For Publication

FOR PUBLICATION

AGENDA ITEM

NED/13/00386/OL – Development Proposals at The Avenue site, Wingerworth by Homes and Communities Agency (HCA)

MEETING: PLANNING COMMITTEE

DATE: 15 th July 2013

REPORT BY: GROUP LEADER, DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

WARD: Affecting Hasland, St Leonards and Rother wards

COMMUNITY Hasland & St Leonards and Holmebrook and FORUM: Rother

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To consider the application concerning the Avenue Works site south of Chesterfield and to respond to a consultation on the submitted planning application from North East Derbyshire District Council.

2.0 THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 The Avenue site comprises a total of 120 hectares and is located immediately to the south of the Borough of Chesterfield boundary. Part of the site was the former Avenue Coking Works which is currently under going significant remediation works to treat the seriously contaminated land resulting from its former Coking Works use. The remediation programme is due to be completed in 2015. 98 hectares of the site is owned by the HCA. The site is generally located between the mainline railway and River Rother to the east and the A61 to the west with Mill Lane and the Avenue Washland Local Wildlife site forming the southern boundary.

2.2 Part of the remediation work involves the construction of a development platform comprising of 28 hectares of land and which is to be made suitable for future development. The development platform was granted permission by Derbyshire County Council as part of the remediation proposals secured in 2011 (code CW4/0710/63). The HCA propose a development of this platform as a residential and employment site including providing land for education (a school) and public open space. An access road is proposed off a new roundabout on the A61 Derby Road with an emergency access proposed onto Mill Lane to the south.

2.3 The submitted application is an outline with all matters apart from access reserved for approval at a later date. Specifically the outline proposals include: • Up to 469 houses (including a minimum of 20% affordable houses) occupying 13.4 ha; • Provision of land to be available for a primary school and recreational play area occupying a total of 1.8 ha with 0.4ha within this site being allocated for community use; • Open space/play provision occupying 1.1ha with a further 0.6ha of landscaping; • An employment area (offices, research and development, workshop and light industry uses) occupying approximately 2.8ha; • 8.1ha of infrastructure including access roads; • Main access from A61 Derby Road via a new roundabout at the north west of the site and • Emergency access to the site from Mill Lane to the south of the site.

2.4 The proposal has been designed to accord with the over arching vision for the site described in the Avenue Area Strategic Development Framework (AASF) which has been adopted by North East Derbyshire District Council as interim policy.

2.5 Land to the west of the site adjacent to the A61 is separately owned by Taylor Wimpey and they are exploring development options on 11ha of this area. To the south but north of Mill Lane, Coal Products Ltd own an 11ha commercial site and North East Derbyshire has an undetermined planning application for redevelopment for residential and commercial uses (code NED/10/00044/OL). To the south of Mill Lane North East Derbyshire also has a further undetermined application for 200 dwellings (code NED/11/00344/EIA).

2.6 The outline application is accompanied by the following documents: • Planning Statement, drawings, form and certificates; • Design and Access Statement; • Flood Risk assessment; • Transport Assessment and Travel Plan; • Sustainability Statement; • Drainage Strategy and Assessment; • Draft S106 Heads of Terms • Environmental Statement

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS

Principle of development

3.1 As these comments relate to a site outside of the borough, in North East Derbyshire, the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan is of no relevance in this case. The relevant development plan is the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2001-2011; specifically policy E4, which seeks mixed use development but with the emphasis on employment generating uses.

3.2 The current application however proposes predominantly housing (469 units on 13.4 hectares) with a much smaller proportion of employment land (2.8hectares). NEDDC has an emerging Core Strategy (the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2011-2031) but this has not yet reached publication stage and therefore little weight can be attached to it. Paragraph 4.4 of the Environmental Statement main text refers to the Avenue Area Strategic Framework (NEDDC 2012) as a Supplementary Planning Document. However it should be noted that the framework has not been prepared in accordance with relevant regulations and the SPD should therefore only be viewed as informal guidance at this stage.

3.3 The applicant’s main argument is that the proposed mix of uses is necessary to enhance the viability of the site. The applicant acknowledges that the proposal will still need public support. It is reasonable to consider this issue as the National Planning Policy Framework Core Planning principles set out that Local Planning Authorities should have regard to market signals and land prices and that alternative uses of employment land should be treated “on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities” (Para 22). Furthermore the NPPF encourages the reuse of commercial land for residential where there are no compelling economic reasons why this would not be appropriate (paragraph 51).

3.4 In this regard it is clear that the redevelopment of the site has been incredibly expensive in so far as its remediation presenting costs which could not be recovered through the redevelopment. It is accepted however that a substantial part of the ‘abnormal’ cost has been grant funded. The application could however be clearer as to whether the loss of potential employment land is likely to be problematic in ensuring a supply of employment land in NEDDC and the wider area, although it is noted that there are other significant employment allocations/proposals nearby (in the context of proposed developments at Markham Vale, Waterside, Coalite etc) and the alternative use would also meet housing need.

Impacts

3.5 The key consideration for Chesterfield Borough will be the potential impact of the development on the borough and, in particular, the southern part of Chesterfield along the A61 corridor. Having considered the information submitted there are two areas of particular interest concerning transport impact and impact upon community infrastructure/ facilities.

Transport

3.6 Detailed modelling work has been undertaken to establish the likely traffic impact of the proposed development, using the DCC North Derbyshire Traffic Model, which is welcomed. The Transport Assessment has assessed the following junctions which are forecast to operate near or above capacity in 2026. • A61/Nethermoor Road – Tupton • A617 Hornsbridge • B6038/B6039 Hasland • B6051/ Newbold Road/Highfield Lane • B6543 Brewery Street/Brimington Road • A61 Whittington Moor • Lordsmill Street roundabout • A61/Storforth Lane • A61/St Augustines Road As part of the assessment five key scenarios have been assessed: • 2012 Forecast year • Reference case 2026 without AASF • Design case 2026 including AASF • Design case 2026 HCA only • Design case 2026 HCA and Taylor Wimpey development

3.7 The submitted Transport Assessment models traffic from the development and assesses the capacity at each of the junctions referred to. It also uses the following increase in traffic using these routes using a 2012 based index (value of 100) and shows the relative increases in trips for an average working day as well as standard AM and PM peak hours. Scenario AAWT AM PM 2012 Forecast year 100 100 100 2016 reference case 110 126 122 2026 Reference case 158 167 166 2026 Design case 173 182 181 (HCA only) 2026 Design case 196 206 205 (AASF)

3.8 The Transport Assessment concludes that at all junctions apart from the A61/St Augustines Road and the A61/Storforth Lane junctions that the traffic difference is marginal and no mitigation is warranted. At the A61/St Augustines Road and the A61/Storforth Lane junctions traffic flows associated with the Avenue development contribute only a proportion of the overall change in performance of these junctions with the major component of change being the non AASF related development in Chesterfield and North East Derbyshire included in the 2026 forecasts.

3.9 However, the 2026 reference case for the transport model does not appear to include any consideration of the increase in base traffic levels that would result from the emerging Core Strategies of CBC, NEDDC or Bolsover District Councils. As data on this was provided to DCC as part of the creation of the North Derbyshire Traffic Model, and the CBC Core Strategy in particular is considerably advanced (due to be reported to CBC’s full council for approval and adoption on 24 th July) it is not clear why this has not been assessed. Inclusion of Core Strategy traffic is likely to result in higher overall trip rates on the network but a proportionally smaller share of impact from the Avenue Development alone (based on the same Trip rates from the proposed development).

3.10 It is also not clear why the study has assessed the impact of the development on the Horns Bridge and Whittington Moor roundabouts on the A61 but not the Lockoford Lane roundabout which is equally considered to be likely to operate near or above capacity in 2026. The study should also assess the impact on the Langer Lane junction which takes a significant amount of traffic through to Wingerworth and this will ensure a complete picture of the impact of the development on the highway network.

3.11 Whilst the application does not make specific provision of a link road between the A61 and the A617 it does accommodate a potential route and provide the junction on Derby Road and the first part of a potential link to the east. The development would not therefore prejudice the construction of such a link in the future. The Local Transport Plan (LTP3) covers the period 2011 to 2026 and includes reference to the provision of a link between the A61 to A617 as a long term measure. Policy E4 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2001 – 2011 refers to the former Avenue site and requires that the development of the site does not preclude the construction of a link road from the A61 to A617. Although the traffic impact of the proposed development is significant, it does not appear to be sufficient on its own to justify the provision of a complete link beyond the Avenue site boundary. Beyond the site the link would cross third party land and would involve the construction of bridges and route over the river and floodplain and mainline railway. Provision of the link would need to be a strategic transport intervention as part of a wider highways strategy. It is clear that the development currently being considered by North East Derbyshire does not preclude the provision of such a link and therefore accords with current policy. That said, there is no reason that any highways contributions gathered from the development, in the event that permission is granted, could not be put towards the provision of such a link in the future if a clear case can be made for it and match funding sought. It would be useful if any S106 agreement linked to a planning approval identified an A61/A617 link road as a possible intervention to which any highways fund could be directed.

3.12 The applicant suggests a Travel Plan led approach to mitigating the impact of traffic generated by the development and a contributory mechanism to provide funding for transport mitigation measures with contributions tied to development accruing over time. Given the scale of development proposed and the likely timescales this ‘monitor and manage’ approach is welcomed as it allows for a more flexible response to emerging issues during the development of the scheme, rather than setting out specific interventions at this stage that may prove unnecessary, or miss the ability to mitigate unanticipated consequences of the development. The approach suggested is not dissimilar to the approach taken within Chesterfield Borough to the management of the transport impacts of the Chesterfield Waterside scheme, with the Travel Plan mechanisms secured through a S106 approach and it is hoped that a similar mechanism will be put in place in the event that permission is granted for this proposal. However this approach does include the risk that the available funding falls short and that specific interventions are needed in the short term before significant funds have accrued from development. It is suggest therefore that some form of bond be considered for the early stages of development, secured through a S106 agreement in the event that permission is granted (again, a similar approach was taken with regard to the Chesterfield Waterside scheme). More detail is also needed on how this contributory method will be calculated and managed to ensure funding is available for any improvements in a timely manner and not reliant upon full completion of the development.

3.13 Although an assessment of bus routes has been undertaken, and some consideration given to potential improvements (in terms of stops, information and routing), no assessment appears to have been made of the potential increase in passengers and what further improvements may be necessary to accommodate additional users.

Infrastructure and Facilities

3.14 Given the proximity of the development site to the southern boundary of Chesterfield, it is inevitable that residents of the development will make use of shops, services and facilities within Chesterfield and the borough. It is important to note that this will include a range of positive benefits in terms of the potential for increased spending within the borough in shops, services and other economic activity.

3.15 The Borough Council will need to engage with NEDDC and service providers to ensure any contributions towards open space are used in the right locations. The application specifically highlights that the development is likely to result in a shortfall in school places. Space is provided within the development for a new primary school, whilst contributions will also be necessary towards secondary provision. Of the 5 secondary schools identified as serving the development, 4 are within the Chesterfield Borough and mechanisms should be sought through any S106 agreement to ensure that an appropriate proportion of any commuted sum is spent in the relevant Chesterfield schools. It should also be noted that the pupil projections set out in tables 6.4 and 6.5 of the Environmental Statement volume 1 (main text) are based on 2011 capacity/enrolment figures. It would be more appropriate to use future pupil projections (available from DCC) to identify any likely shortfall/surplus that might exist nearer to the time any housing is likely to be delivered as the basis for any contributions.

4.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSE

4.1 Councillor Sergeant comments as a Hasland Borough Councillor and expresses her concern about the development on this site and the impact it will have on the people in Hasland and Derby Road. Derby Road is currently seriously congested with traffic and with the proposed housing at this site this situation will worsen. This will also have a knock on effect of pushing more traffic into the village of Hasland. Currently the plans are for 469 dwellings but as I understood it is likely to be up to 1400 houses on the whole of the site which may be subject to further applications.

4.2 Now is the time to plan within the development a link across from the site of the railway line which would link into the road effectively bypassing Hasland to the former Corey Coal Site. This I hope would take some of the traffic which would potentially go to the motorway and would encourage people to use the bypass to Chesterfield and avoid both Hasland and the Derby Road area. I would ask the Borough Council to support the views of the local Councillors for this area and express these in the consultation.

Comments It is accepted that the development of the site will generate traffic and this has been assessed in the Transport Assessment. See paragraph 3.6 – 3.13 above which sets out a number of concerns regarding the submission.

4.3 Councillor Flood raised the question regarding Langer Lane being looked at in the Transport Assessment. The developers agent has confirmed that this wasn’t originally identified in the scoping work with DCC, however it is being looked at by their transport consultants and raised with DCC as an area for further review and that they will feedback any further information as soon as it is available.

4.4 Councillor Flood expresses concern that notwithstanding that more investigation is being undertaken, N.E.Derbyshire are clearly proceeding, (against HCA advice) with the road schemes in bite sized chunks instead of the sensible major solution.

Comments See comments at paragraph 3.12 – 3.13 above

4.5 Councillor Brittain comments that The Avenue scheme as it currently looks is currently detrimental to Chesterfield and we must fight it with every weapon we have.

Comments Noted however no detail is given as to how the development is detrimental. The impacts have been assessed as part of the application and these are summarised in paragraphs 3.5 – 3.13 of the report. Whilst there will inevitably be detrimental impacts in terms of traffic generation and pressure on infrastructure, these can be mitigated as long as the appropriate measures are put in place.

4.6 County Councillor D Allen expresses concern regarding the impact of the proposal on people in Chesterfield, Hasland and Derby Road. The main impact concerns the road system which is congested now and he feels that something more than a roundabout needs to be provided. There should be within the development a link into the road that effectively bypasses Hasland to the former Corey Coal site. This should be a very strong comment to be made as this may take some of the traffic which would potentially go to the motorway and hopefully would encourage people if the situation was right to go down the bypass to Chesterfield and avoid both Hasland and the Derby Road area. This would obviously require cooperation and discussion with the County Council as Highway Authority but Councillor Allen thinks it needs to be addressed at this early stage to try to alleviate the problems which will be a major issue in the future.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The regeneration of this former brownfield site and its potential economic benefits to Chesterfield Borough is welcomed in principle. However, the volume of development being proposed on this site is significant and there are a number of key concerns that need to be addressed before the proposed redevelopment could be supported.

5.2 The proposed mix of uses does not fully accord with the adopted development plan. However it is reasonable to consider alternatives to ensure a viable form of development under the provisions of the NPPF. Further clarification should be provided over the potential impact of the loss of allocated employment land to ensure that sufficient provision is still available.

5.3 The transport model reference case for 2026 should take into account the level of development anticipated through the relevant development plans to ensure that proper consideration is given to the impact of traffic growth on the network. Modelling should also be undertaken of the Lockoford Lane/A61 roundabout and Langer Lane/Derby Road Junction. Further clarification should be sought about how highways mitigation funding accrues and mechanisms put in place to ensure funding is available for early measures if needed.

5.4 The assessment of impact on school places should use projected pupil numbers and mechanisms agreed to manage the potential for contributions towards additional school places within Chesterfield Borough.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 That the Borough Council welcomes the principle of the redevelopment of this significant brownfield site, but expresses concerns regarding the proposed development in so far as: • The submitted Transport Assessment which does not assess the A61/Lockoford Lane and A61/Langer Lane junctions and is therefore incomplete. • The transport model reference case for 2026 does not appear to include any consideration of the increase in base traffic levels that would result from the emerging Core Strategies of CBC (to be adopted in July 2013), NEDDC or Bolsover District Councils. • The lack of any assessment of the potential impact of the loss of allocated employment land and whether sufficient provision is still available.

If NEDDC is minded to grant consent then the following matters should be negotiated as part of a s106 agreement to mitigate the impact of the development on local facilities and infrastructure: • How highways mitigation funding accrues and mechanisms to be put in place to ensure funding is available for early measures if needed, particularly on junctions along the A61 through Chesterfield. • An assessment of impact on school places and mechanisms agreed to manage the potential for contributions towards additional school places within Chesterfield Borough. • Contributions towards open space are used in the right locations.

P. STANIFORTH GROUP LEADER, DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

Further information on this report can be obtained from Paul Staniforth 01246 345781