points.

In the interests of traffic safety and the amenities of the locality.

16 At all times that demolition and construction works are being carried out equipment shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority for the effective cleaning of the wheels and bodies of vehicles leaving the site so as to prevent the depositing of mud and waste on the highway but before the development is commenced full details of such equipment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. When the above-mentioned equipment has been provided thereafter such equipment shall be used for the sole purpose intended in all instances and be properly maintained.

In the interests of the safety of road users.

130

Attention is drawn to the following justifications:

BE5 - Building Design and Siting BE7 - Design of Buildings Used by the Public BE19 - Development affecting Listed Buildings BE21 - Historic Parks and Gardens GE15 - Trees and Woodland H10 - Development in Housing Areas H14 - Conditions on Development in Housing Areas LR5 - Development in Open Space Areas CS64 - Climate Change, Resources and Sustainable Design of Developments CS65 - Renewable Energy and Carbon Reduction CS74 - Design Principles

Overall it is considered that the development complies with the relevant policies and proposals in the development plan, and would not give rise to any unacceptable consequences to the environment, community or other public interests of acknowledged importance.

131 Site Location

132 LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Members will recall that this item was deferred from the 16 January City centre, South and West Planning Committee to allow a Members site visit to take place.

Mylnhurst School is located within a residential area in Banner Cross. The main school building, a stone built two and three storey structure which is Listed Grade 2, is sited centrally with lawns and landscaping to the south and west.

To the north are additional school buildings, principally a two storey swimming pool and sports hall and a single storey pre-fabricated building used as a nursery. To the south-west, at a lower level is a play area that is, at times, used as a car park and there is a further staff car park to the north of this, close to the east boundary of the site.

Around and within the site are gardens containing mature trees, many of them protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Part of the grounds are also on the Local List of Historic Gardens.

There are three points of access into the site. The main access which is at the corner of Woodholm Road and Button Hill is a vehicle and pedestrian access which leads to the school’s main entrance and to the car parks. There is a second vehicle and pedestrian entrance at the opposite part of the site from Millhouses Lane, close to its junction with Mylnhurst Road. The third entrance is pedestrian only and taken from Woodholm Road. A path leads from the road between houses to the east and trees to the nursery and sports hall, before reaching the main school.

The school grounds are bounded by rear gardens of houses fronting Button Hill, Millhouses Lane and Mylnhurst Road and Woodholm Road.

The proposal, as amended, has changed significantly since the original submission and the changes were such that three separate rounds of consultation have been carried out with local residents, which are summarised later in this report. The different schemes will be set out in the next section but the application, as it now stands, is as follows:

(i) Demolition of the existing pre-fabricated nursery (ii) Erection of new nursery on the same site (iii) Use of the play area at south-east corner for parking at times

BACKGROUND

The application, as originally submitted comprised:

(i) Demolition of existing pre-fabricated nursery (ii) New nursery built on playground at south-east corner (iii) Removal of existing trees along the boundary with gardens on Button Hill next to the proposed nursery with new trees to replace them

133 (iv) New access road along the line of the pedestrian access from Woodholm Road that would lead to the site of the existing nursery (v) On the site of the existing nursery, a new hardsurfaced area would have the combined use of a drop off / pick up point for pupils and a multi-use games area.

This scheme was considered to be unacceptable and an amended proposal was submitted. This was the same as the original submission except the access road from Woodholm Road was omitted and the remaining hard surfaced area left by the demolition of the existing nursery would be a multi-use games area.

This second proposal was also superseded in favour of the current scheme of building on the same site.

REPRESENTATIONS

Original Submission

48 letters of support were received. 39 letters of objection were submitted listing the following comments:

- The creation of a new access off Woodholm Road is not acceptable; The existing one off Millhouses Lane is under used; - There is already a lot of congestion on Woodholm Road and a new access here would increase this and make the existing situation more hazardous; - The traffic congestion from 05.15 to 09.00 and 15.00 to 16.00 hours is appalling; - The roads around the site, particularly Woodholm Road, are busy throughout the year because of school activities, including weekends and evenings; - The design of the new access road is unacceptable; - Increased noise and pollution from cars; - Nursery drop off / pick up area is too far from the new nursery; - Loss of parking for teaching staff will be displaced on to roads; - The new access road is too narrow to accommodate two way traffic safely; - The new junction on Woodholm Road would detract from the character of that part of the street; - The surrounding area is not suitable for any more expansion; - Concerns that the Leisure Centre / Swimming Pool will become a separate business, detached from the school; - This is overdevelopment and an intensification of uses reaching an unacceptable level. This is now more of a commercial venture than a school, with use in holidays, evenings and weekends; - Lack of consultation with residents at pre-application stage; - Detrimental impact on trees and wildlife; - Loss of mature trees; - Much of the site is classified as open space in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and this proposal is not appropriate; - Loss of trees along the Button Hill boundary which form a distinctive woodland edge;

134 - The trees along the proposed across road although shown for retention, would be lost because of the impact in their roots by construction; - The birch tree (T2) is only being removed to allow the new access and no other reason; - The tree report says that trees next to the new access road would need to be carefully protected to avoid damage; - The loss of the silver birch trees on Button Hill boundary and replacement with ash trees would create loss of light and overshadowing; - The gross internal floorspace would increase by 36% from 320 m² to 436m², resulting in 10-15 extra pupils, extending to 80 throughout all school years; - A better location for the new nursery would be on the site of the existing one; - The proposal would have a severe impact on the bungalows and adjoining the site on Woodholm Road because of increased activity, lack of screening and car headlights; - Increase in litter and noise; - It would be better to site the car park elsewhere; - The design of the new gates is unacceptable.

A petition was lodged with the Council, containing 147 signatures, objecting to the application on the grounds that the environmental impact and traffic increases would be unacceptable.

The Conservation Advisory Group, at their meeting of 21 June 2011 said:

- The new building meant there would be a loss in the potential of restoring the landscape at that part of the site; - The building materials were unacceptable; - The loss of trees will damage the character of the historic garden and the setting and character of the Listed Building; - The new nursery should be built on the site of the existing one.

Second Scheme

1 letter of support was received. 15 letters of objection have been submitted:

- Disruption and danger from increased traffic; - Major problems with existing parking and traffic generation; - Concern over opening times of nursery; - Will the staff car park be available during out of school hours; - 10 extra children at the nursery will extend to 80 extra, taking account of all years, with the result of extra cars; - Disturbance from noise and lighting from the games area; - Design of the nursery remains unacceptable and detrimental to the character of the Listed Building; - The siting of the nursery would displace 30 cars on to the street; - The nursery should be built on the site of the existing one; - The school has already been developed to its utmost capacity on this site; - There would be overlooking of houses on Button Hill from the new nursery;

135 - New trees will overshadow gardens on Button Hill

Councillor Sylvia Dunkley has commented on this proposal:

- The removal of the Woodholm Road access road is welcomed - There are concerns about the impact on amenities of local residents - Out of hours school activities should be limited

Third and Current Scheme

54 letters of support. 21 letters of objection.

- This latest proposal is much better than the previous two options and it is accepted that the existing nursery building is at the end of its useful life; - The nursery would be too close to the bungalows on Woodholm Road and should be the same distance away as the existing one. The distance would reduce from about 9 metres to 5.5 metres; - The increase in pupil numbers would result in an increase in on-street parking on roads that are already under pressure with regards to parking; - A one-way internal traffic system should be introduced to ease pressure on the access at Button Hill; - The new nursery would be 36% bigger than the existing one, which would be over development and would result in an extra 80 pupils at the school when the increase is extended through the school years; - A barrier should be placed along to the boundary to screen the nursery; - The new nursery should only operate during normal school hours; - The new building should be no higher than the existing one; - All glazing facing towards Woodholm Road should be opaque; - Any external lighting should be sympathetic, avoiding any glare or light spillage affecting neighbours; - The upgraded pedestrian access should not be lit; - There has been no discussion between the applicant and neighbours; - Loss of trees along the Button Hill boundary; - The overspill car park on the Button Hill side would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of residents living next to this because of pollution, noise and car headlights - The existing drive should be widened to allow for cars to pass although it is accepted that there are restrictions at the entrance - Road improvements measures should be introduced; - The design of the nursery does not compliment the Listed Building or the Historic Garden. This should be further improved to reach its full potential, including increased solar gain and amendments to improve the entrance.

Three petitions have been received. The first, with 21 signatures, expresses concerns about the out of school hours parking issues and the second, with 39 signatures, is concerned about the overdevelopment of Mylnhurst School.

136 The third petition which has been signed by 164 residents, all of whom live on Woodholm Road, Mylnhurst Road, Springfield Road, Ranelagh Drive and Button Hill has been submitted.

- The need to replace the existing nursery is accepted. - It is acknowledged that the school has listened to some of the concerns of residents. - The new nursery should be limited to teaching only with no use during evenings, weekends and holidays. - It is too close to the bungalows on Woodholm Road, being 4.3 metres nearer. - There are ongoing issues with on street parking and this will make that situation worse. Extra traffic will result because the new nursery will have greater capacity. - Screens should be introduced to restrict glare and noise affecting Button Hill residents. - The existing 20 spaces in the staff car park should be available for use at all times and the hard play area should be available for use as an out of hours car park after 4.30 during school days, weekends and holidays. - All staff should be required to park on the site. - All users of the sports complex should be encouraged to park on site. - During holidays, the Woodholm Road pedestrian gate should be locked. - White ‘H’ lines should be introduced outside neighbouring properties so that residents’ accesses would not be blocked. - Upgrade the existing vehicle access at woodholm Road. - Introduce a minibus scheme.

Councillor Sylvia Dunkley has submitted additional comments about this scheme:

Whilst it is welcomed that the school is mindful of the concerns of residents on Woodholm Road, it is also essential that any revised scheme takes into consideration the amenity of residents living on Button Hill whose homes back onto the site and who are already concerned at the level of parking and attendant noise arising from the use of the teachers and overflow car parks, both in the evenings and at weekends. It is essential that if the Council is minded to grant the application, appropriate conditions controlling the hours use outside school hours are applied and, if necessary, enforced.

This scheme was considered by the Conservation Advisory Group on 13 December 2011, who welcomed the relocation to the site of the existing building. However, they felt that further improvements were needed to the exterior of the nursery.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Land Use Policy

The adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) shows that the grounds of Mylnhurst School are allocated as open space and the buildings including the piece of land between nos. 7 and 17 Woodholm Road are part of a housing policy

137 area. The existing nursery is within the housing allocation and it is on this site that the new nursery would be located.

Policy H10 of the UDP deals with development in housing areas and says that housing is the preferred use, but that Community Facilities and Institutions, which the school is, are acceptable. There is no change of use proposed as the existing nursery is to be replaced by a new one on the same site.

With respect to that part of the site which is allocated for open space, Policy L.R.5 of the UDP seeks to protect open space areas from development that results in an inappropriate loss of open space. This application restricts itself to development within the housing allocation so there would be no impact on open space.

Members should be aware that the assessment of this application will limit itself to the current proposal only, which is the replacement nursery on the same site as the existing one, as the previous two alternatives have been superseded.

Layout, Design and External Appearance

Policy BE5 of the UDP deals with building design and siting and this requires good quality in all aspects of new development.

Policy CS74 of the adopted Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy addresses Design Principles and this expects high quality development which takes advantage of distinctive features of the surroundings, are attractive and sustainable.

The existing nursery is a single storey pre fabricated type of building sited at the rear of nos. 5 and 7 Woodholm Road and hard surface that was previously the school tennis courts. Around this building, mainly to the south is play space for the children and there is a garden area on the north side, between the nursery and residents gardens, including ornamental trees and lawns.

This application, as amended, proposes to remove the existing nursery and replace it with a new, purpose built one.

This would be single storey with a shallow, pitched roof and the building would be arranged on site in an ‘L’ shape, the main part of the nursery facing the rear gardens of the bungalows on Woodholm Road. This semi enclosed space is on the south side and this would be used for outdoor activities and play, maximising solar gain.

The exterior would, as amended in line with officer and C.A.G advice be a mix of wood cladding, metal, stone and forticrete with a sedum ‘green’ roof. There would also be photovoltaic panels on the lower roof on the canopies next to the outdoor play area. Light onto the building would be maximised by concentrating windows on the south side, including high level windows between the main roof and the canopy. The design would be a complete contrast to the traditional stone Listed main school and would be significantly better than the existing nursery and sports hall. Interest in the exterior has been created by the use of an appropriate palette

138 of materials, including wood, to complement the wooded setting and a varied built form which includes shaded parts, expressed entrances and the green roof.

It is considered that the design and external appearance is acceptable and in line with policy criteria.

As part of the proposal, the existing footpath leading from Woodholm Road would be upgraded and new fencing placed around the nursery. The line of fruit trees tended by the children that currently site between the nursery and the boundary, would be replanted along side the footpath leading to Woodholm Road.

The new nursery would be about 35% bigger than the existing one which would require some of the land to the east to be slightly regraded to allow the nursery to be constructed. Additional information in the form of sections through the building demonstrates that the changes in level would be marginal.

As part of the application, it is, proposed to use the play area at the lower, south- eastern corner for overflow parking but this, as an ancillary use to the overall school use, would not require formal planning consent.

Sustainability

Policy CS64 of the Core Strategy relates to climate change, resources and sustainable design of developments and advises that all new buildings and conversions of existing buildings must be designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and function in a changing climate. They must also be designed to use resources sustainably. The supporting text to CS64 advises that to satisfy the policy, all new non-residential developments over 500 square metres should achieve a BREEAM rating of a very good (or equivalent). Policy CS65 of the Core Strategy relates to renewable energy and carbon reduction, and requires all significant developments to secure the provision of renewable/low carbon energy and to minimise carbon dioxide emissions, unless it can be shown not to be feasible or viable.

The new nursery has a gross floor area of 436 square metres so falls short of the 500m² threshold that the above policy criteria specifies. Nevertheless, the new building would have a high sustainability specification including a sedum roof, south facing photovoltaic panels, rainwater harvesting, windows to maximise solar gain, materials to provide a high level of insulation and fitments designed to minimise power consumption.

It is considered that this is acceptable.

Impact on the listed Building and Historic Garden

Policy BE19 of the UDP deals with Listed Buildings and proposals for development within the curtilage or affecting its setting will be expected to preserve the character and appearance of the building and setting.

139 Policy CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy says that development should take advantage of and enhance the distinctive heritage of the city, particularly the buildings associated with the Victorian and Edwardian suburb.

The proposal has been moved away from close proximity to the Listed Building and the setting would not be affected by the proposal. The site of the new nursery is screened by trees and the design of the proposal is significantly better than the existing nursery so the wider setting of the Listed Building and the ground around it would be improved by this application in line with policy criteria.

The grounds at Mylnhurst School are included in the Local List of Historic Gardens and Policy BE21 of the UDP, which deals with Historic Parks and Gardens, seeks to protect their setting, character and appearance.

The original scheme which proposed the new access road would have had a detrimental impact on the historic garden but the current scheme is acceptable. The historic character would not be affected because the proposal would replace the existing building on the same site. There are some long term proposals to remove and replace trees along the Button Hill boundary but a condition would control this.

It is considered that the character and setting of the Historic Garden would not be affected.

Landscaping and Protection of Trees

Policy GE15 of the UDP seeks to protect trees and woodland and where trees are to be lost, they should be replaced.

The grounds of Mylnhurst School are covered by a Tree Preservation Order which has been in place since February 1980. The original scheme showed the new access road passing very close to trees identified as Group One. The applicant made a case that the trees would not be harmed as long as care was taken in constructing the road, so as to protect the roots. Your officers did not accept this, taking the view that it was likely that these trees would not survive the introduction of the new road.

The new building would not have a detrimental impact on protected trees as it would be sited where the current nursery is. A line of ornamental trees that lie between the existing nursery and the boundary with houses on Woodholm Road would be saved and re-planted next to the footpath leading from Woodholm Road.

A single apple tree would be lost to the new nursery but this is not a native species contributing to the gardens and grounds and this would be replaced elsewhere in the site.

The amended scheme also shows the removal and replacement of existing trees along the south and east edges of the existing school playground. There are silver birch, sycamore and elder and the plans indicate that this is a long term proposal.

140 Two existing oak trees and a white beam would be retained and replacement trees would be mountain ash (rowan) along the east boundary only. However, this is of concern to residents whose gardens adjoin the school at this point because the ash trees will eventually, form a dense boundary that would block light from the gardens. It is considered that a condition should be attached that protects all trees here and does not allow any to be removed until an acceptable layout has been agreed.

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbours

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new development should not harm the amenities of local residents. The only dwellings that would be affected by the proposal are three bungalows that front on to Woodholm Road.

The siting of the new nursery is on the same hard surface as the existing one but there is a larger footprint which takes into account the increased footprint which is to allow for improved teaching facilities and for up to 10 extra pupils. The increase in size has meant that it is nearer to the bungalows, rather than result in trees being lost.

The existing nursery is 9 metres from the boundary with the bungalow gardens and the proposal would bring the nursery nearer, at 5.5 metres. Residents are concerned that there would be an intensification of activity and potential for a loss of privacy.

With respect to a possible loss of privacy, the building would be single storey and there would be nine windows facing towards the gardens, as well as the entrances to the Nursery and Reception. Four windows would be associated with a cloak room, two with the office, one with a quiet room and two with the reception class room. Residents would prefer that all windows were of obscure glass.

The plans, as amended, show a new hedge to be grown along the boundary rising to 2 metres high, which would screen the gardens from the new building so that there would be no overlooking. However, the hedge would take time to grow and it is considered that an additional close boarded fence along this boundary should be introduced that would separate the two sites with immediate effect, retaining privacy and avoiding the opaque glazing.

The outdoor play areas are located on the southern side of the new nursery, very similar to the existing arrangement and the building will act as a buffer for noise during periods of outdoor play.

Residents are concerned that the increase in nursery children attendance of up to an extra 10, combined with the entrances being on the side facing the gardens will result in an intensification in noise and disturbance. In the event that the new nursery is used for activities outside school hours and at weekends in line with current activities then it would be possible that noise and disturbance would impact on neighbours during times when they could reasonably expect peace and quiet.

141 There is a history of extra-curricular activities at the school during evenings, weekends and school holidays that does cause noise and disturbance, which is set out in many of resident’s objections to the application. It is considered that there may be additional noise and disturbance resulting from the new nursery being located closer to the bungalows with the entrances facing the houses. Consequently, it is considered reasonable to attach a condition limiting the use of the new nursery building to school and early evening only, which would allow for parents evenings and after school meetings. This would exclude late evening, weekends and holiday times.

At all stages of this application, neighbours have objected to noise and disturbance from the out of school activities which extend to weekends and holidays and to extensive use of the sports hall / swimming pool which has been built near to the nursery, having been granted planning consent in 2006. Whilst being sympathetic to the issues surrounding this, planning guidance makes it absolutely clear that when dealing with planning applications, local planning authorities can only take into account matters that directly relate to the application. Issues relating to existing circumstances such as noise, activity and disturbance from the remaining parts of the school cannot be taken into account.

It is considered that the amenity of residents would not be significantly harmed by the new nursery.

Parking, Access and Transport

Policy H14 of the UDP says that new development should provide adequate parking and safe access.

The issue of parking, within the school grounds and on the roads around the school is one of great concern to local residents and has been a persistent theme throughout the three public consultation exercises. During the mornings, evenings and at times during weekends and school holidays, cars park on the roads around the site, with the greatest pressure on Woodholm Road. This is the closest point to the nursery and sports hall via the footpath access, hence its attraction. This occurs not only at the start and end of the school day but in evenings, weekends and holidays, associated with out of school activities, particularly at the sports hall. Officers have visited the site during mornings and evenings and can verify the extent of parking. Woodholm Road is under most pressure from this, with cars parking on both sides of the road which does severely restrict the free flow of traffic. However, as stated earlier in this report, matters that are not related to the actual proposal, such as this, cannot be taken into account.

The application relates to the new nursery which would result in an increase in up to ten new pupils. Given the level of activity around and within the school, it is considered that the extra vehicles attracted would not significantly change this situation. The access and internal parking arrangements would not alter apart from the hard surfaced play area on the south-east corner being identified as an area for possible overspill car parking. Although specified in the application this option is outside planning control as it would be ancillary to the school use.

142 Members should be aware that when your officers assessed the original submission that included the new access road from Woodholm Road, it was considered to be unacceptable because of the detrimental impact it would have on road safety and because of the level of traffic conflict the new junction would create. In response to these concerns, this part of the proposal was removed.

Disabled Access

Policy BE7 of the UDP addresses the design of buildings used by the public and says that provision for disabled people should be encouraged. Policy CS74 of the Core Strategy deals with design principles and this expects new development to be accessible for people with disabilities.

The drawings for the new nursery show that level access and ramps would be used at the entrances, there would be disabled toilets; the entrance doors are wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs and circulation space within and outside the building can accommodate wheelchairs. This is considered to be acceptable and the inclusion of disabled facilities within the new building would be controlled by a condition.

REPSONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Members should be aware that responses will be limited to the current proposal because the previous two options have been superseded.

Responses to matters relating to traffic, parking, loss of amenity, impact on the Listed Building and loss of trees have already been addressed earlier in this report.

All references to the use of the existing main school and sports building and the associated parking issues are outside the scope of this application.

The continued use of on site car parking facilities as set out on the application drawings would be controlled by a condition.

With regard to the potential for disturbance due to parking close to houses on Button Hill, there are trees in place that provide screening, which would remain and this is controlled by a condition.

In relation to the impact on houses near to the proposed new nursery, a condition would restrict the use to a nursery and reception class only and screening would be put in place along the site boundary.

With respect to the impact on wildlife, there would be very little because the proposal would impact only on hard surfaces and very few trees would be affected.

There is no need to introduce a one-way internal traffic system as a result of this amended scheme.

Regarding potential external lighting, a condition would be attached that required details to be submitted.

143

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The application, as amended, is for a new nursery on the site of the existing one housed in a pre-fabricated type building. The design of the new building is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, scale and massing and a significant improvement on the appearance of the existing building. It would have a good sustainable specification, including a ‘green’ sedum roof and photovoltaic panels.

The impact on the amenities of residents is considered to be acceptable with the introduction of a fence along the boundary to compliment the hedgerow and a condition limiting hours of operation.

There would be no adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Building, the main Mylnhurst School, or the Historic Garden. There are many large, mature trees within the grounds that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There are long term proposals that might affect some trees in the south-east corner but these will be controlled by a condition, ensuring their retention in the short term. All other trees would not be affected.

It is acknowledged that there are issues relating to on-street parking around the school but this cannot be attributed to this proposal so addressing this is outside the scope of this application. There would be very little additional traffic associated with the proposal and this would not significantly affect existing levels.

All matters are considered to be acceptable, there is no conflict with planning policy and the application is, therefore, recommended for conditional approval.

144

Case Number 11/00567/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Application

Proposal Erection of 14 apartments in 2 no. blocks, with associated car parking and landscaping (in accordance with amended drawings received 14.12.2011 and 23.01.2012)

Location 135 Dore Road Sheffield S17 3NF

Date Received 17/02/2011

Team SOUTH

Applicant/Agent DLP Planning Ltd

Recommendation Refuse

For the following reason(s):

1 The Local Planning Authority consider that owing to the excessive footprint, scale, bulk and massing of the proposed development, and its overall design the apartment blocks would represent overdevelopment of the site, resulting in an over dominant feature in the street scene, and within the immediate locality, out of scale and character with the surrounding context. The proposed development therefore fails to respond to local character, identity, and distinctiveness. As such, it is contrary to the aims of Policies BE5 (a) and H14 (a) and (c) of the Unitary Development Plan for Sheffield, and Policies CS31 and CS74 of the Sheffield Development Framework Core Strategy.

145 Site Location

146

LOCATION AND PROPOSAL

Vehicle and pedestrian access is currently gained via two separate points, broadly located at the eastern and western points of the site frontage. In broad terms the site is currently level.

The surrounding land uses include other dwellinghouses, a Doctor’s Surgery at the site immediately to the west, and an Allotment to the south-east. The open fields on the opposite side of Dore Road are allocated within the Unitary Development Plan as being Green Belt. The dwellinghouses in the vicinity are typically large, detached houses in plots of reasonably substantial size.

The application seeks consent to demolish the existing house, and erect a total of 14 flats within two identical blocks, each containing 7 apartments. Of the 14 apartments, there would be 8 with 2 bedrooms, and 6 with 3 bedrooms, giving 34 bedspaces in total.

Each block would include 2 storeys to the eaves with additional accommodation in the roof. Vehicle parking would be provided within a basement level beneath the two blocks. This basement level parking area would give a total of 31 spaces, including 3 visitor bays.

Vehicle access would be achieved via a newly created access point, located approximately at the mid-point of the site frontage onto Dore Road. Pedestrian access is proposed to be achieved from two other points of access along the site frontage onto Dore Road.

For clarity, the following outline information can be provided regarding the proposal in its originally submitted form, and in its amended forms:

- The application was originally submitted in February 2011. The proposal at that stage incorporated two blocks providing a total of 14 apartments, each block included three storeys up to the eaves levels, with further accommodation in the roof space. The access to the site was as proposed within the latest amended versions of the scheme.

-In July 2011, amended drawings were submitted which involved the re-positioning of the blocks, and the reduction to a total of three storeys in height, including accommodation within the roof space.

-In December 2011 further amendments were provided which modified elevational treatments and altered parking layouts.

147 -In January 2012 a further amendment was submitted altering the window arrangements to the east elevation of Block 1.

The drawings submitted in December 2011 in addition to the January 2012 drawing/s, comprise the scheme which is subject to the current consideration.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

08/04806/FUL; Erection of 8 dwellinghouses with garages. Approved 21 January 2009

09/02316/FUL; Erection of 6 dwellinghouses with garages. Approved 23 December 2009

11/03316/FULR; Erection of 8 dwellinghouses with garages (application to extend time limit for implementation of 08/04806/FUL) - Currently not Determined. Members will note that this application is also being considered as part of the current committee agenda.

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS

Following neighbouring notification and the placement of a site notice substantial numbers of representations have been received.

ORIGINAL SUBMISSION (February 2011)

A total of 829 ‘standard’ type letters have been received in response to the initially submitted scheme. These can be summarised as follows:

-Scale, height and bulk of the blocks out of keeping with the character of the area. Will dominate the street scene -Proposal does not follow established building line -Would be an unwelcome precedent in Dore -Loss of amenity for all neighbouring properties -Sub-standard access arrangements -Dore is overcrowded in terms of parking, traffic, drainage, education, dental and medical services -Excavations will threaten trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders

Additionally, a total of 88 individual letters have been submitted. These comments can be summarised as follows:

HIGHWAY ISSUES

-Safety concerns, particularly given potential increase in activity at blind bend point in road. High activity on highway, ice forms from a nearby spring -Horse riders often use road -Inadequate parking spaces are proposed -Problems for staff and patients of the Doctors Surgery in parking terms. Surgery car park will probably will be used for overflow parking from development site

148 -No detailed traffic assessment has been carried out -If development does proceed, provision should be made for an additional footpath and road widening -Concern regarding gates at vehicle access point -Vehicle numbers will cause headlight glare impacts to neighbours -Proposed car park at bottom of Dore Road and accompanying parking restrictions nearby will worsen parking situation in Dore -The nearest bus stop is uphill and people will drive to get to it

Additionally, an appraisal of the scheme has been carried out by a firm of civil and transportation planning engineers on behalf of Dore Conservation Group. The comments can be summarised as follows: -Site is located on tight bend with limited visibility. Whilst acceptable visibility splays will be available, it does not address the problem of limited visibility around the bend -Site is to be protected by security gates across entrance driveway. All visitors etc will be likely to be stationary on Dore Road, awaiting access. This will force other traffic onto opposite side of road -Alternatively, a car pulling up to access gates would force pedestrians onto road (there is not footpath on the other side of the road). Also passing horses would be forced out into road -The developer has not demonstrated that a refuse vehicle can serve the site and turn within the site. -Close proximity of access serving the doctor’s surgery (separated by 25m from proposed access). The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide states that junctions should be spaced at 40metres. The access at the Surgery also does not allow 2 vehicles to pass, causing waiting on carriageway -Parking provision is at the Council’s maximum standard. The spaces cannot be measured. Some basement spaces may not be easily accessible. This should be verified by swept path analysis -Visitor parking within the basement would be difficult to use and make them unattractive. Parking on Dore Road, would heighten highway danger -No indication of cycle parking -Scheme is therefore contrary to UDP policy H14(d) -No ‘Building for Life’ assessment has been carried out

DESIGN ISSUES

-Proposal out of keeping with the character of the area / street scene. Site is in close proximity to Conservation Area. -Proposal excessively sized on the plot, and represents over-development -Proposal is excessive in height -Does not conform to the building line -A basement car park is not appropriate to the area -No gardens are provided -Would contribute to the loss of village character -Developer argument that the proposal will have a lesser footprint than the approved 6 houses is misleading -Developer’s previous scheme at Braemore, Ecclesall Road South is very large and sited on a major, wide, arterial road, and differs in terms of surroundings to

149 current application site. Current scheme is directly lifted from Ecclesall Road South. -Executive housing as previously agreed is more suitable, and whilst that could be regarded as over-development, it would be in keeping with other recent in-fill developments in Dore. -Concern that previous approvals act as a precedent.

NEIGHBOUR IMPACTS

-Overbearing and privacy impacts on neighbouring occupiers and overlooking of gardens. Specifically referred to by the following addresses as particularly affecting them: Num’s. 5 and 17 Vicarage Lane, 127 Dore Road (adjoining property), 2A Gilleyfield Avenue). Made worse by balconies. -Occupants of 2A Gilleyfield Avenue have referred to a separation distance of 18.5m between habitable room windows and they suggest the minimum distance should be 37.5m (based on a neighbouring authority’s guidelines). -Site is elevated above neighbouring sites, increasing these impacts. -Overshadowing / loss of light impacts to neighbouring houses and gardens. -Proposal does not meet ‘45 degree rule’ to neighbouring windows. -Submitted Section drawings (Sec A-A and E-E) include inaccuracies and are not valid. Other drawing inaccuracies mean impacts on neighbouring occupants are under-represented. -Screening provided by tree is to be removed, and is only effective in the summer months. -Setting of a precedent. There are no other 4 storey developments in Dore. Rushley Court (the only 3 storey accommodation) is out of keeping within the area.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

-Does not satisfy Core Strategy policy CS40 (Affordable Housing) and CS74 (Design Principles). -Contrary to H2 (Locations for Housing Development), H5 (Flats, Bed-Sitters and Shared Housing), and H14 (Conditions on Development in Housing Areas) of the Unitary Development Plan. -Would be contrary to sustainability policy/s

LANDSCAPING AND ECOLOGY

-Would involve loss of a lot of landscaping / wildlife habitat. -Endangering of trees due to excavations etc. -Now intended to retain tree T6, when it was previously proposed for removal. -Trees have regularly been removed from site during last three years, and loss of other protected trees at Blue Ridge site -Great Crested Newts have been present in a nearby garden (12 Gilleyfield Avenue) and have inhabited a portion of adjoining allotments. Possible that these newts may also be present at application site, and a survey should therefore be undertaken. -Pipistrelle bats have been seen in the vicinity of the site, and could be inhabiting the derelict building. A survey should be undertaken.

150 -Large conifer and other trees felled in past year were home to nesting owls, resulting in reduction in local owl population. Survey should be submitted. -Badgers are frequent visitors to houses and gardens of neighbouring properties. -Developer has no regard for flora or fauna at the site. -No surveys / Environmental Impact Assessments have been undertaken, and impacts have either been not correctly assessed or ignored. -Implementation of 08/04806/FUL and 09/02316/FUL should be delayed to allow correct assessment of these issues.

An Ecology Consultant has submitted an initial desktop review, on behalf of local residents, of the application site regarding its potential for use by protected species. The review can be summarised as follows: -Site lies in a semi-rural location surrounded by mature trees. There are allotments to the south-east and open pasture fields to the north, and there is excellent habitat connectivity across the site and in the local area. -13 individual protected species would be expected to occur within 500m of the site. A good population of certain nesting birds would be expected in the local area, and these are identified as priority species. - The building at the site appears superficially suitable for bats and certain nesting birds, which are listed as being in decline. -All local authorities should be aware that they have a duty to regard conservation of biodiversity (as per the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Planning Policy Statement 9 and DEFRA Circular 01/2005). -Where bat presence is possible local authorities should consult with English Nature and an assessment will be needed if bats are likely to be affected. -A recent court case found a local authority to have not discharged its duty correctly, and a planning permission was overturned. -Given the information provided there may be a direct impact on bat species and possibly Great Crested Newts. May also be a direct impact on badgers, slow worms, common lizard, barn owl and other listed birds. - A failure to meet these obligations would make the local planning authority subject to a judicial review. - The planning authority should require a full set of ecological surveys and assessments.

GENERAL ISSUES

-No consultation by Applicant with neighbours has taken place, despite Applicant’s assertions. -Inadequate consultation undertaken by the Planning Department, and an unwillingness to take into account residents’ views. -Planning Officer has already advised against a development of this nature prior to submission of application. -Agree with Dore Village Society’s objections to the scheme. -Agree with comments made by ‘DoreConservation’ -Developers appear to gain approval for something acceptable, and submit for something else which may not have initially been considered acceptable. Applicant should not be entitled to seek approval for this development.

151 -A refusal of consent would probably be overturned were the case to go to Planning Inspectorate. -High quality houses are required, not apartments. Also, suitably priced accommodation for elderly / young residents is required. -A demand for this type of development does not determine its acceptability in this location. Between 20 and 40% of the apartments at Braemore have gone unsold for 2 years. Low sale numbers in 2010 and 2011.

-The submission is inaccurate / incomplete in a number of regards. -Photographs and comparisons submitted with application give a misleading impression.

-Significant amount of development has taken place in Dore, pressurising healthcare, education/schools, village shops, and loss of Dore’s character. -Increased surface water run-off to Num.127 Dore Road -Further pressure on the drainage system. Development could affect watercourses and springs and lead to flooding. Adjacent allotments experience standing water in periods of heavy rain -Level of objection identifies that local community do not desire this development. Developer is dis-regarding local community

DORE VILLAGE SOCIETY

Dore Village Society submitted 1 written response in relation to the initial submission, and those comments can be summarised as follows:

-Dore Village Society have responded to the Applicant’s original consultation, prior to all applications, by confirming that residential development in the form of housing is acceptable, but that flats were unacceptable. -Scheme out of keeping with the general character of Dore Road. Contrary to UDP policy H14 and CS74 of the Core Strategy. -Block arrangement does not follow building line. -Lessens green aspect of Dore Road, and could threaten trees. -Scheme does not comply with affordable housing requirements. -Previous advice given by the Society that housing was preferable has been ignored.

NON MATERIAL ISSUES

-Proposal is financially motivated. -Proposed number of apartments would generate significant Council Tax. -Existing sign at site referring to the construction of 6 houses gives a misleading impression. -Application has already met with negative press coverage. -Depth of excavations will impact on fragile geology -Developer has not asked permission to prune boundary planting. -The development does not meet the planning guidelines of a neighbouring authority in a number of different ways.

152 1st AMENDED SUBMISSION (July 2011)

Another 805 ‘standard’ letters have been received in relation to the amended drawings which were submitted in July 2011. The comments can be summarised as follows:

-Scheme contrary to National Policy granted in 2010 by Central Government regarding overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and garden grabbing -Footprint not significantly altered, scale, height and bulk will be contrary to character of the area -Overbearing, dominating street scene -Would set precedent -Access and egress arrangements not addressed -Overcrowding will be worsened with additional pressure on parking, traffic, drainage, education, dental and medical services -Levels of objection to previous drawings make it clear that scheme is not appropriate at this location

Additionally, a total of 88 individual letters were submitted. These comments can be summarised as follows:

DESIGN ISSUES

-Remains inappropriate in area, over-development and out of scale. Excessive footprint. Excessive scale, height and bulk. -Density of accommodation is too high. -Bulk and massing of the apartment proposal and the approved housing schemes are not comparable -Building in garden space would be contrary to central government policy. -Elevational treatments not in character with the surrounding area. -Out of character with area -Site is close to the conservation area. Inappropriate in a rural location. -Blocks do not follow the building line -Revisions have reduced overbearing concerns somewhat, and improved the layout. However, other comments refer to the amendments representing an increase in the overbearing impacts of the development. -Scheme does not meet requirements of Code for Sustainable Homes. -Executive housing would be more acceptable. Previously approved schemes should be made to stand. -An independent sunlight and daylight survey should be submitted. Num.127 Dore Road has bedroom windows in this side elevation, 9metres from side elevation of nearest block. Below guideline separation distance of 21 metres. Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue is also set at lower level. -Loss of light to neighbouring properties and garden (Mentioned by 2a Gilleyfield Avenue and Num.127 Dore Road as applying to them) -Block 1 breaches the Councils ‘45 degree rule’ in relation to Num.127 Dore Road. -Harmful impact on allotment site. -Impact on surrounding occupiers’ privacy / amenities. Separation distances remain inadequate. Site is elevated above neighbouring sites, increasing these impacts (Specifically referred to by occupants of Num. 17 Vicarage Lane, 127 Dore

153 Road and 2A Gilleyfield Avenue as impacting on themselves). Balconies worsen this. Num. 127 Dore Road’s garden and balcony is constantly used (this level of use was not reflected in the previous committee report for 08/04806/FUL). -‘Convex windows’ do not address overlooking / privacy concerns. Could be removed post construction. -Occupiers of each of the two blocks would overlook each other at proximity of 6.15 metres. - A scheme for 14 apartments in 2 blocks at 123 Dore Road was refused in 2004, due to non-compliance with H14, H15 and BE5. -Height and width comparisons do not fairly represent existing situation. -Proposed conservatory (which is intended to be constructed) at 2a Gilleyfield Avenue will be separated by 18m from development, less than guideline of 21m. -Separation at boundary with 2A Gilleyfield Avenue is inadequate and deciduous. Tree T6 should be ignored as it was removed from the Tree Preservation Order. -Underground car parking is out of character -Contrary to Central Government policy to prevent overdevelopment of neighbourhoods and garden grabbing.

HIGHWAY ISSUES

-Vehicle access to site is at a dangerous point and conflict with junction at Doctor’s Surgery -Vehicles travel at high speed on road currently. -Full traffic safety assessment needs to be undertaken. -Horse riding in vicinity of the site adds to danger -Drawings show pathway on opposite side of Dore Road, which is misleading. -Refuse collection on road would be dangerous. -Independent traffic consultants conclude that the application should have been refused on road safety issues. No response to this has been provided. Planning officer previously advised that access wasn’t able to deal with amount of likely vehicle movements before application was made. -Construction vehicles would add to these concerns. -Underground car parking is not likely to be used. No on-street parking and parking in surgery car park will be likely. -Parking provision will be inadequate. Parking on street would be dangerous. -Extra pressure on traffic and parking in vicinity / Dore -Site should be made into car park for Surgery -Noise disturbance and light glare to neighbouring occupiers arising from use of car park. -Details of turning facilities for refuse vehicles have not been submitted. - Disruption and danger during construction phase. Heavy traffic would also compromise drainage network.

LANDSCAPING AND ECOLOGY

-Damage to trees -Owl recently seen in tree at site. -Bats have been sighted flying in development site. -Site could well be used as a migratory route given proximity of ponds in area.

154 -Development would threaten hedge at boundary of Num. 127, increasing level of exposure to overlooking. -Occupants of development will want trees reducing in size -Impact on wildlife habitat/s, including newts and bats. No wildlife impact assessment has been carried out. -Council’s Ecologist visited site during the day time, missing evidence of site’s ecology value. UDP policy GE11 (Nature Conservation and Development) not met. (An independent Ecologist has provided statements about this issue on behalf of the objectors). City Ecologist should undertake an internal inspection of the existing dwelling at the site. -Developer uses site as dumping ground and has a disregard for ecology and has removed trees in the past. -Council should require appropriate wildlife surveys to be undertaken, otherwise it is exposed to potential Judicial Review.

HOUSING NEED

-No evidence of demand for these flats (40% of flats at Braemore are unsold)

GENERAL ISSUES

-Proposal is contrary to provisions of Core Strategy policy CS31 (Housing in the South West Area) and UDP policies BE5 (Building Design and Siting), GE4 (Development and the Green Belt Environment), H2 (Locations for Housing Development), H5 (Flats, Bed-Sitters and Shared Housing), H14 (Conditions on Development in Housing Areas) and H15 (Design of New Housing Development) as site is across road from the green belt. -Setting of precedent. -Previous approvals at site do not justify current scheme. -Submitted photographs are misleading -Committee members should visit the site. -Significant objection to initial version of scheme. -Developer has not consulted properly with community. -Developer is ignoring pre-application advice. -Misleading statements and inaccuracies made in planning committee report regarding 08/04806/FUL should not be repeated. -Drawings include material inaccuracies (width of Dore Rd drawn >10m adjacent to site when it is actually 6.3m to 8.0m wide, neighbouring building ridge heights are over-stated by 0.55m, Section A-A is not to scale) which throws doubt on rest of drawings. Full dimensions should be marked on drawings. Application should be made invalid. -Strain upon village and its road network due to developments in Dore. Additional pressure on drainage, education, dental and medical services. -Additional drainage. Excavation will affect the water-table and cause flooding. Dore Road has a history of drainage problems. -Letter form Deputy Prime Minister not published on website.

155 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

-Workmanship at Braemore is unsatisfactory. A Chartered Surveyor has concluded that Braemore should be demolished. A previous contractor at Braemore went into administration. -Parking provision at Braemore is inadequate.

DORE VILLAGE SOCIETY

Dore Village Society have provided two written representations in response to these amended drawings, and these can be summarised as follows: -Overdevelopment of the site, reducing amenity and wildlife value of the site. -Out of keeping with local character, in height, bulk and scale terms. Dominates street scene. -Contrary to UDP policy H14 and Core Strategy policy CS74. -No change in footprint of proposals -Overlooking of adjoining properties, severely affecting their privacy. -Potential movements much greater than existing movements. -Inadequate open space within the site.

NON MATERIAL ISSUES

-Reduction in value of neighbouring properties -Application is financially motivated -Leaseholds thought to be owned by Church Burgesses.

In addition 96 standard letters have been submitted in response to the Building for Life Assessment submitted by the Applicant. The comments made can be summarised as follows: -1700 representations is not typical, and is unprecedented. Shows that the apartments do not meet needs of community. -Applicant should consult with Dore Village Society, Dore Conservation Group, Ward Councillors, and Planners to prepare an appropriate development, which includes reasonably priced family accommodation. -Localism and powers granted to Council by Government in 2010 should be used to invalidate the application to prevent overdevelopment and garden grabbing

2nd AMENDED SUBMISSION (December 2011)

The latest set of amended drawings feature less significant alterations to the proposed drawings. Therefore, a notification exercise has been undertaken amongst neighbours adjoining / closely located to the site, rather than the full range of previous correspondents. At the time of report completion, 5 written representations had been received, and are summarised below. Any further items of correspondence received before the planning committee will be summarised separately.

-Changes do not address concerns of nearly 2,000 residents, and include minor changes only.

156 -Scheme is contrary to planning policy, and fails to meets aspirations of local community. -A formal complaint has been submitted to the Council Leader, which partly concerns material information which was not brought to the attention of Planning Committee when assessing the 2 applications for houses.

DESIGN ISSUES

-Footprint, height and bulk of blocks remain out of character with Dore Village. Development is overbearing. Cannot be screened. -No other developments include underground parking facilities. -David Caulfield commented that no comparison could be made between apartment scheme bulk and massing and the housing approvals. -Clear that following Freedom of Information requests, planning officer and urban design officer have concerns about the scheme.

NEIGHBOUR AMENITY IMPACTS

-Separation distance from conservatory at 2A Gilleyfield Avenue to proposed building will be less than 16m, less than the minimum guideline distance of 21m. Proposed building of 3 storeys should lead to this separation distance being increased. Situation is exacerbated by apartments being set on higher ground level. -Over 30 windows and balconies on the rear elevation will lead to overlooking opportunities to house and garden at Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue. -Considerable overlooking will lead to unacceptable loss of amenity. As a minimum balconies should be removed and number of windows / dormers should be reduced. -Approximately 150 windows to the scheme, excessive and intrusive to neighbouring properties. -Comments made by Applicant in 2003 regarding the site at Braemore shows double standards in consideration of amenities. -Use of convex windows does not address privacy or overlooking issues. Replacement with conventional windows would not provide privacy for occupants or neighbours. -Principal bedroom windows in side elevation of Num.127 Dore Road are 9m from proposed side elevation of 3 storey apartment block. The windows in this side elevation will lead to significant loss of privacy. Will also lead to serious loss of light and overshadowing. Does not meet the 21metre separation distance, which should be increased due to additional height of building and land gradient. The apartment block does not meet the Council’s 45 degree rule in relation to Num.127 Dore Road. -Occupiers of Num.127 use garden, sun roof and balcony constantly. Nearest block will overlook these areas. Used by grandchildren who should not lose their privacy. -Proximity of the apartments and foundations will be detrimental to the common tree and hedge line at Num. 127 Dore Road, and will be impossible to replace. -Impact on hedge at boundary with surgery.

157 HIGHWAYS

-Scheme concluded within Civil and Transport Engineers report to be unacceptable. -Intended sale price of apartments considered to mean that 2 parking spaces per apartment will not be adequate. The parking provision at Braemore is not adequate for occupants’ vehicles. There will be overspill onto public highway at a dangerous point, given blind bend, narrowness, single pavement and close proximity to Surgery. Particularly so given the reduction in road parking. -Planning officer wrote at pre-application stage that the point of access would not be capable of safely accommodating the level of vehicle movements which would be expected to occur. That comment was based upon 32 spaces, and scheme includes at least this amount. -Noise disturbance and light pollution will be created by use of car park, harming neighbours. Would be contrary to UDP policies H5 and H14. -Site does not contain an adequate turning circle for service vehicles. Such vehicles will be forced to reverse down ramp to the underground car park. This is unacceptable and will lead to traffic conflicts in the site, but more likely to lead to refuse collections offsite, increasing risk of collisions. -Access and Mobility Officer has raised concerns regarding conflicts within the internal layout of the site, including disabled people using the site, and pedestrian routes to the blocks. -Surgery shares part of its access with site, concern this will become blocked. -The omission of electric gates will reduce apartments’ attractiveness - This will amount to in excess of 20,000 cubic metres, requiring over 2,500 lorry movements. Will bring chaos and road pollution to area, and increase risk of a serious road accident.

ECOLOGY

-It is clear that no appropriate wildlife assessment has been undertaken. Sightings of protected species have been reported to planning officer and city ecologist on several occasions, and have been invited to meet neighbouring residents to discuss their concerns. Concerns have been raised by a number of wildlife trusts, and an independent ecologist. These concerns have not been addressed, and a proper site visit has not been undertaken to investigate these concerns. -Absence of a proper wildlife survey is contrary to UDP policy GE11. The building is now no longer inhabited and has potentially become more attractive to wildlife. -Comments made in planning committee report regarding the application for 8 houses have not been acted upon. -There have been numerous sightings of bats on the site. It is irresponsible of the Council to ignore requests for a full investigation of the cavities that exist within the ash trees, as well as a full inspection of the derelict building (internal and external). - Excavations of up to 6m will be significant risk to surrounding trees and hedges. -The Council’s decision to do nothing regarding these issues must be justified.

BUILDING FOR LIFE ASSESSMENT

-Council did not place its Building for Life Assessment (BfL) on the public record prior to expiry of the neighbour consultation period. Not acceptable as the South

158 Yorkshire Residential Design Guide 2011 requires a scheme for 10 or more dwellings to achieve a score of good in a BfL assessment. -The Council’s BfL assessment is fundamental aspect within preparation of neighbours’ representations and should not be finalised behind closed doors. -The Council’s BfL assessment includes a number of statements by the urban design officer which do not stand up to scrutiny, others are factually incorrect. -Applicants statements on Code for Sustainable Homes are only aims, and not measurable commitments. The comments made regarding ecology are disingenuous. Applicants comments their in their own BfL assessment have no factual basis and statements on demand and aspirations of local community have no credibility. -Development has no distinctive character -Scheme is not in keeping with the area, and has no regard to amenity of neighbouring properties. -Logistical issues concerning internal traffic movements and pedestrian safety remain. -An appropriate BfL assessment score would be less than 5 marks

SUSTAINABILITY

-Scheme is an over-development and does not conform to the requirements of Code for Sustainable Homes. -Village is already overcrowded, and this development would place further pressure on parking, traffic, drainage, educational, dental and medical services.

DRAINAGE

-Developer has no strategy for either surface or foul water drainage and Yorkshire Water have repeated concerns first raised in 2008. -Dore Road has a history of drainage problems -Bulk and massing of the development and underground car parking will lead to a significant change in the water course and prospect of flooding to neighbouring properties.

DRAWINGS

-The applicant has overstated the ridge heights of neighbouring properties. Ridge heights at Num.2A Gilleyfield Avenue and Num.127 Dore Road have been measured at 196.33m and 195.45m. Therefore, some submitted drawings are not a fair representation. An invitation to the Agent to carry out topographical surveys has not been taken up, and drawings remain inaccurate. - Plans show Dore Road inaccurately -No dimensions are provided on drawings and positions of blocks cannot be ascertained as planners have given no assurances that the site boundaries have been checked. -Planner previously confirmed that planners do not check accuracy of drawings, which is a matter of concern. Planners should verify ridge heights and height relations with neighbouring dwellings. -Any consent should specify finished ground floor levels, ridge heights and distances from neighbouring properties.

159 -Evidence that developer moved a block by 1m on site at Braemore without consulting planners. Other significant issues, including tree protection issues were raised after construction had commenced. Developer also sought to raise floor levels there as these were not stipulated. -Two other developments by the current applicant on Baslow Road have involved encroachment on 3 rd party land and not complied with planning consents.

OTHER CASES

-A proposal for 14 apartments at 123 Dore Road was refused in 2004, being contrary to policies H14, H15 and BE5. -Separation distance between the two proposed blocks is 6m and falls materially short of Council’s guidelines. Application ref 11/02698/FUL in Nether Edge was refused on 7 November 2011, due to sub-standard separation distance of between 5m and 7m from a Residential Care Home. The Care Home was represented in that case by DLP, who are the Agents dealing with this matter. - Many flats unsold in the area - Area is suited to houses

PLANNING POLICY

-Proposal contravenes UDP policies BE5, GE5, GE11, H2, H5 and H14. Also contrary to SDF Core Strategy Policy CS31.

PROCESS

-Planning Team has not followed the correct procedures or investigated ecological, drainage and highways concerns to a standard expected of a competent authority. -Revisions were made to drawings on the application for 8 houses shortly before the Committee that were not disclosed to the public for consideration. . Would not want to see a repeat of this in the current case.

-3 photographs have been submitted which are said to evidence highway safety issues and asking for them to be included within the committee report.

160

COUNCILLORS AND M.P.

Cllr Colin Ross, has provided two representations in relation to the initially submitted version of the application. The first of which was sent on behalf of both himself and Cllr Keith Hill. The comments can be summarised as follows: -Scheme out of scale and character for the site in scale and height -Overbearing impacts on neighbouring properties -Number of balconies will harm amenities of neighbours. -Increase in traffic at an unsafe location. -Impact on natural landscape. Trees would be threatened by excavations. -A full wildlife survey should be submitted. -Not sure of the accuracy of some of the levels shown on the plans, which may increase height and dominance of buildings. -Existing drainage problems in the area. Development would add to these problems.

A representation has been submitted by Nick Clegg M.P. regarding the scheme in its initially submitted form. He comments that the constituents have a number of concerns, which can be summarised as follows: -Two, four storey blocks will be completely out of character in area, there are no similarly tall buildings. -Number of units will lead to increased road and transport problems -Site is located on a sharp bend on Dore Road. -Strong feeling amongst local residents that application should be rejected.

161 PLANNING ASSESSMENT

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) And Planning for Growth Agenda

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

The Government has issued the above document for consultation, with the intention of it replacing all existing national planning policy guidance. The consultation closed in October 2011. The draft NPPF is a material consideration, to be taken into account in determining planning applications; however the weight to be given to it is limited due to its draft status, and likelihood of change.

162 Housing Land Availability

This issue of a shortage in housing land availability supports the principle of residential development at this site.

Housing Demand Issues

A number of representations have referred to the level of vacancies at the Braemore development at Ecclesall Road South. It has been suggested that up to 40% of units there remain unsold/unoccupied, and that there is not demand for the proposed type of accommodation. The applicant has replied to this issue by requesting two local estate agents to provide correspondence. In summary these representations state that the range of smaller houses and apartments available for purchase do not provide sufficient floor space, cost savings, high ceilings, secure car parking and extensive storage similar to provided within the proposed apartments.

Government projections show that the average household size in Sheffield is declining and the city has a growing number of older people. Both these factors could result in continued demand for apartments, across the city as a whole. It is likely however, that the strongest demand will continue to be for 1 and 2-bedroom apartments. This type of demand would be met, in part, by the 8num. x 2 bedroomed apartments within the proposal, but not by the larger 3 bedroomed apartments proposed. Nevertheless, developers will often seek to exploit niche markets and it is unlikely that a developer would seek to build apartments which they did not expect to sell or rent out.

Efficient Use of Land

Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy promotes efficient use of housing land, but identifies that high densities are not acceptable where they would be out of character with the surrounding area.

163 In regards to density, the proposal would involve a density of 32 dwellings per hectare. CS26 states that a density range of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare is acceptable in urban areas. As such the scheme would be considered to represent the efficient use of land, and to satisfy this policy. However, consideration must also be given to the impact this has on the character of the surrounding area.

Relevance of Planning History

The previously approved schemes granted consent for 8 houses (ref. 08/04806/FUL) and 6 houses (09/02316/FUL). The 6 house approval remains a live planning permission which can be implemented until December 2012, or later if successfully extended via an application. This is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight. Similarly, whilst the permission for the 8 house scheme has expired as of 21 st January 2012, there is currently an application to extend the time period for its implementation, and this must also be afforded significant weight. The principle of some form of residential development was previously considered to be acceptable. The Unitary Development Plan policies which applied to the principle of development in those previous cases, continue to apply.

Principle within Unitary Development Plan and SDF Core Strategy

The application is located within a Housing Area under the provisions of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. Policy H10 of the UDP states that Housing is the preferred use in this location. Therefore, the principle of residential development would be considered to be acceptable. However, this would be subject to the provisions of Policy H14 ‘Conditions on Development in Housing Areas’.

It is worth noting that PPS3 does not rule out development on Greenfield sites. Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy sets a target of no more than 12 % of new housing to be developed on Greenfield land. A number of circumstances are given where this would be acceptable, and part (b) allows greenfield sites to be developed for housing ‘on small sites within the existing urban areas and larger villages, where it can be justified on sustainability grounds’. The site is within the urban area in a relatively sustainable location and would fit the criteria within the policy.

As such, the proposal is not considered to be contrary to the provisions of policy CS24 of the Core Strategy, and it is not considered that it would be possible to support an argument for refusal based upon this issue.

Overall, the principle of the proposed development would be considered to be acceptable, and there are not considered to be any reasons to resist the proposed scheme in relation to these issues. Indeed the delivery of a reasonable number of new housing units would support the aim of recent Government Policy.

SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

The proposed development of the site would be required to be assessed in regards to Core Strategy policies CS64 and CS65.

164 Policy CS64 would require the development to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 as a minimum. The applicant has outlined in an appraisal of the scheme how this would be achieved, referring to specific measures and methods. In order to ensure that any development met this requirement, an appropriate condition could be added to any consent granted.

CS65 requires the provision of a minimum of 10% of a development’s predicted energy needs to be from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy. Solar panels to the flat roof areas have been referred to as providing a sustainable source of energy in way not visible to the surrounding areas. These are also shown on the roof layout drawings. The submission of precise details, including yield data etc, from such measures would be required to be added as a condition to any consent granted to ensure that policy CS65 was satisfied.

The Climate Change Supplementary Planning Document, in Guideline CC1, requires developments exceeding 10 dwellings to incorporate a green roof which covers at least 80% of the total roof area. However, this SPD was adopted after the submission of the planning application. It would therefore be unreasonable to insist upon this guideline being fully satisfied. Notwithstanding this the Applicant has agreed to incorporating green roof elements within any scheme, whilst also providing measures to achieve a minimum of 10% of the development’s needs from decentralised energy in line with policy CS65. Therefore, these issues could be covered by condition in the event that approval was granted.

DESIGN ISSUES

Policy BE5 of the UDP states that the new buildings should complement the scale, form and architectural style of surrounding buildings. Policy H14 states that new development should be (a) well designed and in scale and character with neighbouring buildings, and (c) not result in the site being over- developed. Core Strategy policy CS31 ‘Housing in the South West Area’, states that in southwest Sheffield, priority will be given to safeguarding and enhancing its areas of character, with the scale of new development being largely defined by what can be accommodated at an appropriate density. Policy CS74 ‘Design Principles’ states that development should take advantage of the townscape and landscape character of the city’s districts and neighbourhoods, with their associated scale, layout and built form, building styles and materials.

A Building for Life assessment has been undertaken in relation to the proposed scheme. This is a requirement of Core Strategy policy CS74, since the scheme includes more than 10 dwellings. The policy requires all new developments of 10 dwellings or over to achieve a Building for Life rating of ‘good’, as a minimum.

Officers consider that the scheme meets this target. Conversely a neighbouring objector to the scheme feels that it falls significantly short of the target set within the policy.

165 Officers involved in the assessment of the scheme against the Building for Life criteria are accredited assessors, and the conclusion drawn by those officers deems that the scheme is considered to meet this element of Policy CS74.

The site is located sited opposite land which is designated as being within the Green Belt. UDP policy GE4 requires any development which is conspicuous form the green belt, to conserve and enhance the landscape and natural environment. From green belt locations the proposed development would be seen within the context of the existing urban development. It is not considered that the apartment buildings would be overly prominent in this context. As such it is not considered that this policy would be reasonable basis for an argument for refusal, given that the surrounding context would essentially prevent the proposed development from having a conspicuous impact when viewed from green belt locations.

In regards to the character of the street scene, the scheme in its originally submitted form involved 2 separate blocks, each providing 4 floors of accommodation, giving a total of 14 apartments. These were broadly located toward the middle of the site, with Block Two being positioned in reasonably close proximity to the site’s rear boundary. Access to the undercroft car parking provision at the basement level was proposed via a downward ramp between the two individual blocks.

Concerns were expressed to the Applicant regarding the impacts of the original proposal. Through these negotiations amendments to the drawings were submitted which show each of the two blocks being reduced by one storey, to include accommodation over a total of three floors. The total number of apartments proposed continued to be 14. Additionally, the blocks were relocated away from the site’s rear boundary, and have been positioned to more closely reflect the arc of the road thereby increasing the separation distance to the site’s rear boundary.

Further amendments have been submitted, which aim to deal with some concerns and issues with the elevational appearance of the building, overlooking concerns to neighbouring gardens, as well as landscaping/tree issues and mobility/access facilities. In essence, these latest revisions do not represent substantial alterations to the preceding drawings which warranted wide re-consultation.

The modifications which have been made to the elevational treatments are considered to address some concerns about the blocks each having a rather confused appearance. These alterations are considered to result in the scheme being considered as acceptable in terms of its elevations and architectural appearance.

The proposed materials include ashlar stone, and slate type tiles which are appropriate, however, Dore Road is considered to be characterised by housing of varying ages and styles, drawn together by a consistent scale and massing. The latest amended proposal is not considered to reflect this character. The scale and massing of the blocks is considered to be overly dominant. The large deep plan

166 blocks would be considered to have an overbearing impact upon the surroundings to the site. The height and footprints of each block is too great. The depth of the blocks and accommodation housed at top floor level result in a roof form which is considered to be over-dominant.

The scheme design is considerably at odds with the surrounding predominant character of large scale individual dwellings within substantial individual plots. Unlike the previous individual dwelling schemes, the footprints of the two blocks dwarf those of neighbouring residential properties, being approximately 400% larger than neighbours on Dore Road, Vicarage Road and Gilleyfield Avenue, and in this respect the scheme fails to respond adequately to local character, as required by the above Core Strategy and UDP policies, and national guidance.

Existing developments in the area referred to by the applicant are noted, including the three storey apartment scheme located to the west, approximately 200m along Dore Road. However, this is considered to be an anomaly in the street scene, rather than an example of the prevailing character of the area, and should not be a reference point, or benchmark for a poor quality scheme to be introduced into the area.

As such the proposal is considered to be out of keeping with the character of the area. In this regard, it is considered to fail to meet the requirements of UDP policies BE5 and H14 (a and c), and Core Strategy policies CS31 and CS74.

A number of concerns have been raised by representations regarding the proposed basement car park, and that this would be out character in the area. This would feature the downward sloping ramp to the basement, the opening to the car park and the engineered footpath approaches above the ramp with handrails/balustrading. Such features would be relatively uncommon in the area, and would be considered to be indicative of a development which was out of keeping with the character of the area. Whilst this aspect of the proposal is considered to have the potential of resulting in a poor design it is considered that appropriate conditions could be incorporated within any consent granted, which required detailed proposed arrangements for the means of addressing these issues to be agreed prior to the commencement of any development at the site. As such there is not considered to be reason to resist granting consent in relation to this issue.

NEIGHBOUR AMENITIES

The neighbouring dwellings most susceptible to implications arising from the proposed development are located at Num’s 2a and 4 Gilleyfield Avenue, Num. 127 Dore Road ( immediately to the north-east, despite number sequencing) and Num’s 5 and 17 Vicarage Lane.

The previously approved schemes for 8 houses (08/04806/FUL) and 6 houses (09/02316/FUL) are pertinent in this regard, which each involve housing units toward the rear and side perimeters of the site.

167 In regards to the recently fitted side windows in Num.127 Dore Road, it should be noted that confirmation was sought from the Planning Department prior to installation regarding the potential need for permission. The planning officer responded, stating that a planning permission would not be required. Following subsequent assessment of this matter, it has been concluded that this response was incorrect. Amendments made in 2008 to the householders’ permitted development rights, stipulated that any installation of windows in the upper floors of side elevations to dwellings, would be required to be obscurely glazed and fixed up to a height of 1.7metres above internal floor level.

As such the windows in the side elevation of Num. 127 are not currently authorised, and on this basis it is considered that limited weight ought to be attributed to them in the assessment of the current application. This is because if the windows were fitted with obscure glazing, and made to be fixed up to the specified height, they would not generate overlooking or be affected by the proposed dwellinghouses.

These newly installed windows are considered to be secondary to the previously existing windows serving the bedroom in question. As such regardless of whether they are authorised or not, any impacts on the amenities of the room have to be considered in this regard. The presence of mature boundary treatment limits the potential for detrimental impacts to occur. Although they are separated from the proposed building by less than the normally required distance of 12metres for primary windows, for these reasons the relationship is considered to be acceptable.

The nearest apartment block would be separated from the dwelling at Num.127 by approximately 9metres at the closest point. The apartment block is separated by 15metres from the nearest window in the rear elevation (measured at a 45degree line from Num.127). The building would breach this 45degree line. Notwithstanding this, the separation distance would prevent any detrimental overbearing impacts occurring upon Num.127.

The relevant proposed elevation facing Num.127 has been amended to delete dormer windows in the roofslope, and to specify that first floor windows are obscurely glazed. Alterations to the internal floor layouts has allowed these modifications. These alterations are considered to overcome the overlooking and privacy concerns which were considered to arise from the elevation in its previously proposed form. These overlooking opportunities would have occurred from a 90 degree angle, and would have represented a detrimental impact upon the occupiers of Num.127 Dore Road as all of the garden space would have been overlooked.

The position of the block in question would be expected to lead to some loss of light impacts during p.m. hours. The separation distance to the nearest Block and the relatively confined periods of the day when it would be expected to occur would prevent this issue from representing a significant impact. With this issue in mind the Applicant commissioned a Right of Light report by a Chartered Surveying company. In summary, this concludes that the recently inserted windows have not gained a Prescriptive Right of Light due to their age. The small ground floor return

168 elevation / front window doesn’t directly face the proposed buildings and would not be affected by the development. The ground floor windows at the rear return elevation would experience a reduction in sky visibility, but this would not in the opinion of the Surveyor be ‘actionable’. The calculations carried out confirm that the room would remain well lit above minimum thresholds, and it is also pointed out that that the room in question is also served by other windows.

In summary on this issue, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the amenities of the occupants of Num.127 Dore Road, as the building would be considered to avoid having an overbearing impact, overlooking and privacy impacts would not be considered to be created and any loss of light would be minimal. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

In regards to Num. 2A Gilleyfield Avenue and the impacts upon the amenities of its occupants, the following comments can be made. Proposed Block 2 is considered to have the most potential to harm the amenities of Num. 2A Gilleyfield Avenue. The elevation of Num. 2A facing the application site includes a family dining room window at ground floor, with 2 windows serving a bedroom at first floor.

It is also worth noting that a consent has been granted for a single storey conservatory extension attached to the relevant elevation of Num. 2A. This would project outward by a depth of 4.0metres toward the application site. The conservatory has not yet been constructed, however, it should be taken into account, as a development for which planning permission has been granted.

Supplementary Planning Guidance would require a separation of 21metres between facing main windows of neighbouring houses at equivalent levels. This document also states that on sloping land or where a neighbouring building is higher this distance may need to be greater.

The minimum distance of separation between Block 2 and Num. 2A is approximately 25.4 metres. Given the relative angles between the existing neighbouring dwelling and the proposed block, the distance separating the majority of windows and Num.2A will be greater than this.

At 1 st floor level 6 habitable room windows are proposed, with 2 balconies running from bedrooms at the left and right hand ends of the rear elevation. The implications of the balconies and windows at the proposed separation distance would be considered to avoid having a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the occupants of Num. 2A. Overlooking from the left hand of the balconies onto the rear garden of Num.2A would not be expected to lead to harmful impacts due to the significant distance, and that views would be comparable to views achievable between neighbouring properties in suburban settings. It is worth noting that 10m garden depths are normally required to maintain a reasonable distance between properties and neighbours’ gardens for overlooking purposes. This scheme significantly exceeds this.

At 2 nd floor level the proposed full dormer windows have been designed to accommodate en-suite bathroom facilities, and would be served with windows with obscured glazing. The overlooking impacts arising from these dormers at a

169 separation distance of over 28metres from the nearest habitable room window in Num.2A would not be considered to be significant. The rooflights positioned between these two dormers serve bedrooms, a dressing room and a study. They would be capable of being positioned with their cill/s at a sufficient height above internal floor level to prevent views outward toward Num.2A. As such they would not be considered to lead to harmful impacts upon the occupants on Num. 2A.

In regards to views to/from the conservatory which would reduce the above distances by 4m from proposed Block 2, these would be largely prevented from occurring by the angle of views and the existing boundary treatments.

In summary the proposed development would be considered to have an acceptable impact upon the occupants of Num. 2A. Additionally, the previously approved schemes for housing included dwellings with rear elevation windows serving habitable rooms at closer proximity to the dwelling at Num. 2A. These previous consents represent material considerations, and it is therefore considered it would be unreasonable to resist granting consent based upon these issues.

The neighbouring dwellings at Num. 2 Gilleyfield Avenue and Num.52 Burlington Road, are separated by approximately 43 and 45metres respectively from the proposed apartment blocks. Such separation distances are considered to result in the overlooking impacts from the proposed blocks to not be sufficiently significant to support a reason for refusal.

In regards to Num’s 5 and 17 Vicarage Lane the following comments can be made. The respective boundary to Num. 5 is separated from proposed Block Two by approximately 30metres. It is a bungalow property, and its facing elevation includes two small windows in very close proximity to the solid, concrete fence at the perimeter of the surgery car park. Given these circumstances it is not considered that the proposed development would lead to overlooking impacts or privacy loss. Some views onto portions of Num. 5’s garden area may be possible, however, at the separation distance involved (potentially 40 metres or more), it is not considered that it would be detrimental to amenities.

Num.17 Vicarage Lane includes a series of habitable room windows in its respective elevation facing toward the site. Block Two would be separated by approximately 47metres, at its nearest proximity to Num.17. This distance would be considered to be satisfactory to prevent any harmful impacts upon privacy arising. Some potential for overlooking from the nearest of the proposed balconies may occur over the property’s garden space, but at a very considerable distance and form an indirect angle. However, this would not be expected to be significantly greater than such opportunities which either currently exist or are typical in urban/suburban settings.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would have acceptable impacts upon the amenities of occupants of neighbouring dwellings. As such the scheme would be considered to be contrary to the provisions of policy H14 (c).

170 AMENITIES OF POTENTIAL OCCUPIERS OF PROPOSED APARTMENTS

Apartments are required by UDP Policy H5 to provide satisfactory living conditions for their occupants. Policy H15 requires housing to provide adequate communal amenity space, and acceptable standards of daylight, privacy, security and outlook for all residents.

The proposed apartments are each of acceptable size internally. The individual rooms are considered to be served appropriately by windows, giving reasonable outlook, natural lighting and ventilation opportunities.

In relation to the separation distance between the two proposed blocks, each of the respective side elevations would feature proposed windows serving habitable rooms. The windows in question are separated by distances ranging from 7 to 14metres. This would fall below the standard guideline distance of 21 metres between facing habitable room windows. It should be pointed out that the ground and first floor windows in question are ‘oriel’ type windows, which could be partly glazed with obscured glazing to eliminate overlooking potential. At second floor level the dormer windows would be set up the roof slopes and further away from each other. In some cases these windows are secondary to other windows serving the same rooms, and would not be relied upon in the same way for outlook etc. as primary windows. This doesn’t apply toward the rear of the block, where the windows would be separated by 13/14metres. Additionally, the area in the intervening space is proposed to be a landscaped area, through which residents will access the communal amenity area to the rear of the blocks. As such the area is semi-public in its use.

Therefore, whilst the proposed arrangements would not meet the guideline separation distance of 21metres, the proposed arrangement would be considered to be acceptable in this regard, providing adequate amenities for potential residents.

On the basis of the above comments the proposed apartments would be considered to provide acceptable living conditions for the potential occupiers.

The external amenity space amounts to a substantial area in total, and would be considered to make a reasonable contribution to potential occupants’ living conditions.

Overall, the proposal would be considered to satisfy the requirements of UDP policies H5 and H15.

HIGHWAYS ISSUES

The proposal has been assessed in terms of its implications for highway safety, including taking account of the appraisal summarised in the representations section above.

Much of the additional representation is concerned about the implications for highway safety of a vehicle accessing the site having to wait on Dore Road, due to

171 the security gates across the driveway entrance. This potential issue has been addressed within revised drawings by the elimination of the security gates across the entrance drive.

The concern raised within the transport engineer’s appraisal regarding the access point to the development and the safety issues arising from the vehicle movements generated to/from it has been repeated within a substantial number of neighbours’ representations. It is considered that 14 apartments would be expected to generate approximately 50 trips per day. This would be only marginally higher than the traffic generated from 8 large dwellings, for which an approval has previously been granted. The suggested separation between junctions stated within the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide 2011, however, that guidance applies to totally new scenarios, rather than modifications to the existing highway layout. The separation gap between the accesses is considered appropriate for the number of vehicle movements.

In summary, it is not considered that the vehicle movements generated at this access point would conflict with the access at the Doctor’s surgery, or the existing highway layout/arrangements to a degree which would be unacceptable in highway safety terms.

The issue relating to visitor parking, has been made acceptable by the provision of 3 wider visitor spaces which would be considered to be accessible and sufficient in terms of numbers. The basement parking layout would be considered to be acceptable and to allow for manoeuvring to/from all spaces.

The proposed parking provision would include 2 spaces for each of the apartments and 3 visitor spaces. This would be in line with the council’s maximum parking guidelines in terms of residents parking. The guidelines would seek a maximum of 4 visitor spaces, and therefore the scheme would represent a small under provision below these maximum guidelines. This slight under provision would be considered to be acceptable, as it would not be considered that highway safety would be compromised.

Equally proposed cycle storage facilities would be made available within the basement level storage provisions allocated to each individual apartment, promoting an alternative mode if transport. This is considered to represent an acceptable method of securing cycle storage to each apartment.

It is also considered that the amended site plan would enable turning within the site, for use by refuse and service vehicles. This would prevent waiting on the highway, which would represent an obstacle to the free flow of traffic movements.

It has been commented in neighbour representations that an additional footpath and road widening should be undertaken were this scheme to be approved. Officers are satisfied that existing arrangements are sufficient for accommodating the small increase in vehicle and pedestrian activity that would result from the development

172 Concerns have been raised by neighbours in relation to disruption and danger during the construction phase. On large or sensitive sites this issue is capable of being a material consideration. In such cases instances it may be considered to be appropriate to impose some restrictions on the hours and method of operations, as well as requiring a management strategy to be agreed and followed which identified how the issue of excavated materials were to be dealt with.

Concern has also been raised about the noise disturbance and light pollution created by cars using accessing the development. The number of car movements which would be expected would not be considered to be sufficiently significant to support a refusal of an application based upon these issues.

Overall, the scheme would be considered to be acceptable in terms of its implications upon highway safety. The scheme would therefore satisfy the element of UDP policy H14 which requires developments to have an acceptable impact on highway safety.

LANDSCAPING

As identified above a number of trees within the site are covered by Tree Preservation Orders. In broad terms, these are located across the frontage of the site, and adjacent to its two rear boundaries.

A tree would be removed at the site frontage to accommodate the access to the site.

The proposals in their initial form led to concerns regarding potential impacts upon these trees. The revisions that have been carried out to the proposed layout of the scheme, and the additional drawings which have been provided have resulted in the scheme being considered to be acceptable in regards to the impacts upon the protected trees primarily via the clarification of level details.

This conclusion is subject to the modification of the eastern of the two pedestrian footpath links from the street. This will secure additional benefits to the nearby trees, as the amount of excavation and hardstanding etc will be reduced. Therefore, any approval of the scheme should be subject to a condition which required the modification of the pathway in question from the development.

The proposal is therefore considered to meet the requirements of UDP policy GE15, which requires mature trees to be retained.

ECOLOGY

The Ecological Consultants report, summarised above, has been responded to by the Council’s City Ecology Unit.

The City Ecologist had previously visited the site (during day-time hours in June 2011). The house was checked externally, where it was observed to be fairly well maintained, and no gaps where bats may be able to access it were seen. All roof tiles were intact, and there were no gaps between windows and doors. The

173 garages were also checked, and although there was a gap in the roof, there was no separate roof space and no evidence that bats or barn owls used them either. It has been additionally pointed out that the buildings may have changed in the intervening period, and that the building might need to be re-assessed before development is commenced. This is normal practice in such situations.

Ash trees have been referred to in neighbours correspondence as having the potential to provide bat roosts. No ash trees which are thought to be capable of providing bats roosts are proposed to be removed as part of this scheme. Whilst there are ash trees at the site which are not covered by TPOs, the Wildlife and Countryside Act would require bat presence within them to be assessed prior to removal.

The garden at that time was noted as being extremely overgrown and no features were apparent which would support Great Crested Newts.

A large number of animal paths criss-crossing the site, that are consistent with being badger or fox paths were noted. The paths showed entrance / exit points on and off site. The number of brambles made it impossible to search the site thoroughly, but a sett could not be seen at the site. However, it is recommended that if the site is cleared, the bramble should be cut back with hand tools rather than machinery to check that a site is not concealed. Were badgers to be found work would be required to stop, and the South Yorkshire Badger Group or Natural England would need to be contacted. Natural England would then be able to issue an appropriate licence ensuring proper management of any such protected species, and development would not be stopped.

The loss of habitat is not considered to be detrimental, because of the large areas of private gardens around the site, and the fields and woodland on the opposite side of Dore Road.

As a precaution it is recommended that any vegetation should be cleared outside of the bird breeding season to avoid any birds nesting.

Based on the findings of the City Ecologist it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon protected species or undermine the ecological value of the site. Whilst it is noted that the site will be of some ecological value, it is essentially an underused garden, and is not considered to be of special significance. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not be contrary to the provisions of UDP policy GE 11, which requires the natural environment to be protected and enhanced and seeks to reduce the harmful effects of development on natural features of value.

174 DRAINAGE

The issue of drainage has been referred to within a substantial number of neighbour’s representations. These have included concerns about existing drainage problems in the area, the additional impacts arising from increased hardsurfacing and the implications of the proposed excavation on the water table.

The drainage details initially submitted with the application were found to be unacceptable to Yorkshire Water. A response letter, sent on behalf of the Applicant referred to the use of soakaways, which YW consider to be unlikely to be workable in practice.

It is critical that the surface water from the site does not exceed current levels. These issues could be covered by condition as part of any consent granted. Such conditions would require approval and implementation of details that would secure a reduction in surface water discharge from the site.

ACCESS / MOBILITY

The scheme would need to be designed to satisfy the provisions of UDP policy H7, which requires a minimum of 25% of housing to be suitable as mobility housing. The proposed scheme, as it currently stands is considered to be inadequate in this regard in a number of respects, and would require some relatively limited modifications. These revisions and improvements could be required by condition on any approval that may be granted, without impacting on the form of the development.

OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTIONS

Given that the development incorporates in excess of 5 dwelling units, it is subject to the provisions of UDP policy H16, which covers ‘Open Space in New Housing Developments’. This policy states that the developer is expected to make an appropriate contribution to the provision or enhancement of recreation space in the catchment area of the site, where it can be demonstrated that a shortfall in provision exists, or existing facilities are in need of improvement. An assessment has been carried out, which demonstrates that there is an under provision of informal recreation space and children’s play facilities and the need to improve outdoor sport facilities within the catchment area to the site. A commuted sum of £ 10,699.20 would therefore be required in relation to informal recreation and children’s play facilities and improvement of outdoor sport facilities. Should consent be granted, this will need to be subject to a completed legal agreement securing this payment.

EDUCATION FACILITIES

The proposed scheme leads to the need to assess implications for education facilities within the site’s locality. It has been concluded that a development of this nature would not be expected to have an impact upon local schools, as it would not generate sufficient school pupils to warrant a contribution being required.

175 RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

A significant number of points raised in representations have been covered in the main body of the report. In regards to outstanding material planning considerations the following points can be made:

- A Traffic Impact Assessment is not required for a development of this magnitude. -Were the scheme to be approved it is not considered that the provision of an additional footpath and widening of the road would be required to make the scheme acceptable. Officers are satisfied that existing arrangements are sufficient for accommodating the small increase in vehicle and pedestrian activity that would result from the development. -The possible car park at the bottom of Dore Road is not material to the assessment of the current application -Following suggestions that there were inaccuracies within the submitted drawings, the Agent dealing with the application has checked and carried out appropriate alteration etc where necessary. This involved the reduction in the stated ridge height at Num. 2A Gilleyfield Avenue by 0.01m. The difference in ridge height between the Agent’s drawings and the neighbours own survey (of approximately 0.50m) given the significant separation from the proposed apartment block(s) is not considered to be critical to the assessment of the application, owing to the considerable distance between the two properties. -The scheme falls below the threshold of 15 dwelling units, at which affordable housing interim planning guidance begins to apply to a development. -Neighbours’ concerns about the developers regard for flora/fauna does not constitute a material planning consideration. -Following the input of the City Ecologist no Ecology Scoping Survey was considered to be required. Also a scheme of this nature would not need to be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. -It is not possible to require that the implementation of planning approvals 08/04806/FUL and 09/02316/FUL are delayed. Any extant planning permission can be implemented once granted, provided the necessary conditions have been discharged. -The neighbour notification carried out by the Planning Department is in accordance with the statutory requirements applying to an application of this nature, and fully in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The SCI encourages applicants to undertake pre- application consultation with the Community, however officers cannot insist on this or prescribe exactly how this is undertaken. Had such a consultation occurred, in accordance with the guidance set out in the SCI, then some weight could be given to this. -The sales figures etc. at Braemore, Ecclesall Road South are not material planning considerations relating to the current proposal. -The suggestions regarding the type of housing which would be preferable at the site are noted, however, the proposed scheme is required to be assessed on its individual merits.

ENFORCEMENT

No enforcement action is required.

176

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The application seeks permission for fourteen apartments, within two separate blocks. Each block would be 3 storeys in total, including accommodation in the roof space. Vehicle access to the site would be achieved from an access point at the site frontage onto Dore Road.

The principle of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable, in light of PPS3, Planning for Growth Agenda, National Planning Policy Framework (Draft), and UDP/Core Strategy policies.

The applicant has confirmed that the scheme is intended to satisfy the requirements of Core Strategy policies CS64 and CS65.relating to sustainable building design, and appropriate details can be secured via condition in the event of an approval. The amenities afforded to the potential residents of the proposed apartments would be considered to be acceptable and to meet the requirements of UDP policy H5 and H15.

Following amendments/clarifications the proposed scheme would be acceptable in relation to its impacts upon the TPO covered trees within the site. Therefore, the scheme would be considered to meet UDP policy GE15. The ecological value of the site has been assessed and the scheme is not considered to have any significant detrimental impacts. Thus, the proposal would be considered to be acceptable in regards to UDP policy GE11.

However, the proposed development is considered to be out of keeping with the character of the area, having an unacceptable impact upon the street scene. The scale and massing of the blocks independently, but more so in combination is considered to be overly dominant. The footprint size and height of the blocks is considered to be excessive, overbearing, and entirely out of character within the locality. On this basis the proposal is considered to fail to comply with the requirements of UDP policies BE5 (a), H14 (a and c), and Core Strategy policies CS31 and CS74.

The scheme is considered to have an acceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would be considered to meet the requirements of UDP policy H5 (b) and H14 (c).

In drainage terms some issues would require resolution in the event that approval were to be granted. However, these could be satisfactorily resolved through appropriate planning conditions.

In the event that a scheme were approved this would need to be subject to a completed legal agreement, that would secure a financial contribution of £10,699.20 towards the enhancement of local open space. The applicant has been made aware of the need to complete a legal agreement, and should an agreement not be completed prior to the date of the Committee, this would

177 represent a reason for refusal, for failure to comply with the terms of UDP Policy H16.

Therefore, overall, despite the principle of housing development being acceptable, and also acknowledging the positive contribution the development would bring in terms of the delivery of housing units in a relatively sustainable location, the scale, design and form of the development is out of character with its surroundings.

It is therefore considered that the scheme fails to meet the relevant requirements of UDP polices BE5, H14 and Core Strategy policy CS31 and CS74. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application is refused.

178