Case Officer: Paul Staniforth File Nos: CHE/16/00317/REM1-00320/REM1 Tel

Case Officer: Paul Staniforth File Nos: CHE/16/00317/REM1-00320/REM1 Tel. No: (01246) 345781 Plot No: 2/1048 Committee Date: 30th August 2016

ITEM 8

Variation of Conditions in relation to scheme on Land at The Brushes, Sheffield Road, Chesterfield for Birchall Properties Ltd.

 CHE/16/00317/REM1 – Variation of condition 20 of CHE/0389/0210 regarding maximum length of permitted stay;  CHE/16/00318/REM1 – Variation of conditions 1a and 52 of CHE/0892/0496 regarding relocation of car park;  CHE/16/00319/REM1 – Variation of condition 52 of CHE/0892/0496 regarding inclusion of phase 2 apart hotel in phase 1;  CHE/16/00320/REM1 – Variation of condition 52 of CHE/0892/0496 regarding relocation of clubhouse;

Local Plan: Green Belt Ward: Old Whittington

1.0 CONSULTATIONS

DCC Highways No objection (317, 319, 320) Comments received – see report (318)

DCC Planning No comments to make (317)

DCC Education No comments received

Environmental Services No objection (318, 320)

Design Services (Drainage) No objection (318, 320)

Environment Agency No objection (318, 320)

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Comments received - see report (318, 320)

Yorkshire Water No comment to make (318, 320)

North East Derbyshire DC No comments received

Derbyshire Constabulary No objection

Economic Development Unit Supports proposal

Ward Members No comments received

Chesterfield Cycle Campaign No objections

Neighbours/Site Notice 16 letters of representation Advert received plus 57 resident petition and letter from Unstone Parish Council – see report

2.0 THE SITE

2.1 The site is within the designated Green Belt area and comprises the currently unused Birchall Golf Course and areas of woodland. Brierley Wood and Roughpiece Woods form part of the site and the areas to the south west are ancient woodland and covered by Tree Preservation Orders. The woodland areas and an area extending along the Sheffield Road frontage are also designated as a local wildlife site.

2.2 The site is bounded by the A61 to the south-west and by the Dronfield by pass to the south, by the river Drone to the south-east, by Unstone Green to the north and by Roughpiece wood to the north-west. It is part of a hilly landscape and presents significant level drops across its boundaries in excess of 100m. The site includes areas of commercial tree planting, gorse, grassland and is edged to the south-west by areas of protected woodland forming a natural buffer to the A61, and to the south-east by the woodland along the river Drone corridor.

2.3 The site was the subject of substantial opencast operations up to the 1980s and was subsequently restored to a golf course use (Birchall). Areas of protected ancient woodland on the southern part of the site were not affected by the opencast scheme and which remain today however much of Brierley Wood was destroyed. The golf course is currently not being maintained.

2.4 The site is currently crossed by a number of definitive Public Rights of Way including a bridlepath (BR39) across and within the site and which are shown on the definitive plan. There are also a considerable number of other ‘desire line’ paths which criss cross the site at various locations. Consent has since been granted by the Secretary of State on 15th December 2015 to divert all routes which crossed the site to the perimeter of the site outside the sites enclosing fence line.

3.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND

3.1 Outline planning approval was granted on 17th August 1989 for the development of the 280 acre Peak Resort site for a major leisure venue under code CHE/0389/0210. This included a single domed structure containing hotel together with indoor and outdoor related leisure and educational facilities centred on a reconfigured golf course and lake together with 250 holiday lodges on the upper part of the site. The scheme was described as leisure centre consisting of a dome containing hotel with indoor and outdoor related leisure and educational facilities provision of accommodation lodges and a lake. The supporting information with the application provided a schedule of the individual components and their quantum.

3.2 A subsequent Reserved Matters permission was made for the scheme under code CHE/0892/0496 and which was not determined until 1st July 2008. This dealt with a phase 1 of the scheme and reserved further detail for subsequent approval and the scheme therefore remains valid since the original condition on the outline permission allowed the scheme to be begun (implemented) before the expiry of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

3.3 A number of formal changes have been made to the scheme over the years with amendments to the conditions in 2005 under code CHE/0301/0164 and which resulted in a S106 agreement dated 10th August 2005 concerning highway matters, travel planning, ecology management and Community Liaison. An alternative access to the site was also considered and agreed under code CHE/09/00075/FUL on 12th November 2009. This resulted in the access to the site being created from a new roundabout at the junction of the A61 slip road with Sheffield Road.

3.4 The scheme was always intended to be a secured and fenced facility with the footpaths and bridle route crossing the site being diverted to the sites perimeter. The permission to amend the scheme granted in 2005 specifically proposed diversion of all routes crossing the site to the perimeter of the site. SCRIF funding of £2.8m has been agreed to implement the creation of the new access and s278 agreement, diversion of the footpath and bridle routes and new fencing as a way of facilitating the development.

3.5 Approvals for formal variation of a number of conditions has been secured under permissions CHE/14/00086/REM1; CHE/14/00087/REM1; CHE/14/00088/REM1 and CHE/14/00089/REM1 on 2nd May 2014 and separate applications for the discharge of relevant pre-commencement conditions in the various permissions has been given on 12th November 2014 to allow works to progress on site. (Codes CHE/14/00385/DOC; CHE/14/00386/DOC; CHE/14/00387/DOC; CHE/14/00388/DOC and CHE/14/00558/DOC).

4.0 THE PROPOSAL

4.1 Phase 1 of the development includes a domed visitor/arrival building, a 150-room hotel building incorporating, a 400-bed university building, a union building for accessing both the hotel and university buildings, landscaping and public realm facilities including a colonnade, new lake and amphitheatre. Phase 1 also includes a clubhouse with 30 No 5* lodges located at the top of the hill to the west of the 2008 consented dome. Phases 2 and 3 of this development remain unchanged from the 2008 consented drawings, with the exception of an observation tower adjacent the arrival dome which will be built in Phase 2.

4.2 The first phase of the development also includes the creation of the new access from Sheffield Road with a new roundabout and adjustment of the A61 bypass slip road, the diversion of existing bridle route and footpaths and creation of new greenway routes and footpaths around the site perimeter together with the enclosure of the site by fencing.

4.3 Upon entering the site, the entrance road continues up the eastern flank of the site, affording views up the hilltop ridge to the west of the main development. The first buildings encountered will be the Observation Tower (Phase 2) and the Dome Building. These are located to provide a fitting and prominent arrival point, and so that visitors can benefit from inclusive access to the facilities. From this point the road continues to the car park and main entrance to the Union Building and its port cochere.

4.4 From the car park the road continues around the arc of phase 1 (upon completion of phases 2 and 3, the road will form a complete circle around the main site). At the northern most point of the arc, access is provided onto the capillary network of footpaths and tracks leading to the lodges around the site. Additionally access is provided to the road up to the 5* lodges and clubhouse, where a service car park with 10 car spaces and 3 van spaces caters for deliveries and access for all. It is proposed that guests will drop off at the clubhouse and their car will be parked in the visitors’ car park. Clubhouse guests will have use of electric buggies for circulation of the site.

4.3 The Dome Building 4.3.1 Intended as a domed structure taking reference from the central domed feature in the 2008 consented scheme and which creates a fitting arrival point on the site. The Dome Building is intended to provide a multifunctional, all-weather activity and events space. Further development and fit out in Phase 2 will accommodate a visitor/arrival centre with transport interchange, information kiosks, ancillary retail, food & drink, assembly and event functions.

4.3.2 The Dome Building will be a prominent landmark structure at the forefront of the site and on the new lake. The facility seeks to provide visitors with safe, informed and serviced access to the range of different experiences on offer in the region.

4.3.3 Both day visitors and hotel/university residents will have access to this facility. Through partnership with the National Park Authority, local councils, attraction managers and landowners, the Gateway building will be able to package any experience and support it with live information about availability and access. This will be key to achieving sustainable growth with increased economic benefit for the wider area.

4.3.4 The curved roof structure of the dome will be a gridshell constructed from a lattice-work of timber elements, edge supports and a steel edge beam along the perimeter. The openings in the gridshell’s lattice-work will be partly in-filled with translucent Texlon cushions. Other parts of the roof will be clad in solid timber, covered with insulation and waterproof membrane and finished with timber rain screen cladding.

4.4 150-room Hotel 4.4.1 This building has a stepped 8 storey design incorporating a 360 degree glazed sky lobby, a restaurant, wellness and beauty spa facilities and other hotel amenities.

4.4.2 The hotel and hostel will offer accommodation to a range of different visitors at a variety of price bands. As well as accommodation for tourists, the facilities will cater for local businesses and the wider public through provision of conferences and meeting facilities, weddings and events. It is intended that the sky lobby at level 8 will be a beacon and an exciting and exclusive destination.

4.4.3 The upper floors accommodating the hotel and hostel/university rooms have been designed to benefit from the repetition of modules. The rooms can be prefabricated modules brought to site and craned into position, with floor decks inserted between to form corridors and break out spaces at each level. Stair cores may also be prefabricated elements. The use of prefabrication has construction programme advantages and provides the high levels of quality control associated with factory manufacturing processes. The elevations of the buildings have been designed as a combination of simple walls with punched windows and glazed openings overlaid with a combination of see-through timber screens and timber shingles that integrate solar shading and privacy screens with balcony and terrace parapets. The hotel is clad in vertical timber slats, with the university building clad in timber shingles to give them distinct identities.

4.4.4 The 8th floor of the hotel building is a sky lobby which will be a primary feature of the hotel. It is conceived as a glass box to maximise views around the site and to act as a beacon when viewed from a distance. The glass will be framed with timber elements to tie the design in with the upper floors of the Union Building and to give some material continuity to the facade as a whole.

4.5 400-bed dual usage Tourist Hostel and University accommodation Building 4.5.1 The University building will be occupied by students during term time, but its flexible design will allow for use as additional hotel rooms during the summer months to maximise the variety of accommodation and price ranges available across the resort as a whole.

4.5.2 The building will be seven storeys high with a stepped roof line and would include some classrooms and meeting areas.

4.5.3 The hotel and university volumes are clad in vertical timber slats and timber shingles respectively. These elements allow articulation of the facade through the use of different module sizes, breaking it down to a human scale, whilst giving a textured, high quality surface finish.

4.6 Union Building 4.6.1 This building links and allows for accessing both the hotel and university buildings. It is a crescent shaped 6 storey building to create a spatial and visual break between the university and hotel accommodation wings. The building is intended as a common area with a flexible floor plan incorporating retail, restaurants, bars and cafés as well as areas for assembly, meetings and education.

4.6.2 The Union Building incorporates a stone plinth for the lower 2 storeys on top of which sit the timber clad volumes of the hotel and university buildings. The use of stone give the plinth a monolithic appearance, whilst at close proximity, the textured surface and subtle colour variation will give the building a comfortable human scale and high quality finish. Centrally above the plinth, a 4-storey volume with extensive south-west and north-east facing glass facades completes the Union Building.

4.6.3 The Union Building entrance is a double height space, which is designed as part of the public realm. Access to all buildings is linked via a double height colonnade overlooking a lake and amphitheatre. Together, all these spaces form the backbone of the scheme, emphasising the public realm at ground level, surrounded by the public functions of the hotel and university environment. In good weather it is intended the indoor activities can spread out and engage with these public realm spaces.

4.6.4 The eastern side of the floor plan at ground floor level is given over to service spaces necessary for the operation of the hotel and university building, such as plant rooms, kitchens and laundry rooms. These are arranged either side of the main entrance, so that access and egress for deliveries and waste removal can be provided from the main access road. Planting of trees and shrubs will screen the service entrances from public view.

4.6.5 The double height entrance space is glazed at both ends to maintain visual links through the building and provide elevated views to the lake and amphitheatre beyond. At 1st floor level, bridges span across the space to provide level access between the hotel and university wings of the building, where spaces for communal study, teaching and conference/meeting space are provided. The bridges provide visual drama in the space and allow visitors to orientate themselves, indicating that there are additional public facilities located at 1st floor level. Vertical circulation cores are arranged centrally at either side of the space. The Union Building Entrance is the key hub space within the building and will be energised by the adjacent retail and restaurant functions. The open and transparent nature of its design allows visitors to orientate themselves easily without reliance on unnecessary levels of directional signage. Double height ballroom and restaurant spaces are arranged above the main entrance on the 2nd and 4th floor respectively. The upper floors of the hotel and university buildings are arranged as double loaded corridors, offering a range of accommodation rooms and suites to meet the necessary occupancy levels within the building. On the 8th floor of the hotel, the glazed sky lobby is located to offer 360 degree views of the surrounding site.

4.7 30-unit Clubhouse and Lodges 4.7.1 This facility is located at the top of the hill to the west of the 2008 consented dome where a group of lodges were previously shown. The 5* facility would be linked together by a funicular and containing restaurant, bar, beauty and wellness medical facility and other ancillary functions such as meeting rooms. A 10 space car park is included for servicing purpses.

4.7.2 The lodges will offer a feeling of being more remote, private, and connected to the natural environment. It is intended as an exciting landmark feature. They will be serviced by the club house offering a higher prestige and exclusive location, intended to be of national and international renown.

4.7.3 The height of the clubhouse is 4 storeys set within an enclave of trees and surrounding landscape. The material palette for clubhouse and lodges is to be of high quality following that of the main site, with natural stone, timber and glazed facade elements between. Sailing over the whole club house structure is a large lightweight roof canopy constructed in steel with a timber soffit. This protects the roof terrace from the elements whilst forming a “port cochere” at ground level entrance below. The landscape around the clubhouse has an integrated pool deck with pool, picnic areas, a small outdoor bar, fire pits etc. The 5* lodges are integrated into the south western slope of the hilltop in a series of stepped landscaped terraces to connect them to the natural environment. The lodges are arranged in clusters and by partially sinking the 2 storey lodges into the landscape, they have limited impact on long views of the site. The surrounding trees help to further integrate them. They are stepped down the south western slope of the hill top but orientated to maintain key views to the West. The lodges are linked vertically to the clubhouse at the summit via a funicular, and horizontal circulation between lodges at each terrace level is dealt with via glazed circulation colonnades to maintain natural light into each space and views out to the terrace adjacent.

4.8 Public Realm/Layout 4.8.1 Landscaping and public realm facilities including a colonnade, new lake and landscaped amphitheatre, a viewing tower all intended to link the 4 buildings together as a whole.

4.8.2 The full development will have use of 2,850 spaces for parking cars and coaches on site however phase 1 provides 400 permanent spaces and 400 overflow places with a number of coach and public transport spaces. Direct access to the main entrance of the Union Building will be provided from the car park.

4.8.3 The layout of the car parking bays follows the site levels and natural contours, breaking down long rows of cars. Areas of soft landscaping are introduced to soften the impact and introduce variety. The surface of the car park is to be tarmac or such other surface material to avoid polluted water permeating into ground and water table and to cap existing landfill. The scheme includes a 1000 metre multi use event track/circuit around the parking zone which is intended for bicycles, pedestrians, runners and potentially electric vehicles

4.8.4 The lake is stepped to integrate with the sloping nature of the site, with one section of the lake available for swimming purposes and the remaining 3 steps being ornamental. The lake is a closed system and is not intended to perform any drainage function. A lakehouse is proposed at the northern end of the cascading lake replicating the size layout and materials of a medium sized lodge building.

4.8.5 The colonnade is a double height structure with a generous width to add drama and grandeur to the space whilst maximising views through to the lake beyond. The colonnade runs the full length of the Western side of the building and links the Union Building, Dome Building, Lake and amphitheatre together in one coherent public realm. Along the length of the colonnade, more public spaces are arranged providing restaurant, bar and spa facilities, as well as a ballroom and teaching kitchen for university students. All these spaces are double height with mezzanines inserted at first floor level, again to add drama and grandeur. The facade along the length of these spaces is glazed to maximise natural light and maintain transparency and views to the activities within.

4.8.6 The principal surfacing component to the Phase 1 Public Realm area will be stone paving and this will be set flush and well detailed for ease of access.

4.8.7 Drainage requirements are to be determined subsequently and safeguarded by condition on any S73 consent. Any gas from landfill is also to be determined subsequently and safeguarded by condition on any S73 consent.

4.9 The four applications are supported by:

 Highways addendum by Atkins Ltd  Schedule of Areas and Uses ComparisonTable.  Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum by ECUS Ltd  Design and Access Statement

5.0 THE APPLICATIONS

5.1 CHE/16/00317/REM1

5.1.1 The s73 application, seeks to vary condition 20 of CHE/0389/0210 to allow for a mixed use building for use by either tourists or students.

5.1.2 Condition 20 states that “none of the overnight accommodation on the site shall be used as permanent or long stay dwellings by any individual or group and that long stay means any longer than 4 weeks.”

5.1.3 The first phase of the scheme proposes a 150 room hotel, 51 woodland lodges and the mixed use building which accommodates either 250 tourist rooms or 400 bed student accommodation. The hotel accommodation and woodland lodges remain limited to the 4 weeks however the applicant seeks an extension to the permitted stay period to allow students to reside at the site during their educational programme. When the rooms are not occupied by a student the hotel use would revert to a limit of 4 weeks.

5.1.4 The applicant recommends the following condition should be imposed: “None of the overnight accommodation shall be used as permanent or long stay dwellings, by any individual or group. Long stay means any longer than 4 weeks, with the exception of any student legally enrolled on higher education or professional development programmes delivered by the Resort Campus and/or its partner educational institutions. This exception permits the legally enrolled students to stay for the duration of their education programme.”

5.2 CHE/16/00318/REM1

5.2.1 The s73 application, seeks to vary conditions 1a and 52 of CHE/0892/0496 to allow relocation of the phase 1 car park on the site.

The consented scheme provides: Phase 1: 400 permanent car parking bays 400 overspill parking bays 3 coach parking bays 30 staff parking spaces 250 electric buggy parking spaces Phase 2: 1,100 permanent car parking bays (of which 400 phase 1 overspill) Phase 3: 1,320 permanent car parking bays

5.2.2 Condition 01a of CHE/0892/0496 states “The Phase 1 car parking area is approved by this reserved matters consent, subject to further details of landscaping, hard surface treatment and a layout which does not encroach on the existing area of trees along the south west edge of the parking area (shown coloured pink on figure 4.9 of the ECUS Landscape and Visual Assessment "Tree Removal & Retention Plan") being submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration.”

The application seeks to relocate the parking area from the south west of the dome area to the north east as shown in the drawing above however the submission retains the consented phasing. The current proposal therefore only considers relocation of the phase 1 element

5.2.3 The applicant recommends the following condition should be imposed: “The Phase 1 car parking area with related overspill is approved by this S73 consent subject to further details of landscaping, hard surface treatment, drainage solutions and a layout which reasonably best minimises impacts to the river corridor woodland edge being submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Only those details or any amendments to those details which may be required, which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented on site.”

5.3 CHE/16/00319/REM1

5.3.1 The s73 application, seeks to vary condition 52 of CHE/0892/0496 to permit the Apart-Hotel Condominium (300 hotel room equivalent) approved as part of Phase Two of the Reserved Matters Approval to be bought forward to Phase One.

5.3.2 The original 1989 Outline Planning Permission provided for the development to be available for leisure and education purposes. It is proposed the relocated Apart-Hotel will form Halls of Residence accommodation to support inclusion of a university campus within Peak Resort. This will provide student residences during term time and be available as tourist hostel accommodation during university vacations, furthering the mixed use of the site.

5.3.3 The plan above is an extract from the approved masterplan with the S73 Phase One revised details defined. The approved location for the phase two Apart-Hotel is indicated by the orange shaded area. The approval allowed for 100, 1,000sqft units equivalent to 300 hotel rooms, including restaurants and cafés. The plan shows the proposed relocation of the Phase Two accommodation into the Phase One complex indicated by the purple shaded area. The proposed Halls of Residence will provide 250 rooms housing 400 beds, ancillary spaces and kitchens.

5.4 CHE/16/00320/REM1

5.4.1 The s73 application, seeks to vary condition 52 of CHE/0892/0496 to relocate the approved Phase One Clubhouse facility to an alternative location within the consented Phase One development area.

5.4.2 Consent CHE/0892/0496 approved the location for a clubhouse within the dome as defined by the yellow shaded area in the plan above. The gross external area proposed for the clubhouse was 2,850m2.

5.4.3 The S73 application proposes relocation of the clubhouse as defined by purple shaded area in the plan above. The gross external area proposed for the relocated clubhouse is 3,000m2.

6.0 CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Planning Policy

6.1.1 The site is situated within the Green Belt area as defined by Policy EVR1 ‘Green Belt’ of the 2006 Replacement Local Plan. The boundary of the green belt has been retained pending the adoption of a sites and boundaries DPD as part of a new local plan. Policy CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy states that the green belt will be maintained and enhanced. Policy CS14 promotes tourism and the visitor economy within the Borough.

6.1.2 Having further regard to the nature of the applications, Policies CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS5 (Renewable Energy), CS7 (Managing the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS13 (Economic Growth), CS18 (Design) and CS20 (Demand for Travel) of the 2013 Local Plan: Core Strategy are applicable as well as the wider National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

6.1.3 Key Issues

 Principle of the development;  Design/Appearance and Visual Impact;  Impact on neighbouring residential amenity;  Highways Safety and Parking Provision;  Ecology;  Drainage;  Land stability;  Designing Out Crime.

6.2 Principle of Development

6.2.1 The Peak Resort scheme is a priority for Council in that it has the benefit of planning approval and which has been previously agreed and justified within the Green Belt area. The scheme was the subject of a significant press release on 15th January 2015 when it was reported that the funding for the £400 million scheme delivering 1300 jobs had been secured. This showed confidence in investment in the Borough and was formerly announced by David Cameron during his visit to America with president Obama. The investment has been agreed with the Grand Heritage Hotel Group from America. This has allowed the scheme to progress and Stanton Williams Architects have been appointed to design a scheme reflecting the requirements of the investor.

6.2.2 The Peak Resort aims to create a year round tourism, leisure and education destination on the edge of the Peak District National Park, comprising holiday lodges, hotel and university campus set within a 300 acre managed park. The activities of the University integrate with the hospitality and tourism offer to provide visitors and students alike world-class opportunities for vocational and recreational learning. The scheme aims to create a destination where outstanding architecture combined with the highest quality of design achieve an iconic resort that maximises the potential of the site and realises the ambitious vision and objectives set out by the developer. The scheme aims to be exemplary in terms of sustainability both from an environmental perspective as well as from the point of view of the local community, and to develop successful strategies for the environment and local employment.

6.2.3 The scheme is planned to be constructed in three phases. The applicant has indicated the intention to implement the development scheme with the first phase of construction taking place and progressing through to the completion of the scheme over the following 3 years. The first phase involves the development of the site access from Sheffield Road, where a new roundabout has been accepted at the Sheffield Road/ by pass slip road junction, together with the creation of the dome platforms and the fencing of the site together with the diversion of the public rights of way. Woodland cropping is also proposed as part of the initial phase.

6.2.4 The current applications for change do not alter the parameters set by the existing permissions with locations, scale and quantum of development all falling within what has already been assessed and granted. The proposed uses for the site satisfy the current land use policies and will form a major source of long term employment for the local community in the tourism industry, both within the resort and the wider community.

6.2.5 During the construction phases, the scheme will represent a significant source of employment for the local community, drawing on the local workforce and potentially putting local skills to use for instance in the off-site prefabrication of elements of the development such as the holiday lodges or the hotel room module construction. Once in operation, the scheme will benefit the surrounding local community by adding services of high quality and supporting local business both during construction and in the long term with the operation of the resort.

6.2.6 One of the new features is the introduction of a University Campus onto the site with its related accommodation for students. This assists in delivering an education component of the scheme and fulfils a mixed use proposal.

6.2.7 Bringing the university function into the scheme offers a unique opportunity to train young people studying hospitality, leisure and tourism courses in a “live” hotel and tourism environment. It offers visitors access to learning in pursuit of vocational and recreational interest. Inclusion of the University Building will provide the clear differential with other locations as well as provide significant operating efficiencies. This will assist in delivering employment by facilitating learn and earn degree apprenticeships for students resident at the site. At the same time the accommodation will provide tourist opportunities when the students are not resident.

6.2.8 The applicant confirms that the scheme supports institutional investment by incorporating the campus in the overall resort destination thus helping to sustain the financial viability of the whole resort. This enhances viability ensuring year round use of facilities and accommodation.

6.2.9 The inclusion of the phase II Apart Hotel also facilitates education within the scheme since it provides a dedicated space which enables occupation of the Resort by enrolled students for the duration of their educational programme. Provision of Halls of Residence and a site-based student population ensures year round use of Resort facilities and accommodation. It will support ongoing institutional investment in the Resort Campus development, thus sustaining the financial viability of the whole Resort. The Halls of Residence will further increase viability by providing sports hostel accommodation during university vacations, expanding the accommodation portfolio and visitor offer.

6.2.10 The Economic Development Unit confirms their support for the proposals commenting that given the scale of the proposal there will be employment, training and supply chain opportunities during the construction and operational phases. They recommend local labour / supply chain clauses are negotiated as part of a s106 or planning condition. They also encourage the end user to work with the Council and its partners to ensure that local people are able to benefit from any additional jobs created by the development. The EDU confirms this would accord with the Councils Corporate Plan and Core Strategy.

6.2.11 No policy objection in principle arises to the relocation of the phase II Apart Hotel into phase 1 or the inclusion of a University Campus on the site which accords with the desire to incorporate education into the scheme, as referred to in the outline permission and which is supported by policy CS14 of the Core Strategy. It will be important however to maintain the restriction on occupation of the accommodation for tourists and this is reflected in the suggested new wording of the condition by the applicant.

6.2.12 As far as the Economic Development Unit comments are concerned the current applications do not change the principle of the development of the site which is already established and it is not appropriate therefore to impose new requirements through a new legal agreement. There is an opportunity to discuss with the developer employment, training and supply chain opportunities however this cannot be made a formal requirement of the current applications.

6.3 Design / Appearance and Visual Impact

6.3.1 In accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS18, all new development should identify, respond to and integrate with the character of the site and surroundings and respect the local distinctiveness of its context. In doing so developments are expected to respect the character, form and setting of the site and surrounding area; having regard to its function, appearance, scale and massing.

6.3.2 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF also states that, ‘The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people’.

6.3.3 The outline permission is for a fully enclosed built form of 312 metres diameter and 60 metres in height. Phase 1 of the current proposal reflects the area identified as Phase 1 on the 2008 reserved matters consent, occupying a “wedge” of the overall diameter on the North East side of the site. Compared to the notional envelope identified in the outline permission, the current proposal for Phase 1 remains within the consented dome area but is much lighter in form. The Union Building, Hotel and University accommodation are broken down into three distinct volumes that do not exceed the permitted height. Similarly, the arrival Dome building is a single volume grid shell domed structure that sits within the parameters of the outline consent. The proposed location of the development is towards the south-east of the site, where the natural gradient of the hill slopes down, keeping the profile of the proposed development well below the ridge line of the hilltop immediately to the north-west. The proposed revised Phase 1 development height of 34.5m is below the domes of Phases 2 and 3 and well within the 60m maximum height parameters prescribed in the 1989 outline planning permission.

6.3.4 The spaces in and around the buildings are put to best use by creating public amenities, which add to the experience of the resort and create an opportunity for outstanding public realm. As a result, the proposed scheme for phase 1 has an overall mass and volume smaller than the notional permitted “envelope”, with a consequent reduced visual impact on the surrounding areas and this enables a sustainable design.

6.3.5 Relocation of the Clubhouse will enable dedicated and improved servicing of the consented woodland and fairway lodges. The building will provide restaurant, bar, meeting and medical facilities alongside supporting outdoor recreation activities, including any golf provision in keeping with the reserved matters consent. The relocated Clubhouse remains directly integrated with the Phase 1 development, sharing the main resort access and will be accessible to guests of the other resort accommodation. The current application seeks to agree the principle of relocation, the scale and the permitted use only. Full details of the designs of the buildings, materials, construction and mitigating woodland protection will be provided via subsequent reserved matters submissions.

6.3.6 The proposed clubhouse location offers framed views and aspects across the landscape towards Chesterfield, North East Derbyshire and the Peak District National Park, thus creating a greater sense of location and connectivity beyond the Resort. The height of the clubhouse is limited to 4 storeys to soften its impact on the landscape, so that it reads as a building within the enclave of trees and surrounding landscape. The 5* lodges are integrated into the south western slope of the hilltop in a series of stepped landscaped terraces to connect them to the natural environment. The stepped landscaped terraces provide space amongst the lodges for visitor use and enjoyment. They are arranged in clusters and by partially sinking the 2 storey lodges into the landscape, they have limited impact on long views of the site. The surrounding trees and new landscaping will help to further integrate them. They are stepped down the south western slope of the hill top but orientated to maintain key views to the west. The 2 storey lodges are linked vertically to the clubhouse at the summit via a funicular, and horizontal circulation between lodges at each terrace level is dealt with via glazed circulation colonnades to maintain natural light into each space and views out to the terrace adjacent.

6.3.7 The applications are supported by a Landscape and Visual Assessment which considers any additional impacts arising from the changes to the building footprint, height, form and massing and the impacts form the car park relocation. The assessment concludes that the changes with the main buildings, albeit of a more urban form compared with the previous scheme, will be nominal compared to the consented scheme however the landscape north of the site and the west facing slopes are most susceptible to change posed by the clubroom and 5* lodge development. It accepts that the clubhouse and lodges will interrupt the skyline although the lodges are small scale and sunken into the landform limiting any effects. The clubhouse and lodges will adversely affect the rural character of this part of the site with night time effects being particularly noticed (lighting from upper windows). The assessment considers 10 locations around the locality and concludes that the residual effects on landscape character will be medium to low significance however mitigation is recommended specifically for the clubhouse and lodge development to minimise adverse effects on visual character of the landscape and to limit closer range impacts arising from the proposed parking area. The Assessment recommends mitigation in the form of the need to use high quality natural materials and that tree planting around the clubhouse is of an initial size to provide immediate impact. It also concludes that planting to the north and north east of the new parking area will soften foreground views and soil bunds will help protect views from Unstone Green. Such mitigation measures can be conditioned as part of any permission issued.

6.3.8 The planting strategy for the site is based on the Derbyshire Landscape Character Area 38 of Landscape Type Wooded Hills and Valleys guidelines, which inform the woodland and hedgerow species mixes. The proposed native planting will take into account the species already on site and the surrounding area. The design principles followed in the landscaping proposals within and around Phase 1 aim at integrating the buildings into the existing landform, and emphasise its engagement with the surrounding landscape to mitigate its visual impact. The area in and around the buildings will integrate hard and soft landscaping to help define the public spaces and create the attractive and successful public realm. The landscaping of this area will consist of more formal tree planting with a mix of native and ornamental species, to form a gradual transition from formal around the Phase 1 buildings to naturalistic planting within the wider landscape.

6.3.9 Lighting within and around the whole development will be designed to provide low-level background lighting. High efficiency, low energy light sources will be selected to minimise energy requirements. Light sources are to be kept at low level, integrated in the fabric of the buildings and designed to light the objects within rather than the space itself. The applicant refers to the management policies of the resort which will ensure that light levels are kept to a minimum after hours.

6.3.10 The car park is proposed to be relocated from the position shown on the 2008 consent south west of the dome to the north east corner of the site for a variety of reasons. This secures a better and more attractive sense of arrival. The agreed scheme places the car park area ahead of and obscuring or distracting from the architecture however the current location allows visitors to appreciate the architecture on arrival and as they drive past it towards the car park area. The relocation provides direct and logical access to the main entrance of the central Union Building. Public car access is restricted to the car parking area so, following the initial arrival, the scheme is designed to be car free, with access around the site via a capillary network of tracks and footpaths to encourage walking and cycling and use of electric buggies and site buses. The location in the north-east corner is a more discrete position in the locality that takes advantage of the existing trees on site which will naturally screen the car park from the adjacent Sheffield Road (B6057). Whilst the car park position on the 2008 consent was prominent from the main site entrance, its revised location maintains uninterrupted views up the hilltop ridge when travelling from the site entrance up to the Dome arrival Building.

6.3.11 The current application seeks to agree only the first phase of car parking provision leaving the debate concerning the location of phases 2 and 3 of the car park for further deliberation in the future. The relocated phase 1 car park is certainly more hidden that the consented hillside location agreed in 2008. It will have reduced impacts with regard to lighting since the hillside location would have been difficult to conceal. Low level bollard lighting which, together with landscaping and planting, will assist in reducing illumination at night. The proposed phase 1 car park location more closely relates to existing concentrations of illumination within the urban area thereby minimising light pollution. Furthermore the car park will have reduced lighting impacts compared with the consented floodlit driving range in this location. It is considered however that the mitigation of earth bunds and additional landscaping, as advocated in the visual assessment study will be required and this can be secured by condition.

6.4 Residential Amenity

6.4.1 Core Strategy Policy CS18 comments that development will be expected to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of users and neighbours. Policy CS2 (Principles for Location of Development) indicates that all development will be required to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of users or adjoining occupiers taking into account noise, odour, air quality, traffic, appearance, overlooking, shading or other environmental, social or economic impacts.

6.4.2 The nearest residential neighbours to the site are those on Cheetham Avenue, Sylvia Road and the Sheffield Road frontage to the north and those on Sheffield Road and Mallory Close to the east. The existing permission allows for a 60 metre high dome 312 metres in diameter. The first phase buildings are located within the original circle location but biased towards its southern end. This results in the following separation distances between the proposed buildings and the neighbours:

Main Buildings: Address Distance in metres 266 Sheffield Road 375 11 Cheetham Avenue 385 11 Sylvia Road 425 Birch Hall Farm, Sylvia Road 600 871 Sheffield Road 200 6 Mallory Close 280

Car Park phase 1: Address Distance in metres 266 Sheffield Road 245 11 Cheetham Avenue 270 11 Sylvia Road 335 Birch Hall Farm, Sylvia Road 545 871 Sheffield Road 160 6 Mallory Close 280

Clubhouse/5* Lodges: Address Distance in metres 266 Sheffield Road 740 11 Cheetham Avenue 700 11 Sylvia Road 600 Birch Hall Farm, Sylvia Road 490 871 Sheffield Road 840 6 Mallory Close 820

6.4.3 The changes to the buildings remain within the dome circle and below the parameters set in the outline consent and that which was approved in the 2008 reserved matters submission. As shown in the table above there are considerable separation distances to the nearest dwellings and in each case there are intervening woodland areas which generally separate the site from views from the neighbours. The visual assessment shows that there will be impacts as a result of the changes however they will not be significant and can be mitigated to an acceptable level. The fully glazed sky-lobby is a new feature of the scheme and which takes advantage of the views out over the surrounding area. It is considered that such views would only be generally available during day light hours and so it would be appropriate to consider a screening system during hours of darkness to prevent light pollution and glare as perceived from residential properties to the north and east of the site. This can be secured by condition 38 of the 2008 reserved matters consent.

6.4.4 The main changes promoted in the current applications primarily concern the relocated car parking and the clubhouse development on the hilltop site. The car parking area will be closer to residents to the north of the site on Cheetham Avenue and Sylvia Road but they will only be accessed from the south via the new main site access off the new roundabout. The first phase car parking area (to which this current s73 application relates) is within the lozenge assessed as part of the original outline permission. Property to the north is largely separated from the site by a woodland area and river and new planting is proposed as part of the perimeter greenway fencing and the requirement for mitigation associated with the proposed parking area. Whilst the application shows phase 2 and 3 parking areas much closer to these properties, and including new mounding and landscaped woodland which would be planted, the current submission deals only with phase 1 and the debate concerning the appropriate location for further parking on the site can be undertaken at a later date. It is considered that the relationship between the proposed phase 1 parking and the nearest residential properties is acceptable and any impacts can be mitigated by sensitive mounding, landscaping and lighting and which can be dealt with by condition.

6.4.5 The club house location is on elevated land within the heart of the site and which benefits from views out over the surrounding area. It is limited in terms of its overall scale and is to be designed in the landscape to achieve natural screening and minimal impact. Whilst the facility will be seen in the local context it will be sufficient distant from any neighbour so as not to be harmful to their amenities in planning terms. Additional planting can assist in mitigating the adverse impacts of this component of the scheme.

6.4.6 The proposed changes are considered to be acceptable in so far as they impact on the amenity of local residents and which subject to the imposition of conditions satisfy policies CS2 and CS18 of the Core Strategy.

6.5 Highways Safety and Parking

6.5.1 Atkins Ltd has assessed the changes from a transport impact perspective taking account of the development agreed in total at the site and that which was consented under the 2008 first phase reserved matters submission. They comment that the overall number of beds in phase 1 is reduced by 9% however the characteristics of the accommodation users also changes with 400 bed spaces used for long stay student accommodation for 8 months of the year. Students will be able to use on-site parking but their use of available vehicles is likely to be less than short stay visitors to the consented sports hostel. TRICS database has been used to derive vehicular trip rate information for student accommodation and hotel rooms. Trip rate and traffic generation comparison indicates that a hotel is likely to result in four times the number of trips during AM and PM peaks when compared with student accommodation. Atkins Ltd conclude that the overall traffic generation levels of the development will be reduced during the 8 months of the year when students are accommodated on site and the variation of the condition will therefore have no detrimental highway impact ad actually reduces the impact for much of the year.

6.5.2 The Local Highway Authority has reviewed the four applications and has raised no objection. Their only comments relate to the car park relocation submission. They comment that the scale of the phase 1 car park on such a scaled site would not be a problem however they question whether any discussions have yet taken place with local bus operators to gauge opinion on potential bus service penetration of the site. They comment that there appears to be no convenient means for buses/coaches to park or turn within the scheme. They also say that commercial bus services run to strict timetables and there is often little scope to incorporate extended diversions to any routes. They comment that the parking area is further from the access point and this may discourage regular bus services from accessing the site. They also comment that the plans appear to show vehicular linkages to the existing golf course site access which could be seen as an alternative, more convenient entrance/exit point. The potential impact of the use of this access has not been previously considered or modelled in transportation terms. This access could not cater for the significant increase in traffic that it could be subjected to as an alternative entrance/exit.

6.5.3 It is clear from the application submission that no public access will be available to the proposed parking area or site from the existing golf course access. The site is to be fenced to be able to control access. The detail shows that the golf course access is to be gated and made available during the day for public parking as a replacement for the area currently used adjacent to the by pass slip road on Sheffield Road which will be lost as a result of the scheme. A gate into the site will be available for maintenance vehicles of the park only and a condition can be imposed on any planning permission granted to ensure that this is not used as a public access to the parking area.

6.5.4 In so far as bus services to and from the site this will be a matter for discussion between site operator and bus service providers. There will be plenty of opportunity for buses to be able to turn on the site. The proposed changes make no difference to this since the access and dome area with building entrances in the same location as already approved. The applicant is also required under the existing s106 agreement to deliver a bus shuttle service as part of the green travel initiatives included in the scheme.

6.5.5 It is clear that the original assessment of the scheme included parking opportunities at all 4 quadrants of dome. This was illustrated in the lozenge shaped areas on the drawings accompanying the application at the time as shown above. The current phase 1 parking area falls within the zone shown to the north of the dome area and is being promoted by the applicant to take advantage of the following benefits compared with the consented parking area:  Better ecological impact;  Better sense of arrival;  Better treatment of landfill site;  Better gradients resulting in safer and more effective sustainable drainage;  Better visual impact  Reduced construction costs

6.5.6 The alternative location for the phase 1 parking area is considered to be appropriate in highways terms and satisfies the requirements of policy CS2, CS18 and CS20 of the Core Strategy.

6.6 Ecology

6.6.1 There is already a requirement to undertake ecological survey as part of the consented scheme and surveys have been undertaken as baseline data. The main issue in ecology terms relates to the relocation of the car park which is likely to have lower ecological impact compared with the consented scheme. The Environmental Statement classified the relocation area as improved grassland with little interest both botanically and for other wildlife on site with low ecological value and loss of habitat having negligible significance. By comparison part of agreed parking area to the south of the dome was accepted as having potential impacts during the construction phase, including loss of semi natural habitat …. Including some land designated as a wildlife site. The relocated car park site is now remote from the Wildlife site and Ancient Woodland areas thereby safeguarding them.

6.6.2 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has confirmed that no objections are raised to the changes proposed.

6.7 Drainage

6.7.1 The existing permissions already include conditions concerning the drainage strategy for the site and however surface water is to be managed. The scheme includes a number of attenuation lakes as part of the solution. Moving the car park to the lower plateau level from the south of the dome where an average 1 in 8 gradient exists will result in slower surface water run off which has beneficial drainage management implications. Proposed location is flat enabling a more sustainable and conventional surface and water management and this can be detailed and required as part of any condition on any consent granted.

6.7.2 Both the Environment Agency and the Councils own Drainage Engineer have raised no objections concerning the revised proposals.

6.8 Land Stability

6.8.1 The existing permissions already include conditions concerning the necessity to ensure the stability of the site is safeguarded. The relocation of the car park includes an opportunity to appropriately seal and cap the historic landfill which exists to the north east part of the site and thereby, through a sustainable drainage system, reduce surface water run off across the landfill area protecting the adjacent wooded river corridor from pollutants leaching into ground water

6.8.2 The Councils Environmental Health Officer has considered the applications and raises no objection in principle to the proposals.

6.9 Designing out Crime

6.9.1 The proposals for the Peak Resort are for a gated environment where guests and visitor access is monitored at the entrance point and throughout the car park, which are the only areas of the site to have vehicular public access. The site layout is designed to present the more public area of the dome at the outset, as the first destination after entering the resort, whereas less public areas like the golf course and the lodges have been located further a field so as to introduce a structure of progressive filter to guests and visitors access.

6.9.2 The Peak Resort facility will be managed by on-site staff covering aspects of guest service as well as maintenance and security. An appropriate level of management and maintenance will be ensured throughout the site as part of the operation of the resort and contribute, together with the security features described above and developed in the future stages of the design, to achieve a highly safe and secure environment for the enjoyment of guests and visitors, and for the benefit of the wider community in the neighbouring area. The main security features will consist of hawthorn hedge and fence running along the whole perimeter of the resort complete with CCTV coverage centrally monitored on site, an access barrier at the site entrance, and low level wood post & rail and hawthorn hedge enclosures around the holiday lodge areas. Details of the proposed site fencing system, access barriers as well as the extent and type of CCTV coverage on site are covered by the existing permissions for the scheme.

6.9.3 Derbyshire Constabulary has considered the applications and confirm that none of the proposals are a cause for concern since the strategic measures proposed are appropriate however there will need to be more detail over both structural and management security measures. Derbyshire Constabulary accept that this will be detailed as the scheme progresses.

7.0 REPRESENTATIONS

7.1 Site notices posted on 08/06/2016, advert in Derbyshire Times on 09/06/2016 and 75 neighbours individually notified on 06/06/2016. 16 letters of representation have been received plus 57 resident petition and letter from Unstone Parish Council and which are summarised/outlined as follows:

7.1.1 5 Sylvia Road (318) Extreme displeasure regarding the car park proposal. They will be subject to pollution, noise, constant comings and goings, vehicle lights especially in winter and the 3 or 4 storey high car park lighting. The developer should not be allowed to get away with the proposal to the detriment of local residents. See no reason to reposition the car park upsetting locals who in the main support the scheme especially when the dollars being put in will go infinitely further since Brexit.

7.1.2 9 Sylvia Road Unfair to fundamentally change the scheme which everyone in the area has come to accept. The main concerns relate to the relocation of the parking area and they reiterate comments made by 15 Sylvia Road.

Comment: See paragraphs 6.3.7, 6.3.10, 6.3.11, 6.4.4 and 6.5 regarding car park relocation.

7.1.3 15 Sylvia Road Welcome the proposed development and keen to ensure the development finds the ideal balance between commercial success, educational opportunity and integration into the existing community. Express concerns regarding the car park proposals due to noise, disturbance and additional air and light pollution. The agreed car park represents a superior and preferred position for the car park closer to the A61 and industrial areas of Sheepbridge. The proposed position places the 2800 space car park metres away from a residential area resulting in noise and disturbance in such close proximity to local residents being unacceptable. Residents have a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet afforded by a semi-rural countryside setting. The additional generation of pollutants from vehicle exhausts from 2800 vehicles is likely to have a substantial, adverse impact on the health of the community. To place such a high pollution source so close to a residential area when appropriate and previously approved alternatives exist would be unacceptable. Vehicle manoeuvring outside daylight hours will require use of headlights with the resulting shining of headlights into residents’ properties and will present a substantial nuisance and source of random and intrusive light pollution into neighbouring properties. Object to the Apart Hotel on noise, disturbance, overbearing and design grounds. The principal of including the phase 2 apart hotel into the phase 1 construction period, would be an acceptable, low impact change. However, included in the change is a repositioning of the building, a change of height compared to the building it replaces and the removal of the dome structure from approximately 180 degrees of the complex, predominantly on the north facing elevation. The new position of the student accommodation facing the North and North East, at the increased building height now directly faces a residential area. There are now approximately 250 student rooms, each with doorway access to personal balconies facing the residential areas of Sheffield Road, Cheetham Avenue and Sylvia Road. The resulting noise and disturbance arising from typical student behaviour during all times of the day and night is likely to be substantial and therefore completely unacceptable to a community containing a high proportion of elderly residents and young families. The increased building height results in noise and disturbance having direct line-of-sight transmission to the Unstone Green community. The repositioning of the Hotel and University buildings to the north most quadrants of the Dome represent a substantial height increase (approximately doubling the height of the northern elevation) and creates a far more overbearing building than the one previously approved. In addition the removal of a full 180 degrees of the dome structure over the north most elevation means that the design and appearance of the building is not in keeping with the approved “dome complex” concept which substantially improved the integration of the buildings with their immediate countryside surroundings as well as the appearance of the buildings themselves. Object to the change to the length of stay on noise and disturbance grounds. If the student accommodation is retained in the position already consented (south west dome quadrant) I have no objections to this variation. As proposed I object on the grounds that the resulting noise and disturbance from typical “full time” student behaviour during all times of the day and night is likely to be substantial and therefore completely unacceptable. The increased effective building height also means that the noise and disturbance will have direct line-of-sight transmission to the Unstone Green community. Object to relocation of clubhouse due to noise, disturbance and design not being in keeping with consented plans or surrounding area. The proposed club house building is not in keeping with the remainder of the site which nestles buildings unobtrusively into the natural slopes and topology of the landscape. This building will tower out of the treeline and be visible substantial distances away. Due to its hilltop location, and it being a communal point for social gatherings the resulting noise and disturbance arising from typical social and celebratory behaviour during all times of the day, and extended periods into the night is likely to be substantial and therefore completely unacceptable. The proposed positioning and height means that the noise and disturbance will have direct line- of-sight transmission to the Unstone Green community as well as nearby areas such as Hundall, New Whittington and Apperknowle.

7.1.4 Birch Hall Farm, Sylvia Road (x2) Letter 1 Accept there was always an intention to provide some form of educational facility so see no reason why an extension for length of stay for students should not be permitted. It should however be clearly defined. The relocation of the car park would be detrimental to local residents quality of life causing noise nuisance. There would be air and light pollution issues. Low level lighting for the car parks is unlikely to be successful as they would be screened by vehicles. The best and most efficient way of lighting a large parking area is to utilise tall columns with multiple luminaries. The car park should be located where originally proposed. Concern that the car park offered to walkers and riders at the north east corner of the site has been removed from the proposal. Concern that the earn and learn principle will mean that jobs will be filled by university students with little full time employment for others. (Evidenced by the fact that only 30 parking spaces are provided for staff). Previous promises of several hundred permanent jobs was one of the reasons for support of the scheme however following construction there will be few jobs for local people. There are no proposals to provide any resort type sports of leisure facilities (golf course, driving range, sports injury clinic, golf hotel, climate controlled water park) These are an essential part of the resort development and should be part of phase 1. A considerable amount of the developers land would be outside the security fence which is a concern as access would be possible form the new greenway. Currently people use the neglected golf course for dog walking with loose dogs chasing animals at Birch Hall Farm. There is an abundance of wildlife however there are regular instances of people shooting on the land. The lack of maintenance is a major problem with several un- maintained and dangerous trees overhanging or resting on boundary fences and preventing their electric fence from operating. The land owner refuses to carry out maintenance of the trees. Dangerous weeds (Ragwort) are also allowed to grow on the property and this has been reported to Natural England. Numerous items of correspondence is attached demonstrating an irresponsible attitude of the site owner. If this land remains outside the fence then the issues will only become worse.

Comment: Comments regarding the support for the length of stay are noted. See paragraphs 6.3.7, 6.3.10, 6.3.11, 6.4.4 and 6.5 regarding car park relocation. Noise levels are already restricted by existing conditions 24 of the original permission and 36 of the 2008 reserved matters consent. Detailed lighting design including lux contours are also to be agreed under condition 38 of the 2008 reserved matters consent. Reference to the car park for walkers and horse riders being removed from the scheme is incorrect. The current applications do not deal with this element of the scheme which is a separate matter however it is the case that the developer is considering the appropriate number of spaces needed as part of this offer. There is no intention to remove the facility from the scheme. The reference to 30 staff parking spaces is believed to be a reference to the area which is planned for walkers and horse riders outside the site fencing and accessed via the golf club access. See paragraph 6.2 regarding employment. It is accepted that students embarking on an “earn and learn” programme will affect employment available however it is considered that there will still be considerable employment opportunities available as part of the scheme which will not be available to students. Issues raised concerning maintenance of land and relationship between the respective property owners is not relevant to the determination of the current applications and will be a private matter not involving the local planning authority.

Letter 2 New information has come to light which is relevant. Mr Carr is not the owner. Research of the directors and shareholders of Birchall Properties Ltd reveals a company called Marnbury Properties Ltd who own Birchall Properties and is a major shareholder, a company called Swan Hill Homes also owns shares in Birchall properties. Three directors of Marnbury are directors of Birchall along with Mr Carr who is a minor shareholder. Mr Carr is not listed as director of the parent company Marnbury Properties or any of the other numerous associated companies. It seems Birchall properties (Marnbury Properties) owns the site. The directors of Marnbury are also directors of numerous other property investment companies (found 16 without looking too hard). One is Baylight Properties PLC a company with substantial assets and which has a charge /mortgage against Birchall Properties Ltd as do Marnbury Properties Ltd and Grand Heritage Hotels Group LLC. It appears Mr Carr has misled everyone about ownership and all parties should be informed. It is disappointing that the proposed development would do little to put money into the local economy. Coupled with the fact that the majority of jobs will be filled by students questions the benefit for the local area. Questions whether the committee awarding the £2.8m grant were aware of this. What is now proposed is no longer a resort and the previous named developer is not in control of Birchall properties Ltd and for this reason the real developers should be asked to submit a new planning application and approval be considered against its limited local benefits.

Comment: The applications are made by Mr Rupert Carr under Birchall Properties Ltd and certificates A are signed (the applicant is owner with a freehold or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run). There is nothing in what Mr Wilson has indicated which confirms that the applications are falsely certified.

7.1.5 1 Cheetham Avenue (318) Concern regarding the new car park. The original location was sited away from residential area. The proposed location will cause noise pollution and disturbance. The car park is literally metres away from Cheetham Avenue. Concern regarding continuous traffic noise at all hours detrimental to living standards. Instead of lakes and golf course the whole area would be tarmac.

7.1.6 3 Cheetham Avenue (318) Concern regarding the new car park in so far as noise, visual, impact on residential amenity and increase in traffic. The car park will affect residents and wildlife.

7.1.7 9 Cheetham Avenue (317, 319, 320) Express objections on basis that will be greatly affected by the re locating of the clubhouse due to the noise generated by late night celebrations, light pollution and general disturbance. Objection also to a 7 storey 400 student apartment accommodation overlooking Unstone Green. Typical student behaviour during the day and night likely to be a major noise disturbance. The addition of sky lobbies and observation towers could be a source of light pollution at unsociable hours and the addition of an open air amphitheatre will also be a significant cause of noise and light pollution. A 2800 space car park will undoubtedly cause significant air pollution especially during summer months when it will be hotter and no breeze with car head light shining through house windows and car doors banging. Why could the proposal not be moved to the south west as was envisaged originally and the car parking placed nearer to the by-pass which will not affect Cheetham Avenue and Unstone.

7.1.8 19 Cheetham Avenue Much as I appreciate that the scheme is an exciting development for Chesterfield, I have concerns with the proposed variations. The new design is indeed "sensitive to the site" but not sensitive, unnecessarily compromising the quality of life for local residents. I consider it inappropriate to move the car park to its revised location as this places it too near residents on Cheetham Avenue and Sheffield Road. Concerns regarding increase in pollution from vehicles with increased risk on health. The potential for 2850 car and coach arrivals and departures on a continuous basis cannot fail to pollute the atmosphere. Keeping to its original proposed location, on the southerly gorse field, distanced itself from the local homes and would reduce the impact. Noise levels of the car park would have an impact on the quality of life for locals. There are no natural barriers to prevent that noise from carrying across to the residents. The size of Brierley Wood is too shallow in depth and the deciduous nature of the trees insufficient (especially in winter) to create a natural barrier to the noise. Concerns regarding noise pollution as Peak Resort is designed for "year round tourism, leisure and education" and "public spaces ... to encourage and promote a high level of human activity". It is designed for visitors to enjoy themselves and which will emanate increased noise levels. The residents on Cheetham Ave have already experienced competitive events taking place on the current golf course and we can clearly hear conversations taking place. Again, Brierley Wood, even in full foliage, does nothing to dissipate the noise. Nuisance law has been well refined for the protection of property owners from noise nuisance and, to quote, "Those residing in a leafy village would expect a high degree of quietness to protect the rural characteristics of the area". The plans contain a number of statements which are concerning with reference to “all-weather activity and events spaces can spread out and engage with these public realm spaces", the lake is "available for swimming purposes", the Resort will cater for "outdoor vocational, wellness and adventure pursuits" for "day visitors and hotel/university residents", hosting "events" with associated "audience/special event guests", the multi-event track around the car park, 400 students in residence with open balconies facing Cheetham Avenue, funicular in use at the highest point of the Resort, Amphitheatre for events - facing Unstone and 2850 eventual car & coach parking spaces in close proximity to Cheetham Avenue and Sheffield Road. Reference is made to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and statutory nuisances. By the nature of the resort, and its intent for year round use, people will generate noise associated with enjoyment and activities. Clarification is required from the developers as to the extent of the following to which local residents may be exposed - loudspeakers/tannoys, fireworks, open-air musical concerts, public entertainment, alcohol induced disturbances, noise from Halls of Residence, vehicle events - go-carts, motor bikes, etc, club house, restaurants, bars. Is there a closing time for these venues? Concern is also expressed regarding potential for light pollution. The Resort will have to "deliver lighting levels to support the management of safety and security across the site". Typically, this would incorporate footpaths, car parks, signage, lake, decorative and landscape lights and the buildings of the hotels, club houses, dome, colonnade, observation tower and sky lobby ("at level 8 will be a beacon"). Reassurances are required that these will be of low impact and low level sufficient to maintain the required standards but to impose minimum disturbance on Unstone residents and the environment. The impact of the proposed relocation of the car park and the impact of lighting and car lights in the dark are of serious concern. Even low level landscaping will not obscure headlights as I understand that sight lines cannot be obscured and hedges cannot exceed 1m in height principally to avoid areas of concealment. This would be another reason not to place the car park in its proposed new location. The resident notes that "The proposed site will form a major source of long term employment for the local community" and "During the construction phases, the scheme will represent a significant source of employment for the local community, drawing on the local workforce and potentially putting local skills to use". Can the developers clarify the employment potential for the resort in the community as this seems to be contradicted by the fact that only 30 car park spaces are allocated in the Phase One car park? Using the current Derby University course as an example, the 400 University students learning hospitality will be covering the areas of Hospitality management; Leisure; Licensed retail; In-house catering; Outside contract catering for events; Accommodation; Functions, Events, banqueting and conferences; Human resources; Sales and marketing; Operations management. Can the developers indicate which areas they perceive where local employment could be utilised? It is noted that the applicant proposes to reduce the size of the car park to service the diverted footpath from 30 to 10 spaces. The resident considers that could be detrimental as the footpath is intended to be used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists and the car park will quickly fill and any overspill will impact on Cheetham Avenue and Sheffield Road. As we already experiencing a high capacity of on street parking this would be disastrous. If the car park capacity is reduced, it should be Residents only with car parking permits for the residents of Cheetham Ave and Sheffield Road at no cost to the residents. Since the purchase of the land and golf course by Birchall Properties there has been a general refusal to undertake any maintenance of Brierley Wood bordering the properties of Cheetham Avenue. It is of great concern that once the perimeter fence has been erected that an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude would be adopted. Can the developers provide reassurance that they will maintain and manage the woodland on a professional basis at no cost to the residents?

Comment: See paragraphs 6.3.7, 6.3.10, 6.3.11, 6.4.4 and 6.5 regarding car park relocation. Noise levels are already restricted by existing conditions 24 of the original permission and 36 of the 2008 reserved matters consent. Detailed lighting design including lux contours are also to be agreed under condition 38 of the 2008 reserved matters consent. See paragraph 6.4 regarding impact on residential amenity. See paragraph 6.2 regarding employment. It is accepted that students embarking on an “earn and learn” programme will affect employment available however it is considered that there will still be considerable employment opportunities available as part of the scheme which will not be available to students. Reference to the car park for walkers and horse riders being reduced is not of relevance to the current applications but is a separate matter. It is the case that the developer is considering the appropriate number of spaces needed as part of this offer. It would be inappropriate to make the parking facility residents only or controlled by permit. Issues raised concerning maintenance of the woodland adjacent to their property is not relevant to the determination of the current applications and is a private matter.

7.1.9 20 Cheetham Avenue (318) The car park area already agreed will have less impact on local residents. They refer to noise pollution referring to the proposed competition track around the car park which would naturally attract spectators and the rising ground on either side has the effect of channelling sound. Reference is made to air pollution, light pollution, 24 hour a day use and consider that screening with trees and hedges of sufficient density will be essential.

7.1.10 21 Cheetham Avenue Concerns regarding the variations, moving the car parks and accommodation from the original plan which would have kept noise, pollution etc away from Unstone, now facing Unstone residents. Car parks for 2850 cars will create a high noise level, emissions from the cars and as there will be evening events, late into the night with lighting for the car park plus all the usual noise lights from people who have had a good evening. It doesn’t matter how many signs are up asking people to leave quietly they just do not work. Wildlife will be disturb if we have any left after the construction of the “Peak Resort”. Tourist/student accommodation will be facing residents in Unstone and surrounding areas and noise travels especially in the evening. As the students will be on a work/learning basis some control may be in place as to the disruption, but paying tourist will be here to enjoy themselves, not have restrictions on noise and time limits. The sky lobby sounds very grand, but will take away privacy for residents and the feeling of been watched. We have experienced outside activities when the golf course was up and running so are aware the noise this is going to generate. Over the years we have had lots of venues run from the Golf House, we had exposure in 2011 for 2 days, from early morning, loud speakers announcing whatever event was taking place and the announcement of the winners, with music played in between until 9, the music then moved to the club house, but on a beautiful summers evening, windows and doors open so we could hear the music. We like to chose our own music. There have been BBQ’s and private parties during the summer and the “wood” between the Golf House and Cheetham Avenue, has not stopped the noise. Golf Tournaments’ which we expected again from early morning to late at night, the volume of people/cars from the above events are nothing like the 2850 parking spaces that will provided. Think we will all be wearing ear plugs. A lot of the residents on Cheetham Avenue/Sylvia Road will also remember the days of the land fill. So have already anticipated the dust, noise and traffic that will be going on for months. We wish the “Peak Resort” every success and will bring revenue into Derbyshire. The peace and quiet of Unstone and surrounding areas will be lost and not sure the planners have thought about the impact of the “Peak Resort” will have on the local people and wildlife. We chose to live in a quiet village, nothing better on a summer’s evening sat outside listening to the birds and the peace and quiet, so restful.

7.1.11 31 Cheetham Avenue (318) Concern expressed regarding the repositioning of the car park. Concerns regarding noise from door banging, air pollution from vehicles moving slowly. The new location is based purely on money saving at the expense of residents of Cheetham Avenue.

7.1.12 37 Cheetham Avenue (318) Concern expressed regarding the repositioning of the car park. Was a parish councillor for 23 years and never complained putting the benefits to the greater area. Now concerned about noise from door banging, headlights sweeping, air pollution from slow moving vehicles. When boatyard was in operation we could hear every word on the tannoy and the phone ringing. Travels in Europe and notice new projects are increasingly having multi storey car parks buried in the ground. The current change is based solely on money saving at the expense of local residents.

Comment: See paragraphs 6.3.7, 6.3.10, 6.3.11, 6.4.4 and 6.5 regarding car park relocation. Noise levels are already restricted by existing conditions 24 of the original permission and 36 of the 2008 reserved matters consent. Subterranean car parks add considerably to cost and are usually only included where space is at a premium.

7.1.13 41 Cheetham Avenue (318) Concern expressed regarding the repositioning of the car park closer to residents of Cheetham Avenue. It would be much better nearer Sheepbridge as originally planned.

Comment: See paragraphs 6.3.7, 6.3.10, 6.3.11, 6.4.4 and 6.5 regarding car park relocation.

7.1.14 266 Sheffield Road Support the scheme however the stream which runs along the back of Cheetham Avenue property is piped under Sheffield Road and the grid that protects the culvert entrance has been blocked by debris in the past resulting in their property being flooded. Debris is often cleared and the grid has been adjusted however their concern relates to the underground pipe and the potential damage from excavation equipment to be used. They question whether the existing pipe is capable of added weight and the extra traffic. They hope that the exact position and depth of the pipe/s is established first.

Comment: The proposed scheme does not provide a means of access or egress from the car park area via the golf course access to Sheffield Road and so there will be no impact on any pipes beneath the golf course access.

7.1.15 Siscar House, Crow Lane, Unstone (318) Concern about the proximity of the car park to residents of Cheetham Avenue. This will be 12 times the size of Holywell Cross car park. Their neighbours use an adjacent field to their property on charity day events and it is noisy and intrusive with unpleasant fumes however as this happens just once a year they are happy to put up with it. A permanent 3000 space car park will however make the outside space of Cheetham Avenue properties unbearable. The original plan with the car park closer to the by pass would be unobtrusive to all and this area of the site is already subject to noise from the bypass.

Comment: See paragraphs 6.3.7, 6.3.10, 6.3.11, 6.4.4 and 6.5 regarding car park relocation.

7.2 57 Local Residents petition. Concerns regarding noise, light and air pollution on local residents. Specific reference to sky lobby and observation tower, funicular, the car park positioning, the 1000m multi use events track, the cascading lake and amphitheatre and the dome/hotel.

7.3 Unstone Parish Council In the original application one of the benefits was to bring a substantial number of job opportunities for local people. The current scheme indicate much of the work force will be overseas students resident at the resort with comparatively fewer job opportunities for local people. The Parish Council has expressed support in the past because of the benefits to the local economy and local residents and this is no longer the case. The height of the development will overlook Unstone residents property and gardens and be an overshadowing and overbearing presence to the detriment of neighbours. Unstone residents are likely to experience light pollution due to the size of the development and the need for substantial outside lighting between buildings of the complex. Residents are likely to experience noise and disturbance from the use of the facility and additional traffic to and from the facility and some of this will be at unsocial hours.

See paragraph 6.2 regarding employment. It is accepted that students embarking on an “earn and learn” programme will affect employment available however it is considered that there will still be considerable employment opportunities available as part of the scheme which will not be available to students. See paragraphs 6.3.7, 6.3.10, 6.3.11, 6.4.4 and 6.5 regarding car park relocation. Noise levels are already restricted by existing conditions 24 of the original permission and 36 of the 2008 reserved matters consent. Detailed lighting design including lux contours are also to be agreed under condition 38 of the 2008 reserved matters consent. See paragraph 6.4 regarding impact on residential amenity.

8.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

8.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2nd October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show:

 Its action is in accordance with clearly established law  The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken  The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary  The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective  The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom

8.2 The action in considering the application is in accordance with clearly established Planning law and the Council’s Delegation scheme.

8.3 The objective of arriving at a decision is sufficiently important to justify the action taken over the period of the life of the application. The decision taken is objective, based on all planning considerations and is, therefore, not irrational or arbitrary. The methods used are no more than are necessary and required to accomplish the legitimate objective of determining an application.

8.4 The interference caused by a refusal, approval or approval with conditions, based solely on planning merits, impairs as little as possible with the qualified rights or freedoms of the applicant, an objector or consideration of the wider Public Interest. The applicant has a right of appeal against any conditions imposed on any permission which may be issued.

9.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH APPLICANT

9.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

9.2 The Local Planning Authority offers a free pre-application advice service which, in this instance, was utilised by the applicant. Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the NPPF or with ‘up-to-date’ Development Plan policies, it is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for.

9.3 The applicant/agent and any objectors will be provided with a copy of the officer report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation/conclusion.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The development of the scheme is a priority for the Council and which has the benefit of permission in outline and detail for phase one. The current amendments reflect the evolution of the scheme and which have been considered in so far as the impacts on the local area.

10.2 The proposed changes are considered to be acceptable and the impacts can be mitigated by conditions as part of any permission granted. The scheme remains in accord with the principles of the development already agreed on the site and which are acceptable from a residential amenity, highways safety and design and appearance/visual impact basis. The proposals accord with the requirements of Policies CS2 (Location of Development), CS3 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development), CS5 (Renewable Energy), CS7 (Managing the Water Cycle), CS8 (Environmental Quality), CS9 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), CS13 (Economic Growth), CS18 (Design) and CS20 (Demand for Travel) of the 2013 Local Plan: Core Strategy.

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 CHE/16/00317/REM1 That the condition variation be GRANTED subject to the following replacement conditions:

01. None of the overnight accommodation shall be used as permanent or long stay dwellings, by any individual or group. Long stay means any longer than 4 weeks, with the exception of any student legally enrolled on higher education or professional development programmes delivered by the Resort Campus and/or its partner educational institutions. This exception permits the legally enrolled students to stay for the duration of their education programme.

Reasons

01. The condition is imposed to secure the educational and recreational purpose of the scheme within the green belt area.

11.2 CHE/16/00318/REM1 That the condition variation be GRANTED subject to the following replacement conditions:

01. The phase 1 car parking area only is approved by this permission subject to the submission of the further following details being submitted to the local planning authority for consideration:  Screen bunding;  Soft landscaping;  Drainage;  Hard surfacing and mitigation of potential gas migration;  Lighting. The phase 1 car parking area shall thereafter be implemented on site in accord with the details, or any amendment to those details which may be required, which are agreed in writing by the local planning authority and which shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In order to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on landscape character of the site from the appearance and layout of the car park and to safeguard residential amenity, the stability of the ground and the water environment.

02. There shall be no vehicular or pedestrian access to the phase 1 parking area from the golf course access from Sheffield Road to the north of the site. In the interests of highway safety and residential amenity.

03. The 1000 metre multi use events track / circuit shall not be used by petrol or diesel motorised vehicles. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the nearest residential neighbours having regard to potential for noise disturbance.

11.3 CHE/16/00319/REM1 That the condition variation be GRANTED:

11.4 CHE/16/00320/REM1 That the condition variation be GRANTED subject to the following replacement conditions:

01 The principle of relocation of the clubhouse is hereby approved by this permission subject to the submission of details of design, materials, construction, screen bunding and landscaping to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposal on landscape character and appearance. The details agreed in writing by the local planning authority shall thereafter be implemented on site and which shall thereafter be retained. Reason: In order to ensure that there is no detrimental impact on landscape character of the site.