AGENDA ITEM NO.

OUTLINE APPLICATION – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 160 DWELLINGS WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT FOR ACCESS (MAJOR DEVELOPMENT) (DEPARTURE FROM DEVELOPMENT PLAN) LAND OFF ROAD, WINSICK, CHESTERFIELD (NEDDC REFERENCE 12/00306/OL) (P820)

MEETING: PLANNING COMMITTEE

DATE: 23rd JULY 2012

REPORT BY: SENIOR PLANNER, FORWARD PLANNING

WARD: ADJACENT TO HASLAND

COMMUNITY FORUM: ADJACENT TO HASLAND AND ST. LEONARDS

BACKGROUND PAPERS FOR PUBLIC REPORTS

TITLE LOCATION

Consultation Letter from NEDDC Development Management Directorate of Regeneration Town Hall Chesterfield All details of the application can be viewed by following the link below http://planapps-online.ne-derbyshire.gov.uk/online-applications/ and then inputting the application reference number and following the links.

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 To consider the Council’s response to a major application for housing located on land in North East District at Winsick and to the south of Hasland.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is in outline for a residential development of up to 160 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access. The applicant is Hallam Land Management Ltd. The site includes 2.6 acres of land owned by the borough council. Detailed discussions regarding any possible disposal of this land have been deferred until the outcome of the planning application is known. 2.2 The site is Greenfield and lies to the south east of the public sector housing within Chesterfield Borough along Gorse Valley Road. The site extends to some 8.99ha (around 22 acres).There are mature trees and hedgerows around the perimeter of the site, at varying intensity, but the main body of the site comprises rough grassland. It is urban fringe land, partially used for grazing horses, but largely unused and there are signs of urban trespass. 2.3 The application is illustrated by an indicative layout proposing the construction of up to 160 dwellings together with ancillary works, accessed from the recently constructed vehicular access to Gorse Valley Road (to the north) and Mansfield Road (to the south). The development is at a density of around 18 dwellings per hectare (or 7 dwellings per acre). Other elements of the proposals are: • The scheme comprises a mixed residential development with a range of density, type and size of dwelling, including 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties. • Affordable housing is proposed and is addressed more fully in the separate affordable Housing Statement. Details are to be the subject of negotiation with District • There would be pedestrian links and cycle paths to the north and west to provide integration with the adjoining settlement. • A significant proportion of the site would be laid out as greenspace. The formal recreational uses at the northern end of the site are complementary to land provided by Chesterfield Borough Council in the past for purposes of a playing field, but which has not yet been put into effect.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 The proposed development is adjacent to a site for 55 affordable dwellings (application 04/1361/OL) which was approved on appeal in March 2006 (Appeal Reference APP/R1038/A/05/1182081). The applicants provided a unilateral undertaking which secured a method of providing all the development as affordable housing. This permission has not yet beem implemented.

3.2 The adjoining site (see Appendix C) owned by the applicant was also the subject of a planning application for housing but this was refused and no appeal was lodged.

4.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 The site is unallocated on the North East Derbyshire Local Plan adopted in 2005.

4.2 As noted above the adjacent site was approved on appeal for 100% affordable housing. A subsequent application for a further 51 dwellings was made in 2006 and the Borough Council objected to that application on the grounds that:

• The proposal is contrary to policies set out in national and regional planning guidance and the Development Plan, which comprises the Structure Plan and the adopted NEDDC Local Plan since there are no special circumstances to justify the approval of an inappropriate development. • The approval of the development would prejudice the development of sequentially preferable housing sites allocated in the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan.

That application was refused and no appeal was made.

4.3 Since that time the Borough Council has worked on producing a Core Strategy as part of its Local Development Framework. Background work on this included an assessment of various local centres including Hasland. As a result of this work the range of facilities provided in Hasland led to the conclusion that it was sufficiently well serviced with facilities to enable the Council to define it as a Local Service Centre. This suggests that further development in and around Hasland centre would be well served with the existing wide range of facilities.

4.4 The Core Strategy policy CS1 supports development close to local service centres. In relation to Hasland there a very few sites within the Borough that can be brought forward without harming open space including allotments or that would not be likely to give rise to unacceptable highway problems.

4.5 Since the previous application in 2006 the Regional Spatial Strategy was adopted in 2009. This reflects the government’s aim to encourage a step change in the provision of housing. Whilst the RSS is likely to be revoked in due course the government is still committed to the increased level of housing provision.

4.6 Accordingly the National Planning Policy Framework supports sustainably located development providing no significant harm is caused to acknowledged planning interests. The NPPF (para 47) requires local planning authorities to identify and annually update a five year supply of land for housing. Where this cannot be demonstrated the policies of the LPA are considered to be not up-to- date (para49). Where policies are out of date permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

4.7 NEDDC has experienced a lack of a five year supply of housing land for a while and in March 2010 introduced an Interim Housing Policy. This policy provided the following criteria against which to decide planning applications for new housing development on land outside of Settlement Development Limits: a) the site should adjoin a Settlement Development Limit, and b) it should be well related to the built framework of the existing settlement, and c) it should not result in a prominent intrusion into the countryside, and d) it should not result in settlements merging, and, e) it should not cause harm to some other overriding policy objective. Proposals must also meet the purposes and objectives of PPS3 and Policy Northern SRS 1 of the Regional Plan and be in line with the Council’s emerging Core Strategy once it has reached Preferred Options stage.

4.8 It is considered that the main issues for the Borough Council in relation to this application are:

• Loss of open countryside • Traffic impact on Hasland centre • Impact of additional households on facilities in Hasland

Loss of open countryside

4.9 The site is an area of open land between the edge of the built up area of Hasland and the A617 Hasland by- pass. It is not within the Green Belt area. It is located between the Gorse Valley Road development on the edge of the borough, a ribbon of development along Mansfield Road at Winsick and the Hasland by-pass as shown on the plan at appendix B. The development adjoins the existing built up area of Hasland and can be said to be well related to it.

4.10 Whilst it links development on Gorse Valley Road to the ribbon of development along Mansfield Road it would be difficult to argue that this involves the merging of two separate settlements.

4.11 The proposal would deliver additional housing in North East Derbyshire which would help to meet the current target in the East Midlands Regional Plan Spatial Strategy (RSS). However, the additional housing would help to meet the needs of households currently living or wishing to live in the Hasland area of Chesterfield.

4.12 Whilst the proposed development would infill the gap between existing housing and the Hasland by-pass, there is no doubt that in addition to the approved scheme for for affordable housing on the adjacent site, the proposed development would intrude into open countryside and result in a loss of countryside.

Traffic Impact

4.13 It is noted that recent changes to the highway arrangements in the centre of Hasland have caused highway congestion. It is likely that the current application if approved would increase the traffic in the centre of Hasland.

4.14 Environmental Services has commented that the Borough Council undertakes little air quality monitoring in this area, and what monitoring is undertaken is targeted at the by-pass. Prior to the alterations carried out by DCC at the junction of Mansfield Road and The Green, traffic was fairly free-flowing, but the replacement of the previous roundabout with a traffic light controlled T junction has led to queuing traffic at busy times.

4.15 In order to properly monitor any increases in air pollution, should the application be approved, a sum of £9,100 should be requested to operate and analyse sufficient diffusion tubes in the area for a period of one year before the development and two years after it is completed.

4.16 The Highway Authority (HA) has made comments to NEDDC. The HA state that the comments do not relate to the internal layout as this is reserved for later approval. The comments assume the use of two access points. One access is via the adjacent affordable housing site and on to Gorse Valley Road. The other is onto Mansfield Road itself.

4.17 The HA has no objection in principle to the development subject to conditions/a legal agreement to, amongst other things,:

• Monitor traffic flows at the Hasland Road/The Green junction prior to commencement of the development to measure the capacity of this junction accurately and identifying suitable mitigation e.g. linking of signals with those at Calow Lane/Mansfield Road.

• Secure funds to pay for any traffic management or safety works identified during a five year post completion monitoring period. Noting that a successful travel plan encouraging sustainable transport would help reduce the need for mitigation works.

• Upgrade the existing public footpath on the northern side of the site between Mansfield Road and the Gorse Valley Road to be suitable for shared pedestrian and cycle use.

Impact on Facilities in the Borough

Open Space

4.18 The comments from NEDDC Parks Department indicate that if the development is approved, there would be a desire to see on site play equipment at a cost in the region of £140,000. They also suggest liaison with the Borough Council Leisure Services to enable a co-ordinated approach to play in this area.

4.19 Leisure Services has requested that if approved a sum comparable with that sought from developments within the Borough should be provided to contribute towards some teen facilities in Eastwood Park. Although there will be a new play area in the park as part of the restoration project there is still an opportunity to provide additional facilities specifically for teenagers.

4.20 If the development was proposed to be within the Borough area it would generate a need to consider on- site play facilities. Whilst these would be individually designed, the Borough’s Open Space and Play Provision Supplementary Planning Document gives a guide as to the amount of contribution required if off site provision was sought as an alternative. A sum of around £215,000 would be sought to cover the installation of open space and a contribution towards its running costs.

Education

4.21 The comments of the County Council’s Education Service indicate that there is currently a shortage of places at the Hasland Junior and Infant Schools. This is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The development of 160 dwellings is estimated to produce 32 extra primary age children. The County Council is therefore requesting a contribution of around £365,000 to help address the identified shortfall.

Health

4.22 The Community Infrastructure study identified only one Doctor’s surgery in Hasland. The Website of the surgery on Jepson Road indicates provision of three doctors and that new patients are currently being accepted.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Cllr Serjeant (councillor for Hasland Ward) has commented that:

• all these new residents will turn to Hasland to provide facilities, schools, doctors etc and the strain this may put on the local infrastructure. There is nothing in this development to suggest a new primary school for example.

Comment The County Council has requested a commuted sum to deal with education impact. See paragraph 4.22 above in respect of health facilities. The addition of 160 homes on the edge of Hasland could also bring the benefit of additional trade to shops in Hasland.

• Mansfield Road is a busy main road. What impact will the extra cars have on a main route into Chesterfield and onto the M1 via the Bypass? At peak times congestion is high and air quality/pollution is affected.

Comment The HA has, subject to mitigation works being secured, raised no objections to the proposal. Environmental Services has requested a contribution to cover additional air quality monitoring in the area.

• Play space is mentioned. We currently have a play area on Heather Vale Road near this site, would some of the section 106 money be put to upgrading this? Also CBC has plans to refurbish Eastwood Park in Hasland, would some money be put to this as inevitably the residents of this development will also use this.

Comment Both NEDDC Parks and CBC Leisure Services have considered these issues and requested contributions accordingly. See paragraphs 4.18- 4.20 above.

5.2 The Hasland and St Leonards Community Forum planning sub-committee has been consulted on the proposal. The sub committee’s full comments are attached at Appendix A. The sub-committee object to the application on the grounds that:

• Access to the development is unsuitable. Traffic arising from the development would increase unacceptably exacerbating parking and other traffic problems in Hasland centre. Heavy lorries may also be using Hasland during the construction phase.

Comment The HA has, subject to mitigation works being secured, raised no objections to the proposal on traffic or highway grounds.

• Education and health facilities in the area would be over subscribed.

Comment The County Council has requested a commuted sum to deal with education impact. There is some evidence that health facilities have some spare capacity at present. See paragraphs 4.21 and 4.22 above.

• The Borough Council would be responsible for additional waste collection and disposal.

Comment Waste collection and disposal is the responsibility of NEDDC

• The application is deficient in not providing affordable housing and no details of building heights are provided.

Comment The developer has stated that negotiations with NEDDC about affordable housing have already been started. Consideration of building heights has been reserved for approval at a later stage.

• The proposed timescale suggests additional land adjacent could be developed.

Comment The development of 160 houses is assumed to take two years to start on site and then a minimum of five years to complete. It is not considered that a proposed timetable would imply the inclusion of any further land. Any further land would need to be the subject of a further planning application.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 The application site comprises almost 9 hectares (22acres) of open land between the existing built up area and the Hasland by-pass. It is in outline with only the access points to be approved. At this stage 160 dwellings are proposed at a relatively low density of around 18 dwellings per hectare (7 per acre).

6.2 The site adjoins Hasland and is potentially well related to it.

6.3 NEDDC does not have a five year land supply and has introduced a policy to assess applications for houses outside its defined settlement limits. The main point of conflict with this policy would be the degree of intrusion into the countryside that this proposed development represents.

6.4 The provision of new housing on the edge of Hasland would provide additional choice for people living in, or wanting to move to, the area.

6.5 The proposed development would generate more traffic. Environmental Services suggest that the developer should pay for monitoring of potential increase in pollution levels in the area and a sum of £9,100 would cover the cost of such monitoring.

6.6 The HA raises no objections on traffic and highway grounds subject to conditions or legal agreement securing, alongside a travel plan:

• mitigation works to improve as necessary the Hasland Road/The Green junction and potentially co-ordination with the Calow Lane /Mansfield Road junction • traffic management/safety works following five years monitoring post completion • upgrade to shared pedestrian and cycle route of the public footpath between Mansfield Road and Gorse Valley Way.

6.7 Whilst there would be an impact on facilities in Hasland, it is considered that these impacts could be mitigated as follows. The County Council has requested a commuted sum to deal with the anticipated impact on primary schools in the area. There appears to be surplus capacity at the local doctors surgery The outline application shows a substantial area of open space adjacent to most of the properties on the south eastern side of Gorse Valley Road. NEDDC has indicated it would wish to see this equipped with play equipment and the Borough Council Leisure Services has requested a contribution towards teen facilities in Eastwood Park.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 That North East Derbyshire District Council be advised that Chesterfield Borough Council would raise no objection to the application provided that, if approved, it is subject to the following measures to mitigate its impact on local facilities and infrastructure:

• The developer undertake monitoring and analysis of air pollution to the satisfaction of Chesterfield Borough Council for a period of one year before commencement and for two years after the completion of the proposed development or to provide a sum of £9,100 to Chesterfield Borough Council in lieu of carrying out the work. • A contribution towards the provision of teen facilities in Eastwood Park and the provision of the on site play facilities as indicated by NEDDC. • Provision of the education contribution requested by DCC towards ensure the provision of additional primary school places at Hasland junior and infants school; • The highway mitigation measures as requested by the Highway Authority; • The provision of an appropriate proportion of affordable housing.

MARK SHEWRING SENIOR PLANNER, FORWARD PLANNING Further information on this report can be obtained on 345792. Appendix A

Comments of Hasland and St Leonards Community Forum Planning Sub Group

Appendix B

Appendix C