Enquiries to:
Jackie Essex
Direct Dial: 024 7637 6165
Direct Email:
Date: 2nd March, 2015
Dear Sir/Madam,
A meeting of the PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Nuneaton on Tuesday,10th March, 2015 at 5.00 p.m.
Planning Training on changes to Section 106 legislation will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Nuneaton at 4.00 p.m. prior to the meeting of Planning Applications Committee. All Members of the Council are invited to attend this training.
Public Consultation on planning applications will commence at 5.00 p.m. (see Agenda Item No. 5 for clarification).
Please note that meetings may be recorded for future broadcast.
Yours faithfully,
ALAN FRANKS
Managing Director
To: All Members of the Planning (Councillors W.J. Hancox (Chair), Applications Committee J.B. Beaumont, I.C. Bonner, R.G. Copland, J. Foster, D. Harvey, P.D. Hickling, B.J. Longden, A.A. Lloyd, D.C. Navarro, N.J.P. Phillips, G.D. Pomfrett and J. Sheppard)
Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 1
AGENDA
PART I - PUBLIC BUSINESS
1. EVACUATION PROCEDURE
A fire drill is not expected, so if the alarm sounds please evacuate the building quickly and calmly. Please use the stairs and do not use the lifts. Once out of the building, please gather outside the Yorkshire Bank on the opposite side of the road.
Exit by the door by which you entered the room or by the fire exits which are clearly indicated by the standard green fire exit signs.
If you need any assistance in evacuating the building, please make yourself known to a member of staff.
Please also make sure all your mobile phones are turned off or set to silent.
Chair to advise the meeting if all or part of the meeting will be recorded for future broadcast.
2. APOLOGIES - To receive apologies for absence from the meeting.
3. MINUTES - To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17th February, 2015 (attached). (Page 4)
4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary and Other Interests, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.
Note: Following the adoption of the new Code of Conduct, Members are reminded that they should declare the existence and nature of their personal interests at the commencement of the relevant item (or as soon as the interest becomes apparent). If that interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary or a Deemed Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, the Member must withdraw from the room.
Where a Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest but has received a dispensation from Standards Committee, that Member may vote and/or speak on the matter (as the case may be) and must disclose the existence of the dispensation and any restrictions placed on it at the time the interest is declared.
Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 2 Where a Member has a Deemed Disclosable Interest as defined in the Code of Conduct, the Member may address the meeting as a member of the public as set out in the Code.
Note: Council Procedure Rules require Members with Disclosable Pecuniary Interests to withdraw from the meeting unless a dispensation allows them to remain to vote and/or speak on the business giving rise to the interest.
Where a Member has a Deemed Disclosable Interest, the Council’s Code of Conduct permits public speaking on the item, after which the Member is required by Council Procedure Rules to withdraw from the meeting.
5. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ON WHICH THE PUBLIC HAVE INDICATED A DESIRE TO SPEAK. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED 3 MINUTES ONLY TO MAKE THEIR POINTS – the report of the Head of Development Control attached. (Schedule Page No. 6)
6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ON WHICH NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAS INDICATED A DESIRE TO SPEAK – the report of the Head of Development Control attached. (Schedule Page No. 6)
7. ANY OTHER ITEMS which in the opinion of the Chair of the meeting should be considered as a matter of urgency because of special circumstances (which must be specified).
Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 3 - 42 -
NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 17th February, 2015
A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee was held at the Civic Hall, Bedworth on Tuesday, 17th February, 2015.
Present
Councillor W.J. Hancox – Chair
Councillors J.B. Beaumont, I.C. Bonner, J. Foster, D. Harvey, P.D. Hickling, B.J. Longden, D.C. Navarro, N.J.P. Phillips, G.D. Pomfrett and J. Sheppard.
Apologies for absence from the meeting were received from Councillor R.G. Copland.
The Chair announced that the meeting would be recorded by Councillor Kondakor.
PLA49 Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 27th January, 2015 be confirmed.
PLA50 Declarations of Interest
Councillor D.C. Navarro declared an interest in any relevant item by reason of his appointment as a Non-Executive Director of the George Eliot NHS Trust.
IN PUBLIC SESSION
PLA51 Planning Applications
(Note: Names of the members of the public who spoke are recorded in the Schedule.)
RESOLVED that decisions be made on applications for planning permission as shown in the attached schedule, for the reasons and with the conditions set out in the report and addendum unless stated otherwise.
______Chair
Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 4
- 43 -
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION AND RELATED MATTERS REFERRED TO IN MINUTE PLA51 OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE ON 17TH FEBRUARY, 2015
033050: Site 61B007 – Former allotments north of The Bull Ring, Nuneaton Erection of 53 dwellings Applicant: A R Cartwright Ltd & Canal & River Trust
Speaker: Councillor Keith Kondakor Alan Baxter Jeff Hayward
DECISION:
Deferred at the applicant’s request for further discussions on highways issues.
______
033063: QCR Coatings, Whitacre Road Industrial Estate CV11 6BU Erection of B1/B2 industrial unit at Unit 22a Whitacre Road, Nuneaton Applicant: Mr Douglas Whitmore
Speaker: Councillor Keith Kondakor
DE CISION:
Approved with conditions ______
Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 5 Planning Applications Committee 10th March 2015
Applications for Planning Permission etc. Agenda Item Index
Item Page No. No.
Member Training
Changes to Section 106 legislation
Previously considered 1. 032578 Site 31B005, Land Rear of 130-194 The Long Shoot 7 (Cresswells Poultry Farm)
Prior Approval 2. 033166 163 Gadsby Street, Nuneaton 23
Planning Applications 3. 033156 Land at Hill Farm (Site 36C002) Plough Hill Road, 27 Nuneaton 4. 033152 Site 42B001, Land Rear of 28-44 The Long Shoot 76 Nuneaton 5. 032990 Site 94D023, Bedworth College, R/O 7-23 Newtown Road. 84 Bedworth 6. 033133 24 Charles Street Nuneaton. 102
Wards: AB Abbey AR Arbury AT Attleborough BA Barpool BE Bede BU Bulkington CH Camp Hill EX Exhall GC Galley Common HE Heath KI Kingswood PO Poplar SL Slough SN St Nicolas WB Wembrook WE Weddington WH Whitestone
Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 6 PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
Item No. 1
REFERENCE No. 032578
Site Address: Land rear of 130-194, The Long Shoot (Cresswells Poultry Farm)
Description of Development: Outline permission for the erection of up to 150 dwellings with associated public open space, landscaping, infrastructure and parking provision. Including the demolition of No.162 The Long Shoot (All matters reserved, other than access) Applicant: Callendar Farm Limited
Ward: St Nicolas
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Committee is recommended to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions and s.106 agreement as printed.
INTRODUCTION: This is an outline application for residential development for up to 150 dwellings. Committee has previously resolved to grant delegated authority for this application to be approved, subject to negotiations relating to the NHS & Dual Cycle path contributions. A resolution on these matters was not reached and Officers do not consider that the contributions being sought on these matters are CIL compliant. Therefore, the application is being returned to committee for a decision, with the need for a NHS & Dual Cycle path provision removed.
The following matter is to be considered at this stage:
Access – accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.
The following matters are reserved to be considered at a future stage and do not form part of the application:
Layout – the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are provided within the development and their relationship to buildings and spaces outside the development. Scale – the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings. Appearance – The aspects of a building or place which determine the visual impression in makes, including the external built form of the development. Landscaping – Treatment of private and public space to enhance or protect the site’s amenity through hard and soft measures, for example, through planting of trees or hedges or screening by fences or walls.
The application site is to the North Eastern edge of Nuneaton along the, The Long Shoot. The Long Shoot adjoins the A5, to the north of the existing site access. The site currently forms part of an agricultural use, including a poultry farming as well as caravan storage. The site is semi-rural with residential development enclosing the
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 7 eastern boundary and to the north along Watling Street (the A5). The portion of the site closest to the existing development along the Long Shoot consists of hard standing in association with storage of up to 200 caravans, a farm shop and other associated buildings, agricultural in appearance. No.162 is within the red line of the application site. This is one half of a pair of 1930’s semi-detached dwelling, with connected access driveway and amenity space to the rear. There is an existing access adjacent to this, leading to the main part of the site. There are some hedgerows crossing the site, with some hedgerow trees. There are no public rights of way abutting or crossing the site.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: Env14 – Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents- Residential Design Guide H3 – Affordable Housing NBBC Local Plan 2006 H5 – 10% Adaptable Housing NBBC Local Plan 2006 H6 – Planning Obligations NBBC Local Plan 2006 Env3 – Rural and Urban Countryside Policy NBBC Local Plan 2006 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: Severn Trent Water, WCC Highways, Natural England, Environment Agency, NBBC Environmental Health, Highways Agency, NBBC Policy, NBBC Parks & Countryside, WCC structure Plan, WCC Drainage, WCC Footpaths, Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, CV11 Action Group, Warwickshire Police, NBBC Refuse & Cleansing, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, NHS England, NBBC Housing, Open Space Society, NBBC Land Drainage Engineer.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES: No objection subject to condition from: WCC Highways, NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Parks, WCC Structure Plan, WCC Drainage, NHS England
No objection from: Natural England, Environment Agency, Highways Agency, NBBC Housing, WCC footpaths, Warwickshire Police, NBBC Policy No response from: Severn Trent Water, Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council, CV11 Action Group, NBBC Refuse & Cleansing, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, Open Space Society
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: 130 -220 (even), 119-229 (odd), Calendar Grove Farm, The Long Shoot.
Neighbouring properties were sent letters notifying them of the proposed development on 25th February 2014. A site notice was erected on street furniture on
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 8 The Long Shoot on 25th February 2014 and the application was advertised in The Nuneaton News on 4th April 2014.
There have been 26 letters of objection from 13 addresses as well as 3 letters from Marcus Jones MP. The comments are summarised below.
Lack of Borough Plan Premature to Borough Plan Piecemeal Development can not provide the infrastructure. Traffic & Congestion Cant turn right from drive as it is. The access and egress is not appropriate Detrimental to air quality Noise Surface water drainage & flooding Concern about connecting to existing sewer Schools/doctors at capacity Property values will be effected the area is sought after due to lack of social housing Higham Lane will also be affected How will the existing ditches be managed Should await STW modelling Attenuation should not be altered at RM. Opposed to the demolition of 162 and the proposed access access should be from the A5 To many housing being built in area. Access will be detrimental to safety & the free flow of traffic. T junction is not adequate centre refuges will interfere with existing driveways No provision for pedestrians to cross
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of this application are: 1. Housing land supply and need, 2. Land designation as Countryside, 3. Landscape character, 4. Highway safety, 5. Accessibility of facilities, 6. Flooding and drainage, 7. Ecology 8. Residential amenity 9. Land contamination & air quality, 10. Noise 11. Archaeology and; 12. The need for planning obligations.
1. Housing Land Supply & Need
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 9 It is recognised that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land to meet the identified housing need and that this in itself is a matter which weighs significantly in favour of the application.
Further to this, the scheme also proposes 38 affordable dwellings which equates to 25% and therefore accords with Policy H3 of the Local Plan. The tenure is to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage but is stated it will be a mix of affordable rented, shared ownership and low cost/ reduced market housing. The Planning Statement submitted with the application states that they will comprise a variety of dwelling types and distributed throughout the development which is welcomed. NBBC Housing supports the application and welcome provision of affordable housing in this area.
2. Land Designation The application site is currently designated as rural countryside under policy ENV3 of the Local Plan. The Inspector who conducted the inquiry into the Local Plan Modifications (2005) was of the view that areas covered by policy ENV3 provide the necessary flexibility to allow for medium and longer term development needs such that they would be open to review beyond the Local Plan period to 2011, particularly where needs could not be met by sites higher in the sequential list (Brownfield).
Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that policies such as Env.3 should not be considered up-to-date if the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As set out above, the Council cannot. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF is therefore relevant and sets out that where the development plan is absent, silent, or as is the case here, out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF, taken as a whole. Therefore it is considered that there is a clear and demonstrable need for housing within the Borough that cannot be met within the urban area.
3. Landscape Character The Council’s TEP Land Use Designations Study, a background paper to the Borough Plan assesses this individual site, and states it is influenced by its proximity to neighbouring residential development and is surrounded by roads. The resulting landscape and visual qualities mean that the area is considered to have capacity for residential development. There is scope to improve the existing urban edge by reinforcing hedgerows and hedgerow tree planting. This type of mitigation would be in keeping with the existing landscape pattern of hedgerows with hedgerow trees. Thus, it is not considered that there would be a significant impact on the character and appearance of the landscape in this location subject to suitable mitigation including retaining, restoring and reinforcing the existing hedgerows, which will form part of the landscape condition.
4. Highway Safety This is an outline application but access is being considered at this stage. The access to the site is off The Long Shoot, through the existing access to the farm. However, the proposal also includes the demolition of No.162 the Long Shoot, to widen this access. The access is proposed to be 7m wide for approx. 21m narrowing to 5.5m, within the site, with a 3 metre foot/cycleway. The access is also proposed to have a driveway to No.160 from it, with the existing driveway stopped up. The internal access roads within the proposed development would be considered at the reserved matters application stage.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 10 A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application The application has been assessed using a PICADY and ARCADY assessments for the proposed access/ Long Shoot Junction and for the Eastboro Way Roundabout. A LINSIG analysis of the A5 junction improvements has also been completed. These are all models approved by Warwickshire County Council. The traffic data submitted looks at the trip generation and distribution along the Long Shoot, this then informs the number of vehicles to and from the development and network trips distributed. It is noted that during the AM and PM peaks there is some queuing, especially on the A5 approach. Consideration was given to the current situation and adjacent developments proposed, and future traffic flows include flows for the adjacent developments (where known).
Although the increased queuing from the development is not significant, the cumulative impact of general growth will exacerbate the situation to the detriment of Highway safety, therefore a s.106 request has been made for improvement to the highway to mitigate this. The NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the impact is severe.
In relation to the access itself, there is to be a new dedicated right hand turn. WCC Highways raised concerns initially in respect to the proximity of the adjacent access to No.160 Long Shoot, it is understood that the principle of moving this access has been agreed by the owner and the applicant. A Road Safety Audit was submitted, stating that refuges were recommended to address the potential issue of drivers being unaware of the junction. Whilst the position of driveways along the long shoot have made addressing this problematic, the relocating of the access to 160 has provided an opportunity for a central refuge at this point. This is a pedestrian refuge to address concerns for pedestrian access to close by bus-stops, requiring the alteration of access to 154, although WCC state this will not result in loss of amenity. There has been some objection raised to the use of the central refuges from neighbouring properties, however, confirmation was sought from WCC who confirmed this would not result in these properties being unable to turn right, which has been demonstrated on an amended plan.
5. Accessibility of Facilities The nearest shop is Aldi on the A5 which is 0.9km from the access of the proposal, however, there are a group of shops and facilities at Horeston Grange local centre which is 1.2 km from the site. Therefore, in general the development site is line with guidelines.
It is considered that improvements could also be made through the provision of footpaths and cycleway within the site that would improve accessibility and sustainability. Further to this, there are other approved development sites within the vicinity that the application could connect to, which can be secured at Reserved Matters stage, this would improve permeability through the proposal to St Nicolas Park, rather than along the Long Shoot.
6. Flooding and Drainage A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application. The site is within Flood Zone 1 (has less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of flooding in any year). It is recognised that there has been localised flooding in the past, it is considered that surface water flooding is a high risk to the east of the site, therefore the indicative master plan has been designed to locate all proposed buildings outside of the area at risk to surface water flooding, which should prevent transfer elsewhere. SuDs are proposed to be used as the formalised storage of such overland water
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 11 flows. It is proposed that run off from the site will be strained by sustainable drainage systems including an infiltration basin, permeable paving and swales. The rate of discharge generated by the site will be restricted to the annual average Greenfield rate. Storage will be provided to contain the volume of 1 in 100 year storm, accounting for climate change in accordance with the NPPF.
The finished floor levels are also to be raised above surrounding ground levels in order to help mitigate the risk of pluvial flooding. This is of upmost importance close to the access road, where the FRA maps have shown risk of surface water flooding. Ground levels should also be profiled to encourage pluvial runoff away from built development.
There are two culverts adjacent to the site, where the field ditches drain to and subsequently to the Severn Trent Water sewer system and ultimately, to the Harrow Brook. There is an existing pumping station to help alleviate flood risk by pumping out flows from the watercourse on the opposite side of the road, that drains from the STW surface water system, into the Harrow Brook, to prevent backing up within the sewer system. It has been confirmed by NBBC Land Drainage Engineer that these culverts will be the responsibility of the riparian land owner, therefore, it is likely that management details of these will need to be submitted. The swales are to direct run off to these ditches and use the existing network of drainage, at the current green field rate, this forms part of the drainage condition.
WCC Land Drainage section are the lead Local Flood Authority, they have no objection to the proposed drainage scheme in line with the submitted FRA and conditions. The Environment agency has no objections to the proposed and no response has been received from STW
7. Ecology The NPPF outlines a need to minimise the impact of proposed developments on biodiversity as well as contributing to and enhancing this where possible. It particularly highlights the need to consider the impact on ecological networks, protected wildlife, priority species and priority habitats.
A Phase 1 Ecological Survey has been submitted with the application. This found considerable areas of hard standing, building and intensively managed arable land that offers negligible ecological value. However, the boundary habitats include hedgerows and trees that provide some ecological value and potential to support a number of faunal species. Therefore a number of measures and ecological enhancements are suggested. This includes construction safeguards including sensitive lighting scheme, tree and hedgerow protection and native species planting, bat surveys including a condition for bat bricks and boxes, new habitat provision through planting and open space features and safeguarding/ timing considerations in respect of birds. The conclusions of the report are that there are no overriding ecological constraints to the proposed development of the site.
NBBC parks Officer has no objection to the application, but has requested conditions that are attached.
8. Residential Amenity A number of the objections raise comments about traffic, noise and pollution affecting the residential amenity. The reports submitted have all been assessed by the relevant experts in these areas and all have been found to be acceptable, some subject to conditions.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 12
There is likely to be some impact upon those residential dwellings that are currently either side of the proposed access. Concern has been raised from the occupier of No.164 regarding the demolition of the attached neighbouring property. Although during construction there is inevitably some disturbance it can be conditioned that the party wall is repaired to the Council satisfaction and a construction management scheme can be submitted to detail the demolition and reconstruction method.
9. Contamination & Air Quality No contaminated Land assessment was submitted with the application however NBBC Environmental Health Officer have raised no objection to this, subject to the standard contamination conditions being put in place.
An air quality assessment was submitted with the application, NBBC Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the details submitted which have taken in to account other development proposals in the surrounding area. Environmental Health Officer has not objected on Air Quality grounds.
10. Noise No response was received from NBBC Environmental Health Officer relating to noise, however. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF outlines the need to consider the impact of noise resulting from new development on health, quality of life and areas of tranquillity. It also indicates the need to consider measures, including the use of conditions, to minimise noise and mitigate against the impact from it. For this reason, conditions that have been placed on other developments along The Long Shoot will also be applied here.
11. Archaeology Both a heritage and archaeology assessment were submitted with the application. WCC archaeology comments are no objection subject to condition. The reports submitted that the land has been in agricultural use since the medieval period and few archaeological site have been recorded in the vicinity. There is potential for archaeological deposits this a condition is required for an implementation of archaeological work , this is deemed to be an acceptable condition.
12. Planning Obligations Open Space For sites of up to 200 houses there is no requirement for on-site provision but instead a financial contribution for the provision and maintenance of open space is sought. This contribution is split between maintenance and capital. In this instance although not required by policy the applicants are providing some play facilities within the open space. NBBC Parks would be happy with this, although not in a position to necessarily adopt this Play & Open Space, the details of which will be included within a legal agreement.
Education WCC Education have requested £847,677 towards education facilities in the area.
WCC Highways WCC Highways have requested £1000 per dwelling for improvements to the Easboro Way roundabout, to mitigate impact upon the highway.
Libraries
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 13 WCC have requested financial contributions towards library facilities. Their request is based on a formula calculation which uses various ratios based on the number of bedrooms within each dwelling. The total contribution requested is £25, 433, which is included within the legal agreement.
Affordable Housing Policy H3 of the Local Plan requires 25% of the dwellings to be affordable this will be added into the legal agreement. The applicant has confirmed they are in agreement with this.
Dual Use Cycle Path NBBC Parks & Countryside have a requested a contribution of £88, 629.24 towards an improved dual use cycle path along The Long Shoot. It would involve an upgrade of the footpath towards town, to a dual use path which is 3 metres wide and approximately 2530 metres in length. The total cost of the scheme is likely to be around £737,732 and is to be split proportionately between the proposed developments along TLS. Negotiations on this continued after the previous Committee resolution to approve, however, an agreement could not be reached and the request was found not to be CIL compliant, therefore, this request is no longer being sought. Hence, the application is being reported back to Committee.
Provision of cycle links within the site The illustrative master plan also indicates the potential for connections to the adjoining sites. The use of footway/cycle way is proposed along the access off The Long Shoot and it is considered appropriate that this continues into the site and to connect to the adjoining site. By connecting the two with cycle paths it would enable linkages throughout the number of developments along The Long Shoot and out to Buttermere Park. The S106 agreement will include provision for future cycle links are made and a plan showing the cycle paths to be provided. This should also include who would be responsible for maintaining the cycle paths together with the landscaped areas, hedgerows and footpaths.
Provision of Management Company responsible for maintenance of SUDS The application includes Sustainable Urban Drainage System, including infiltration basins, permeable paving and swales. If the land is not adopted, the developer of the site would be required to form a management company to maintain the associated structures, if this is the case.
NHS NHS England have requested a financial contribution of £33, 113.02 towards primary medical care facilities (GP premises) at Weddington. Responses have detailed that The Grange Medical Centre, Leicester Road currently has some additional capacity. However, it is clear that the sites currently under construction will take The Grange Medical Centre to capacity. Negotiations on this continued after the previous Committee resolution to approve, however, an agreement could not be reached and the request was found not to be CIL compliant, therefore, this request is no longer being sought. Hence, the application is being reported back to Committee.
REASONS FOR APPROVAL: On completion of a Section 106 agreement relating to a contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space and play facilities in the area, financial contribution towards library provision, the provision of affordable housing, financial contribution towards a roundabout improvement scheme, provisions relating to foot & POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 14 cycle links to adjoining residential development sites and the appointment of a management company(ies) responsible for the long-term maintenance of the attenuation SUDS, culverts, landscaped areas, cycle ways and footpaths (if required) the Head of Development Control be given delegated authority to grant planning permission.
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS: 4. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans contained in the following schedule:
Plan Description Plan No. Date Received Site Location Plan BIR.3173_18C 14th February 2014 Indicative Masterplan BIR.3173_17D-2 14th February 2014 Existing Site Plan 1 of 4 BMW/2244/SVY/001 c1 14th February 2014 Existing Site Plan 2 of 4 BMW/2244/SVY/002 c1 14th February 2014 Existing Site Plan 3 of 4 BMW/2244/SVY/003 c1 14th February 2014 Existing Site Plan 4 of 4 BMW/2244/SVY/004 c1 14th February 2014 Design and Access BIR3173_21 14th February 2014 Statement Planning Statement BIR.3173 14th February 2014 Transport Assessment, 667 14th February 2014 Phase 1 Technical Note- 0677 11th June 2014 Phase 1 RSA Technical Note- Phase 1 667 04th July 2014 Addendum to TA Proposed Access to 667-10 Rev D 30th July 2014 Phase 1 Flood Risk Assessment BMW/2244/FRA 14th February 2014 Landscape and Visual BIR.3172 14th February 2014 Impact Assessment Ecological Assessment ECO2102.EcoAs.vf 14th February 2014 Tree Survey Report BIR.3173 14th February 2014 Arboricultural Impact BIR.3173 14th February 2014 Assessment Archaeological Appraisal 10013 14th February 2014 Heritage Assessment 14035 14th February 2014 Air Quality Assessment J1830/1/F2 14th February 2014
5. No development shall commence until full details and samples of materials proposed to be used in the external parts of any building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
6. No development shall commence until full details of the boundary treatments, including along numbers 160 and 164 The Long Shoot, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No dwelling shall be occupied until the boundary treatment to that plot has been carried out in accordance with the approved details.
7. The details required by condition 1(e) shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of the development and subsequently maintained in the following manner: Any tree or plant (including any replacement) which, within a period of five years from the implementation of the scheme, dies, is removed or becomes seriously
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 15 damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of a similar size and species unless the Council consents in writing to any variation.
8. The development shall not be occupied the proposed access to the site and associated other works to and within the highway have been laid out in general accordance with drawing no. 667-10 Rev D. The final layout will be subject to technical approval as part of the S278 Highway Works agreement to implement the works, which will include the improvement works to the carriageway, provision of refuges, carriageway markings and relocation of bus stop.
9. The development shall not be occupied until all parts of the existing accesses within the public highway not included in the permitted means of access have been closed and the kerb, footway and verge have been reinstated in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway Authority.
10. No development shall commence until the proposed junction improvement works by the Highways Agency at the A5 with The Long Shoot has been implemented fully in accordance with the submitted drawing, number 530013/GA/01.
11. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and subsequent audits to be carried out in accordance with HD 19/03.
12. The development shall not be commenced until parking and turning areas have been provided within the site so as to enable general site traffic and construction vehicles to park within the site and to leave and re-enter the public highway in a forward gear. The public highway should not be used for parking or the loading / unloading of vehicles.
13. The development hereby permitted shall not commence or continue unless measures are in place to prevent/minimise the spread of extraneous material onto the public highway by the wheels of vehicles using the site and to clean the public highway of such material, all in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the District Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority.
14. No development shall commence, including any site clearance, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Council. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) The routeing and parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) Hours of work; iii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; iv) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; v) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; vi) Wheel washing facilities; vii) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and viii) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.
15. No development shall commence until a method statement relating to the demolition of No.162, the Long Shoot has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Any damage caused to No.164 The Long Shoot, must be made good within 1 month of the start of the demolition, unless otherwise agreed in writing. This
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 16 scheme must include timescales and finished appearance of No.164 The Long Shoot.
16. No development shall commence until details of Sustainable Welcome Packs (including public transport information) has been submitted and approved in writing by the Council. The approved packs shall be provided to each dwelling prior to the first occupation of any dwelling.
17. No development shall commence until an Ecological and Landscape Management Plan (ELMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The ELMP shall set out how the measures and recommendations detailed in the Ecology Survey and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment will be implemented and maintained. The ELMP shall also include details of: - Hedgerows that are to be retained, restored and reinforced - Green infrastructure - Replacement native planting scheme - Details of further bat surveys of trees to be affected by the development - Details of a further Badger survey to be carried out prior to the development - Details of planting to provide additional foraging areas for bats - Details and position of roosting and nesting bricks, tiles, boxes and terraces for bats and breeding birds - A timetable for the implementation of all of the ecological and landscape mitigation and enhancement measures - Details of a scheme securing future maintenance and retention.
The measures in the ELMP shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
18.No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council giving details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site, any to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of the development. No tree or hedgerow other than so agreed shall be removed, and no construction works shall commence unless the approved measures for the protection of those to be retained have been provided and are maintained during the course of development.
19. No development shall commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.
20.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) reference BMW/2244/FRA Rev A dated January 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
a) Limiting the surface water run-off generated by all storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 critical storm plus climate change so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site.
b) The preferred method of disposal for surface water run-off is through the use of at- source sustainable drainage methods such a soakaway as detailed in Approved Document Part H of the Building Regulations 2010, and BRE Digest 365 - Soakaway Design. A copy of the porosity tests is to be provided to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate the feasibility of using soakaways
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 17
c) Finished floor levels are set 150mm above existing ground levels generally and 300mm above existing ground levels in the lowest areas of the site near the site access.
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
21. No development shall be commenced until a detailed Maintenance Plan for the on-site Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) features and Ordinary Watercourse within the site boundary is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This plan should provide details on how the entire surface water system shall be maintained and managed after completion. The name of the maintenance company and a contact for who will be responsible for the site shall also be provided before the development is first brought into use.
22. No development shall commence until details for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No development creating surface water run off and no dwelling shall be occupied until the drainage works in accordance with the approved details have been carried out.
23. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Council detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Council. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
24. No development shall commence until full details of the site levels and finished floor levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No construction work shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
25. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of adequate water supplies and fire hydrants, necessary for fire fighting purposes at the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall not be occupied until provision has been made in accordance with the approved details.
26. No development shall commence until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
27. No development shall commence until a scheme for the lighting of the housing and associated access roads, parking areas and open spaces has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This scheme should outline how the lighting scheme avoids potential negative effects upon the habitats used by foraging and commuting bats as evidenced by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist. The
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 18 development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 19
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 20
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 21 PRIOR APPROVAL
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 22
Item No. 2 REFERENCE No. 033166
Site Address: 163 Gadsby Street, Nuneaton
Description of Development: Prior notification for change of use from shop (A1) to two self contained flats(C3)
Applicant: Mr J Beardsworth
Ward: AT
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Committee is recommended that in this instance Prior Approval is not required.
INTRODUCTION: Prior notification for change of use from shop (A1) to two self contained flats (C3) at 163 Gadsby Street, Nuneaton.
Proposal falls within Class IA of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended and is permitted development within this class, but is subject to conditions which require the developer to apply to the LPA for a determination as to whether prior approval of the authority will be required as to – (i) Transport and highways impacts of the development, (ii) Contamination risks in relation to the building, (iii) Flooding risks in relation to the building, and (iv) Whether it is undesirable for the use to change to C3 because of the impact of the change on the provision of services of A1 or A2 uses that the building could provide, but only where there is reasonable prospect of the building being used for these purposes.
It is only these matters than can be considered during the course of the application.
The site lies within a primarily residential area and is surrounded by residential properties on all sides. The property is boarded up and is untidy. It was formerly an off licence with a sign still up on the property, but has been vacant for a number of years. It appears as if there has been a fire on the first floor at some stage. It is cream painted brickwork. There is a vehicular access to a dilapidated wooden garage off Gadsby Street. The property has bay windows to both frontages 1 on Gadsby Street and 2 on Park Avenue. There is a decorative feature above the former access door on the corner.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Enforcement Complaint – Untidy Site received 14/1/15 Enforcement Complaint – Untidy Site received 18/7/2012 Enforcement Complaint – Untidy Site received 27/11/2008 Enforcement Complaint – Untidy Site received 19/7/2007 TP/0387/03 – Conversion to 3 self contained flats Approved subject to conditions 6/5/2007 POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 23 TP/0416/00 – Change of use to 3 self contained flats – deemed refused 16/5/2002 860172 – Change of use of ground floor living room to retail sales Approved 13/5/1986.
BACKGROUND This application is being reported to committee at the request of Councillors Tandy and Margrave.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: NBBC Environmental Health, WCC Highways
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
No objection from: Environmental Health 1. Happy to see the site developed in this way
WCC Highways 1. Proposals could result in lower vehicle movements associated with site. 2. On street parking should be able to be accommodated. Vehicle drop kerb crossing will need to be closed off and the white access bar removing from the carriageway.
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: 161, 165, 206-218 (even) Gadsby Street; 73, 88 Park Avenue
Neighbouring properties were sent letters notifying them of the proposed development on the 19th and 23rd January 2015.
There has been 1 letter of objection from 1 address raising the following points If off road parking is not provided for the development it is totally unsuitable for the area. The number of cars currently parking on the road is excessive forcing owners to park dangerously on the corner of Park Street and Gadsby Street, limiting space and view at the junction. To potentially have 4 more cars would be madness.
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of the application are: 1. Transport and Highways 2. Contamination 3. Flooding 4. Desirability of allowing the change.
1. Transport and Highways The authorised use of the property is as an A1 retail unit at ground floor with residential above. Using the 2003 Car Parking Standards as a guide a retail shop of less than 1000 sq m would require 1 space for every 40 sq m of shop. The floor area POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 24 of the shop use plus store has been measured and this equates to approximately 70 sq m. This would, in Officer’s opinion, generate the need for 2 parking spaces. The proposal is to create 2 x flats and using the 2003 Car Parking Standards as a guide, the proposed development would create the need for a maximum of 1 space per dwelling created equating to 2.
It is considered that the level of traffic and parking that the proposed use could generate is not different to that of the proposed use.
2. Contamination The on which the building is located is not known to be contaminated. Environmental Health have been consulted support the application.
3. Flooding The site is not in a flood risk zone and there are no known risks of flooding.
4. Desirability The property has been vacant for a number of years and has attracted numerous complaints to the Council to be tidied up. The site is in a state where it is not attractive to be used as a shop anymore and therefore it is considered that there is no reasonable prospect of the A1 use being reinstated. The applicant has confirmed this in his application form. In addition the area is a residential area and residential is therefore an appropriate use for the building.
5. Conclusions When taking into account the things that can be considered in the determination of the application, there is no reason to refuse to grant prior approval for this proposal.
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1. The development shall begin within a period of three years from the date of approval of the application.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 25
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 26
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Item No. REFERENCE No. 033156
Site Address: Land at Hill Farm (Site 36C002), Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton
Description of Development: Residential development of up to 262 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished) (outline to include access with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved) (resubmission following refusal of application reference 032824)
Applicant: Gladman Developments Ltd
Ward: GC
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Committee is recommended that Head of Development Control be given delegated authority to grant planning permission subject to a S106 legal agreement relating to financial contributions towards the maintenance of open space and play facilities in the area; provision of play facilities, multi-use games area and teenager facility on site; provision of hard and soft landscaping; financial contributions towards upgrading the surface of The Shuntings and creating a dual use link across Nuneaton Common; financial contributions towards education facilities and provision; provision of school car park on site and transfer of land to Warwickshire County Council; appointment of a management company responsible for the long term maintenance of the drainage pond; provision of affordable housing; financial contributions towards improvement of public rights of way network; financial contributions relating to extension of public transport service; financial contributions towards Travel Plan support; financial contributions towards Traffic Regulation Orders; and provision of Plough Hill Road School Crossing and Bus Shelters, and the conditions as printed.
INTRODUCTION: Residential development of up to 262 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished) (outline to include access with at Land at Hill Farm (Site 36C002) Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton.
The application site comprises of 14.45 hectares of land located on sloping pasture to the immediate north of residential development off Chesterton Drive, Marlowe Close, Blake Close, Browning Close, Ruskin Close and Chaucer Drive. It is situated to the east of Plough Hill Road and consists of a series of semi-improved grassland fields enclosed by hedgerows and scattered hedgerow trees. The site has been in use for pastoral grazing in recent times, although the easternmost land parcel has been left to naturalise and contains rough grassland interspersed with self-seeded oaks and emergent scrub. The site contains further remnants of former agricultural POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 27 development associated with the adjoining locally listed Hill Farm building towards the southern site boundary, including a modern Dutch barn and a small disused brick rural outbuilding, which has fallen into a state of disrepair.
Plough Hill Road marks the western boundary of the site, the length of which is defined by a mature hedgerow with intermittent mature trees. Across Plough Hill Road to the southwest lies Galley Common Infant School. The eastern site boundary is aligned by the former Stockingford Branch rail line (known as The Shuntings) which is now designated as a permissive footpath and traffic free cycle route. The route is densely wooded, providing a vegetated context and visual screen to adjacent lower lying dwellings. Immediately beyond the former railway line and to the northeast of the site lies a cemetery and area of unmanaged of woodland.
Topographically, the site slopes steeply from the south to the north (approximately 137m AOD to 112m AOD), with a prominent ridgeline formed across the 130m contour line between the middle and southern sections of the site.
The on-site topographical arrangement affords wide ranging panoramic views across the rolling arable farmland landscape to the north-west and across the wider surrounding townscape of rising development and terraced residential suburbs where the skyline is punctuated by ridgeline development and woodland, notably the steep wooded ridges of former colliery works (including the disused Hartshill Quarries) and dense tree cover towards Harthill Hayes Country Park.
The immediate surrounding site context is dominated by the residential estates of Galley Common to the immediate south, Plough Hill Road (and associated ribbon development) to the west. The Plough Hill Golf and Conference Centre and the adjoining nursery, paddocks and residential curtilage to the north of the site provides a fragmented urban fringe setting adjoining the northern edge of the site.
The wider context is predominately composed of large rolling arable fields, woodland blocks and scattered agricultural development to the west, and more expansive urban expansion to the east at the outskirts of Nuneaton.
This application is a re-submission of a previously refused application (ref: 032824) for the ‘Residential development of up to 262 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished) (outline to include access with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved)’ at the same site.
The previous application was refused by Planning Applications Committee on 28th October 2014 on the grounds that, ‘It has not adequately been demonstrated that: - The Transport Assessment and supplementary highway information and plans provide a sufficient basis upon which to determine the impact that the proposed development would have on the highway network. - The increase in traffic movements at the junction of Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road resulting from the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety. - The residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development would not be severe. The proposed development could therefore have a severe, significant and detrimental impact on highway safety’. This decision was made in line with the Officer’s recommendation and following an objection from WCC Highways.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 28
WCC Highway’s main issue related to the operation and approach to the Plough Hill Road junction with Coleshill Road. Indeed, road narrowing and obstructions in this location were observed to be holding back traffic from the junction, and causing queuing away from the junction. As such it was extremely difficult to mirror the existing situation in the transport modelling that had been undertaken and consequently gave them no confidence in the future year predications.
Following the refusal of this previous application, the applicant undertook work to try and overcome the reasons for refusal. The applicant and their transport consultants consequently worked with WCC Highways to try and identify suitable mitigation on Plough Hill Road. In consultation with our WCC Highway’s Safety Engineers, the applicant has prepared a Highway Improvement Scheme for the Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road junction. This scheme proposes to introduce localised road widening to create informal parking areas on Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road which would allow cars to park and not impede two way traffic movements. This is supported by a scheme to introduce parking restrictions on Plough Hill Road at pinch points on the approach to the Coleshill Road junction. The parking restrictions would also help discourage illegal parking which is taking place on the side road junctions of Plough Hill Road.
In all, the Highway Improvement Scheme includes the proposed introduction of parking restrictions through a Traffic Regulation Order, provisions for repositioning centre line markings, introducing kerbed build-outs in the highway, widening part of the existing footway and a new location to reposition an existing bus stop on Coleshill Road.
WCC Highways have assessed this and subsequently raised no objection subject to conditions. More details regarding this can be found in the highway safety, traffic flows and accessibility section of the report below.
In view of the above, Officers consider that it is no longer possible for the Council to substantiate the reasons for why the previous application was refused. The recommendation has consequently been changed accordingly.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 032824: Residential development of up to 262 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished) (outline to include access with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved). Refused 30/10/2014.
032716: Erection of stable block with associated hardstanding and fencing, creation of new vehicular access off Plough Hill Road and creation of new vehicular access track. Approved 13/08/2014.
BACKGROUND: This is an outline application for residential development of up to 262 dwellings including public open space, landscaping, up to 186 square metres of convenience retail floor space (A1 use) and a school car park (all existing buildings to be demolished). The following matter is to be considered at this stage:
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 29 Access – accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network.
The following matters are reserved to be considered at a future stage and do not form part of the application:
Layout – the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are provided within the development and their relationship to buildings and spaces outside the development. Scale – the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its surroundings. Appearance – The aspects of a building or place which determine the visual impression in makes, including the external built form of the development. Landscaping – Treatment of private and public space to enhance or protect the site’s amenity through hard and soft measures, for example, through planting of trees or hedges or screening by fences or walls
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: Saved Policies of the Local Plan 2004: o H3 - Affordable Housing; o H5 - Housing Capable of Adaption; o H6 - Planning Obligations; o ENV2 - Area of Restraint; o ENV3 - Rural and Urban Countryside; and o ENV14 - Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents. Affordable Housing SPD 2007. Residential Design Guide 2004. National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF). National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: Campaign to Protect Rural England, Environment Agency, National Grid, Natural England, NBBC Drainage Engineer, NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Housing, NBBC Parks and Countryside, NBBC Planning Policy, NBBC Refuse and Cleansing, NHS Property Services, North Warwickshire Borough Council, Nuneaton Society, Ramblers Association, Severn Trent Water, The Open Space Society, Warwickshire Fire and Rescue, Warwickshire Police, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, WCC Archaeology, WCC Flood Risk, WCC Highways, WCC Infrastructure, WCC Planning, WCC Rights of Way, Western Power Distribution.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
No objection from: NBBC Refuse and Cleansing, NBBC Tree Officer, NHS Property Services
No objection subject to conditions from: Environment Agency, Natural England, NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Drainage Engineer, NBBC Parks and Countryside, Severn Trent Water, Warwickshire Police, Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, WCC Archaeology, WCC Flood Risk, WCC Highways, WCC Rights of Way
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 30
No objection subject to developer contributions from: NBBC Housing, WCC Education, WCC Transport Operations, WCC Transport Planning, Stagecoach, NBBC Parks and Countryside
Comments from: National Grid, North Warwickshire Borough Council, Ramblers Association
Objections from: Open Space Society
No response from: Campaign to Protect Rural England, Nuneaton Society, Western Power Distribution
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: 5 Addison Close. 2-10 (even), 1-13 (odd) Alders Lane. 114 Ashwood Road. 8 Austen Close. 71 Berwyn Way. 8, 19, 18-26 (even), 67-83 (odd), 91-99 (odd) Bettina Close. 1-17 (inc) Blake Close. 4, 5, 10, 12, 15 Bronte Close. 1-17 (inc) Browning Close. 5 Buchan Close. 2, 4, 15, 22, 24, 29 Campbell Close. 5, 11, 14, 15 Carlyle Close. 1-9 (odd), 17, 21, 22, 28, 29, 41, 54, 60, 68 Chaucer Drive. 61 Chaytor Drive. 10-66 (even), 15, 17, The Orchard (36a), 72 Chesterton Drive. The Chase Public House, 81-89 (odd), 134-166 (even), 105a, 105-145 (odd) Coleshill Road. 12 Dalmahoy Close. 6, 22, 25, 32 Dickens Close. 6 Dryden Close. 8, 15-19 (odd), 20, 23, 29 Fielding Way. 1 Fletchers Drift Lane. 15, 29, 52, 39-57 (odd) Freesland Rise. 43, 53, 104-126 (even) Frensham Drive. 9 Hardy Close. St Peter’s Church, Flats 3 and 4 Hickman House, 3, 40, 41, 51, 55, 81, 84, 94, 146, 174, 176 Hickman Road. 2, 9 Keats Close. 1-6 (inc), 7, 9, 12, 15 Kipling Close. 2 Laurel Drive. 27, 49 Lilleburne Drive. 1-20 (inc) Marlowe Close. 1 Mayfair Drive. 33, 39, 43-81 (odd), 86, 90-94 (even), 100, 110 Merlin Avenue. 2 Norwich Close. 4, 23, 29, 42, 43, 54, 55, 60, 64, 68, 91, 92 Orford Rise. 6, 7, 10, 16, 19 Orwell Close. 1, 3, 9-31 (odd), 26-38 (even), 39, 43-49 (odd), 45, 48, 50-54 (even), 62, 81, 110, 128, 203, 205, 245-251 (odd), 271-287 (odd), 301, The Shires (247a), Galley Common Infant School, Galley Common Nursery, Hill Farm, Hill Farm House, Plough Hill Farm Cottage, Plough Hill Golf Centre, Cheeky Monkeys Day Nursery (Plough Hill Golf Centre), Sunkissed Body Boutique (Plough Hill Golf Centre), Garry Dolman Hairdressing (Plough Hill Golf Centre), Plough Hill Road. 2, 8 Rock Close. 1-15 (inc) Ruskin Close. 1, 3, 5, 11, 12 The Elms, School Lane. 6, 14, 16, 15-19-25 (odd) Selby Way. 152 Sherbourne Avenue. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 14 Sheridan Drive. 3 Smallman Road. 29 St Peters Drive. 1-16 (inc) Swinburne Close. 7, 8, 10 Thackeray Close. 1a The Rookery. 73, 85, 105, 113, 115 Tunnel Road. 18 Valley Road. 1-4 (inc) Waggestaff Drive. 61 Waltham Crescent. 18 Whitestone Road. 1-11 (odd) 15-29 (odd), 2-20 (even) Willow Close. 15, 18 Wimbourne Close. 9 Zorrina Close. Galley Common Village Residents Association (3) Wells Close. Castle Green, 2 Monwode Lea Lane (Over Whitacre).
Neighbouring properties and those who objected to previous application ref: 032824 were sent letters notifying them of the proposed development on 13th January 2015. Site notices were erected on street furniture on 3rd February 2015 and the application was advertised in the Nuneaton News on 23rd January 2015. Further letters were sent to residents around the junction of Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road on 6th February 2015. Amended plan letters were sent to those originally consulted on 11th February 2015 allowing comments on an amended Highway Improvement Scheme around the junction of Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road.
NEIGHBOURS RESPONSES:
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 31
Objections Letters from: 5 Addison Close; 9, 14 Austen Close; 2, 8, 10, 22, 77, 99 Bettina Close; 4, 5, 7, 8 Blake Close; 50 Bramdene Avenue; 4, 10, 12 Bronte Close; 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14 Browning Close; 4, 5 Buchan Close; 2, 15, 22, 24 Campbell Close; 2, 5, 11 Carlyle Close; 3, 29, 54, 70, 72, 41 Chaucer Drive; 63, 85, 88, 101, 109, 114, 123, 125, 127 Chaytor Drive; 15, 16, 17, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 56 Chesterton Drive; 103 Coleshill Road; 6, 11, 15, 25 Dickens Close; 6 Dryden Close; 9, 20, 23 Fielding Way; 15, 55 Freesland Rise; 43, 58 Frensham Drive; 3, 9, 12 Hardy Close; 21, 40, 51, 55, 146, 174, 176 Hickman Road; 9, 12 Keats Close; 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 Kipling Close; 15, 27, 44, 51 Lilleburne Drive; 16a Manor Court Road; 1, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, 20 Marlowe Close; 27, 39, 45, 65, 69, 77, 86 Merlin Avenue; 4, 12, 16, 29, 32, 42, 43, 49, 54, 55, 64, 68, 92 Orford Rise; 7, 14, 16, 19 Orwell Close; Galley Common Infant School, Hill Farm, Holly Cottage (205), The Shires (247a), 1, 13, 21, 23, 27, 38, 39, 45, 50, 54, 62, 110, 128, 142, 245, 251, 273, 281, 283 Plough Hill Road; 40 Rannoch Drive; 2 Rock Close; 2 The Rookery; 3, 5, 9, 13, 15 Ruskin Close; 11, 12 School Lane; 19 Selby Way; 55 Sherbourne Avenue; 2, 3, 6, 7, 14 Sheridan Drive; 4 Smallman Road; 29 St Austell Close; 2, 6, 8, 9, 15 Swinburne Close; 10 Thackeray Close; 83, 115 Tunnel Road; 8 Valley Road; 2 Waggestaff Drive; 2, 17, 29 Willow Close; 15, 18 Wimbourne Close; Unknown Address (x46); The Atkins Building (Hinckley); Wilkinson Printers (Nuneaton); 281 Ugg Mere Court Road (Huntingdon); Heart of England Co-operative Society; Marcus Jones MP; County Cllr Phil Johnson; raising the following points:
There have been 282 letters of objection from 200 addresses and 46 letters with no address and 1 letter of support from 1 address. The comments are summarised below: 1. Increase in traffic. 2. Highway safety issues around existing and proposed access and school. 3. School have not requested a car park and had no communication with the developer. 4. Traffic speeds along Plough Hill Road already high. 5. Would add to existing congestion in and around village. 6. Queuing at Plough Hill Road and Chapel End junction. 7. Photographs of queuing traffic sent in by four people showing issues with traffic. 8. A roundabout will not help traffic flow. 9. Already traffic issues west side of town. 10. The widening of Coleshill Road/Plough Hill will make paent dangerous. 11. The new road on proposed estate will be iced up in Winter as north facing. Only having one road on the new development so could restrict emergency vehicles. 12. Independent Consultant reviewed Traffic Assessment and concluded that a number of issues should be addressed and impact on highway safety would be severe. 13. Road widening required is it wide enough for parking bays? 14. Parking and traffic issues on road by Galley Common Infant School and along Plough Hill Road and Tunnel Road. 15. The restricted parking will lead to conflict. 16. Parents park on the pavement near school. 17. Welcomes the road improvements due to the zoo site development but it will not help for this proposal of 262 houses. 18. Despite a Travel Plan at the school there is no decrease in traffic. People drive short distances to the school.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 32 19. Lilleburn Drive is already a rat run. 20. No point in the new bus stop. 21. Unhappy that will not be able to park outside of own house. 22. Bus service could not cope with the extra passengers. 23. Cars already disregard double yellow lines. 24. Improvements will make traffic flow faster on Coleshill Road/Plough Hill Road which will make it more difficult to safely pull in and out of Plough Hill Road and at the road bend near Alders Lane. 25. Existing HGV’s and emergency vehicles n area already cause traffic issues as unable to negotiate road bends and parked cars. 26. Existing pelican crossing will hold up traffic. 27. Amended proposal will not help traffic issues the parking restrictions will just inconvenience more people. There is a disabled parking space in this area. Will increase parking issues in Waggestaff Drive and Willow Close. 28. Numerous accidents including a fatality already at the junction of Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road. Had personal experience of this. 5 fatal or serious accidents since 2005. 29. Traffic data only gathered on two days. 30. More traffic than reported in peak hours. 31. Data doesn’t include traffic from Chesterton drive 32. Plough Hill footpath is only on one side of road in parts and is too narrow. 33. Proposed school parking area inadequate, would not help and would be dangerous due to proximity to crossing and parents and children having to cross the road. Doesn’t include the proposed increase of children. 34. Bettina Close is not wide for more traffic will provide rat run. Lots of elderly people in the Close and there is already a traffic problem in the area including Frensham Drive . 35. Traffic all round Nuneaton gets gridlocked. 36. Transport Assessment refers to the proximity to Nuneaton Railway station – it can take an hour t get there in rush hour. 37. Doubts whether the proposed school car park would ever be built and who would manage it and would be insufficient size and badly located at the junction. People using the shop would park in the school car park or on the road similarly to Costcutters in Chapel End. 38. Proposed convenience store would increase traffic and parking demand near school. 39. The proposal puts yellow lines outside the Chase Inn but no one ever parks there. 40. New proposal will provide a pinch point for traffic on Plough Hill Road. 41. Proposed parking provision for proposed convenience store unsafe. 42. Suggested parking restrictions on Plough Hill Road will not solve issues. 43. Issues with transport statement. 44. Lack of integration with surrounding area. 45. Roads unsafe and hilly and unsuitable for walking and cycling unlike statement in Travel Plan. 46. People ignore speed restriction on Plough Hill Road. 47. Already insufficient parking at the Plough Inn. 48. Plough Hill road is already restricted in visibility due to brow of hill. 49. Number of cars has been massively underestimated. 50. Bus service route and times very poor, not regular enough, pricey and at capacity. The 17/18 bus doesn’t go through Galley Common as stated in the report.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 33 51. Proposed road improvements must be carried out before the development is approved.so request deferral until works are completed and proven to be effective. 52. The amended proposal will not help with volume of traffic. 53. Transport assessment quotes 1 space per 1-2 bedroom and 2 spaces per 2-3 bedroom house. The 2011 census shows the number of people owning cars has risen to 3+ per household. 54. There are already many near misses where the kerb is proposed to be built, the proposed road alterations will make this worse for traffic pulling out of Laurel Drive. The proposed build out and relocated bus stop will reduce parking and exacerbate parking in Laurel Drive and will stop flow of emergency vehicles in this estate. The build outs will cause more congestion. 55. Consider purchasing land from the Chase Public House to provide a car park for residents. 56. Lack of employment opportunities within area forcing people to use car due to poor public transport. 57. Bus and HGV’s have to straddle pavement at Coleshill Road junction. 58. Roads in area are already in bad repair more traffic will make this worse. 59. Proposed bus shelters could restrict visibility. 60. Proposed parking restrictions are not where cars park. 61. Snow and ice in winter and flooded roads cause access issues around village. 62. Cumulative impact of traffic from developments in area. 63. Roads are either single track or made single by traffic. 64. Concerns about ground stability due to steep slopes/instability as per hazards specified in the Hydrock report. 65. Not enough capacity at GP surgeries and lack of parking at the one in Galley Common. 66. Not enough capacity at dentists. 67. Not enough capacity at Galley Common Infant School and there is no junior school in the village 68. Galley Common Infant School does not have space to expand. 69. Not enough capacity at Galley Common Nursery. 70. Not enough capacity at schools in area. 71. Any extension at the school would mean the loss of the nursery. 72. Infrastructure of village could not cope. 73. Accident and emergency services and hospitals already struggling. 74. No provision for cemetery spaces. 75. Adverse effect on sewage/water. 76. Increased burden on George Eliot Hospital, ambulance, fire and police services. 77. Already sufficient shops in area. 78. The sequential test provided for the proposed shop has not considered the one being constructed. 79. Application should be deferred until there is more public consultation. 80. The access for delivery HGV’s at the new shop are inadequate/unsafe. 81. No play field for children proposed. 82. Will include loss of trees planted by local school children. 83. Will lose the close knit community of Galley Common reflected in its mining roots and will erode its sense of place. 84. Missed opportunity to provide something of real benefit, new development in Borough is poor/ugly which will affect future viability. Piecemeal development leads to poor quality, design and environmental. Will provide featureless ghettos with no sense of place. 85. Local opposition as strong as for other development sites in the area.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 34 86. Loss of views. 87. High landscape value of land. 88. Land sits in a ‘bowl’. 89. Development would be prominent in landscape. 90. Land not included in Local Plan for development. 91. Against The National Planning Policy Framework about maintaining open spaces. 92. Loss of greenfield site and countryside. 93. Land classified as Area of Restraint and should therefore not be built on. 94. Does not comply with policy ENV2 or ENV3 of the Local Plan. 95. Diminishes gap between Galley Common and Chapel End/Hartshill. 96. Not in accordance with recommendations of Nuneaton and Bedworth Land Use Designations Studies. 97. Part of Galley Common Hills and Valleys landscape character area. 98. Fails to conserve rural character and would increase prominence of built form in landscape. 99. Properties would result in continuous lines of development rather than appearing as loose clusters or single farmhouses. 100. Would not conserve rapid transition from urban to rural landscape. 101. Fails to retain farmland on either side of Plough Hill Road to retain separation between Galley Common and Plough Hill. 102. Development would be prominent in landscape and wouldn’t appear as individual properties or small, loose clusters. 103. The LVIA document is incorrect and doesn’t show the true ridge lines and is contradictory. The impact report states “significantly affected”. 104. Fails to conserve and enhance woodland on high ground and wooded horizons within built form. 105. No development proposed on site in emerging Borough Plan. 106. Why is ENV14 not considered relevant in Appeal. 107. Previous maps 1998/99 detail the area as environmentally constrained. 108. Decision should be delayed/declined until Borough Plan adopted. 109. Lack of Borough Plan causing uncertainty and questions whether piecemeal development can deliver necessary infrastructure. 110. Infrastructure needs to be in place first. 111. The National Capitol Committee require a 25 year investment plan across country due to increase in population. Defra long term goals to prevent decline. 112. Has geological survey been carried out bearing in mind ex mining area. 113. Site would have been excluded from development and retained its green field status if Borough Plan was in place. 114. Town Centre will suffer as people will choose not to visit due to traffic queues. 115. The Borough is already crammed compared to other Warwickshire areas. 116. Loss of farming land. 117. Significant heritage value of land. 118. Housing demand report is 2 years out of date. 119. Plough Hill Road serves many locations. 120. Documentary and Manorial evidence indicates good potential to yield archaeological finds on site. 121. History of site such that this is a non-designated heritage asset. 122. Site either ancient defensive position or site of Anglo-Saxon hall/dwelling. 123. Site was part of a Manor. 124. Fields, trees and hedgerows compliment character of hills, valleys and fields. These are unique. 125. Hill Farm is heritage asset and provides focal point in historic landscape.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 35 126. Plough Hill Farm Cottage is locally listed brick built barn. 127. The proposal is building over the right of access to Hill Farm without consent. 128. Rural public footpaths would be urbanised preventing interaction with non- designated heritage asset. 129. Negative impact on character of historic landscape and former Manorial common. 130. Lack of 5 year land supply not sufficient justification for developing historic fields. 131. Detrimental to heritage and culture of village life. 132. Character, status and history as semi-rural village would be lost. 133. Poor drainage on land often causing water logging/flooding, SUDS would not help this. 134. The SUD’s standing water at Queen Elizabeth Road has already claimed a life of child. 135. Would contribute to existing flooding problems in surrounding area. 136. High recreation and leisure value of land (particularly for walking and horse riding). 137. Loss of open space (contrary to NHS Government Guidelines/causing increase in obesity. 138. Potential loss of grass public footpaths. 139. Removal of existing footpaths and redirection nowhere near. Would decrease use of footpaths where built up. 140. Negative impact on wildlife value (including bats, birds, mammals, amphibians and crayfish). 141. Protected bat roosts on site (in barn). Decision should be delayed until surveys carried out. 142. Loss of wildlife habitat, flora and fauna on site. 143. Loss of established hedgerows and trees on site. 144. Loss of Black Ash path will be terrible. 145. Hedgerows are protected, species rich and important to wildlife. 146. Hedgerows would have divided historic landscape of considerable age (potentially medieval). 147. Not considered the trees covered by Tree Preservation Order. 148. The Black Track is unsuitable for cycling as not maintained and muddy. 149. Disproportionate increase in size of village by a third. 150. Overdevelopment. 151. House demand already met in Galley Common through other permissions. 152. Other permissions for housing in village have been refused. 153. Cumulative impact of different developments. 154. Better alternative areas for housing development in Borough (e.g. brownfield land). 155. Noise and air pollution during construction (particularly harmful to school learning) and will be of a slow pace. 156. Issues and disruption from construction vehicles and road closures during construction. 157. Negative impact on health. 158. Convenience store would have negative impact on existing shops. 159. Approving application would result in further development pressure in area. 160. Link between this application and separate application for stables on the land. The application for the stables was dishonest. 161. Financial benefit to Council (e.g. additional taxes) may affect decision making. 162. Errors in reports and application form.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 36 163. Many houses for sale in Camp Hill. Some development in Camp Hill will be delayed until 2025 due to lack of market and this proposal will reduce sales of houses in Camp Hill. Must be considered by review before allowing more houses. 164. No need for new housing in this area. 165. Predicted increase in jobs over next 18 years scaled back from 12,000 to 6,300 thereby significantly reducing further demand for new homes. 166. Many affordable houses for sale in local area. 167. 130,000 already for sale rent in area. 168. Consent already granted on the zoo site will increase traffic further. 169. House prices in the area have fallen suggesting oversupply already. 170. Overbuild of 5232 houses in area according to Coventry and Warwickshire Joint Housing Market Assessment Nov 2013 CWJSHMA2013.S 4.4. 171. Prolonged disruption during estimated 6-7 year construction with 6 day working weeks. 172. Noise, dust, air and light pollution. 173. Reduction in air quality. 174. Loss of security and increase in crime and anti-social behaviour during and after development. 175. Anti-social behaviour in proposed school car park. 176. Loss of privacy, overlooking, including overlooking neighbour’s bedrooms and balcony, noise, exposure from artificial lighting and overshadowing of homes especially due to the topography. 177. Visual impact of proposed development to properties too late to consider at reserved matters. 178. Development would be overbearing, out of scale and out of character. 179. Details including height and build types not known. 180. Social housing is not wanted in the village. 181. Loss of property value. 182. Agents/developers only interested in profit. 183. Request site visit (particularly at school times). 184. Not sustainable development 185. No faith in Committee making the right decision to defend local people. 186. It has not been demonstrated by the Transport Assessment and supplementary information that there is sufficient basis to determine the impact of the proposed development on the highway network; the junction of Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road and that the residual cumulative impact would not be severe. 187. It is considered that highways issues remain in relation to trip generation; junction capacity and highway safety. 188. The assumption of amount of link trips versus new trips to the proposed convenience store may be inaccurate. 189. Unrealistic that a 20% increase of traffic will not affect the junction. 190. Previous modelling did not reflect the site specific conditions. 191. No assessment/modelling of the impact of the improvement scheme has been provided. 192. The improvement scheme includes Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) that can not be conditioned as a different legal process therefore could potentially be approved for planning and the TRO never put into place. 193. Further information required to validate the accuracy of the junction model. 194. Only 6 of 136 accidents reported have been described. 195. It can be assumed given that 5 of the accidents reported and 1 was fatal that the impact of increased risk could be severe.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 37 196. Considered that the analysis provided is not adequate to reach the conclusion that the development would not exasperate pre existing highway safety issues. 197. Amount of accidents that have occurred outside of Stretton Lodge means this could be declared an accident black spot. 198. A number of issues should be addressed further within the Transport Assessment. 199. Accident history suggests highway safety could be severe.
Letter of support 83 Tunnel Road 1. Could be an asset to the village if done correctly 2. The fields are just waste land 3. Traffic congestion at school could be reduced by the proposed car park 4. Doesn’t interfere with any other houses as long as it doesn’t encroach onto the golf course 5. The school and other services were only kept open by the new development in the area and also meant the opening of a chemist and doctors surgery.
APPRAISAL: The key issues to address in the determination of this application are: 1. Sustainable Development 2. Housing Need and Housing Land Supply 3. Land Designation and Use 4. Landscape Character and Appearance 5. Trees and Hedgerows 6. Heritage and Archaeology 7. Highway Safety, Traffic Flows and Accessibility 8. Public Rights of Way 9. Ecology 10. Flood Risk and Drainage 11. Air Quality 12. Noise 13. Contamination 14. Convenience Store Impact 15. Economic Growth 16. Planning Obligations
1. Sustainable Development The NPPF establishes the need for the planning system to achieve sustainable development which is composed of mutually dependent economic, social and environmental dimensions. There is consequently a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development. In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the NPPF, unless material considerations or adverse impacts indicate otherwise.
2. Housing Need and Housing Land Supply It is recognised that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land to meet currently identified housing need. This is consequently a matter which in itself carries significant weight in favour of the application because it would improve the number of available houses in the Borough and thereby contribute towards resolving current housing land supply issues. In addition, it is noteworthy that the applicant has confirmed that following a grant of consent, the site would be marketed immediately and sold as expeditiously to one or more house builders who
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 38 would submit the requisite reserved matters applications. They estimate that approximately 25 to 30 market dwelling would be completed each year and would thereby take 6-7 years to complete. This is therefore considered to be a deliverable site and one which would make a significant and positive contribution towards meeting the identified housing need in the Borough.
25% of the 262 proposed dwellings (i.e. 66 dwellings) would all be affordable dwellings in accordance with policy H3 of the Local Plan. The Council’s Housing Strategy Team has welcomed this commenting that: the need for more affordable housing in the borough is well documented. There are currently very few, in fact negligible, affordable rented properties or shared equity in this part of the Borough.
The provision of 66 affordable dwellings from this development would contribute to address this existing shortfall and for that reason, from a strategic housing perspective, the development is welcomed. In terms of sustainability for the development of this size of dwellings in this location, the additional provision of retail space would be a welcome contribution assuming a local convenience store type facility were to be delivered.
The applicant has confirmed that these affordable dwellings would comprise of a mix of 75% affordable rented housing and 25% shared ownership housing as requested by the Council’s Housing Strategy Department. Taking into account the significant need for affordable housing within this area, it is considered that the provision of affordable homes on this site is a matter which weighs significantly in favour of the application.
Aside from housing need, the types of home people require is an important consideration. In this respect it is noted that this is an outline application and that such details would be submitted at the reserved matters application stage. However, the Planning Statement indicates that the proposed dwellings would provide a good mix of housing sizes and would reflect the accommodation needs of different people, families and ages. It would also incorporate 2 to 2.5 storey dwellings and would provide an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare across the site. The Design and Access Statement has informed the proposed Development Framework Plan which has been submitted with the application to provide key design principles to guide future detailed applications. An illustrative layout plan and artist impressions have also been submitted within the Design and Access Statement to indicate how the development could appear. Essentially, this demonstrates that the type and proposed quantum of development proposed for the site could be accommodated in line with local and national planning policies.
3. Land Designation and Use The application site is currently designated as an Area of Restraint (AoR) and Rural Countryside under policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Local Plan. Policy ENV2 sets out that development will only be permitted in Areas of Restraint where the development would not adversely affect the open character or appearance of the area, taking into account possible cumulative effects. Policy ENV3 sets out that planning permission will only be granted for development in the countryside when it qualifies with one of a series of criteria and would then not harm the overall character and quality of the countryside, amongst other things. However, the NPPF states that policies of this sort should not be considered up-to-date if the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As set out above, the Council cannot
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 39 demonstrate this and the NPPF sets out that where the development plan is absent, silent, or as is the case here, out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF, taken as a whole. There is consequently no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites in the urban area to this application site.
Aside from land designations, the application site is currently classified as being within agricultural use. A Soil Resources and Agricultural Use and Quality of Land Report (May 2014) was submitted with the application. This indicates that the majority of the site (9.17 hectares or 64%) is classified as being grade 3b, moderate quality and a small area of the site (0.38 hectares or 3%) is classified as being grade 4, poor quality. The remaining area of the site (4.69 hectares or 33%) is classified as being grade 3a, good quality. Within the grade 3 areas, there are soils with deep loamy subsoils giving land of grade 2 (very good) quality, but of too small an extent to delineate separately.
Taking into account the above, it is considered that the permanent loss of 4.69 hectares of the best and most versatile agricultural land for the proposed urban development would be a matter which weighs against the application. However, it is equally recognised that the good quality agricultural land on the site is the lowest quality of the best and most versatile agricultural land. The report also indicates that these conditions are representative of the vast majority of agricultural land in the Borough and therefore, the loss of the agricultural land itself as a resource needs to be considered in the wider planning balance.
It is considered that there is not sufficient evidence to argue that the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land resulting from this development would be significantly detrimental. Indeed the economic and other benefits of protecting this agricultural land from development are questionable within this context and would largely based on assumptions rather than evidence. The amount of weight which can consequently be attributed to this loss is therefore deemed to be minimal.
4. Landscape Character and Appearance The site is not covered by any formal or statutory landscape designations. However, the site does fall within Natural England’s National Character Area 97 – ‘Arden’. The Warwickshire Landscape Project further identifies the site as part of the ‘Arden Regional Character Area’ (RCA). This RCA is made up of 7 sub-sections, with the site being recognised as within the ‘Industrial Arden Local Landscape Type’.
It is within the context of the above that it is necessary to have regard to the Council’s TEP Land Use Designations Study which include: Volume 1: Landscape Character Assessment (2012); Volume 2: Policy Recommendations (2012); Volume 3 (Site Analysis and Selection); and Stage 2: Individual Site Assessment (2012). These studies are collectively being used to inform the emerging Borough Plan. They assess existing landscape character and the capacity of this landscape to accommodate change. To this effect, the land outside the urban area has been broken down into a number of parcels for the purpose of further analysis. The conclusions of these studies are consequently material considerations to take into account in the determination of this application. It is also noteworthy that the findings of the above RCA have fed into these studies. the site does fall within Natural England’s National Character Area 97 – ‘Arden’. The Warwickshire Landscape Project further identifies the site as part of the ‘Arden
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 40 Regional Character Area’ (RCA). This RCA is made up of 7 sub-sections, with the site being recognised as within the ‘Industrial Arden Local Landscape Type’.
It is within the context of the above that it is necessary to have regard to the Council’s TEP Land Use Designations Study which include: Volume 1: Landscape Character Assessment (2012); Volume 2: Policy Recommendations (2012); Volume 3 (Site Analysis and Selection); and Stage 2: Individual Site Assessment (2012). These studies are collectively being used to inform the emerging Borough Plan. They assess existing landscape character and the capacity of this landscape to accommodate change. To this effect, the land outside the urban area has been broken down into a number of parcels for the purpose of further analysis. The conclusions of these studies are consequently material considerations to take into account in the determination of this application. It is also noteworthy that the findings of the above RCA have fed into these studies.
In this case, the application site falls within the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area. This area is identified as having a strong strength of landscape character with features that are relatively consistent across the landscape. Indeed, the pattern of arable and pasture farming with woodlands, hedgerow trees, wooded streams, and clusters of built form, combine to create a rural agricultural character which has a sense of place relating to the Ancient Arden character area. The landscape condition is deemed to be moderate with features that are generally intact, although around some arable fields, hedgerows are becoming fragmented and in places are absent. Around pasture fields hedgerows tend to be intact and well managed. The field pattern is altering through some expansion and agricultural intensification although the former pattern remains through remnant boundary features. The study therefore recommends that this landscape area is conserved and enhanced. Furthermore, in relation to the capacity to accommodate change, it importantly identifies that:
‘This is a landscape which retains a strong rural and remote character despite its close proximity to the urban edge. Key features that should be conserved and enhanced include: the undulating landform of low rounded hills; woodland on high ground; wooded streams; and frequent hedgerow trees. It is also important to ensure that development does not become prominent within the landscape and where visible appears as individual properties or small clusters along a village edge. Built development tends to appear as clusters of properties on lower ground and individual properties or linear ribbon development on higher ground such as Ansley and Ansley Common. The positioning of properties just below the highest ground also helps to reduce the prominence of development. Change in this landscape which increased the prominence of built form would alter the strong transition from the urban to rural environment. Any new development would need to reflect the infrequent clusters of red brick farmhouse properties within the landscape and ensure it maintains a positive contribution to retaining distinction between settlements particularly Plough Hill and Galley Common. The presence of farmhouses and agricultural buildings and small-scale pasture on the edges of settlements should also be retained to sustain the impression of villages rather than a larger scale conurbation’.
Despite the conclusions of the LVIA, Officers had considerable concerns that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the Galley
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 41 Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area. The Council therefore commissioned a consultant to undertake a review of the applicant’s LVIA. They conclude that the applicant’s LVIA provides sufficient information to determine the planning application. Critically, they agree with the conclusions of the LVIA which indicate that the proposed development would have a moderate adverse significance of effect on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area and character of the settlement fringe. They also agree that the visual effects for footpath users and adjoining residential properties would be of temporary high adverse significance during construction and then of high to moderate adverse significance after 15 years establishment of mitigation planting. Finally, they agree that the visual effects for other receptors would be of largely neutral or minor adverse significance. In conclusion, it is considered by the consultants that:
‘Although parts of the site on higher ground are prominent, the combination of mature hedgerows, hedgerow trees and linear woodland on site and in the wider area and the views of the existing urban edge on high ground to the site’s southern boundary mean that the site is considered to have some capacity for residential development, including a local convenience store and additional school car park.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that this assessment relates to a very large and broad area of land. Indeed, unlike other sites in the Borough, no further individual site assessment for this specific application site was carried out as part of the Land Use Designation Studies. This is because the site, along with other areas of land in the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area, was not carried forward as a potential development area by the Council. It is within this context that Planning Policy has previously highlighted that there are 13 landscape character areas within the Borough and that this landscape area is only one of three where the landscape strategy is to conserve and enhance. They further note that whilst the landscape is not formally designated, it is of high value for Nuneaton and Bedworth.
Taking into account the findings and recommendations of the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies, the applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA, 2014) relating specifically to this application site. This LVIA concludes that the proposed development would result in a medium magnitude of change which would have a moderate adverse effect upon the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area and settlement fringe character. A medium magnitude of change here is defined as a ‘Partial loss of or alteration to one of more key elements/features/characteristics of the existing landscape or view and/or the introduction of elements that may be prominent but not uncharacteristic within the receiving landscape’. Equally, a moderate adverse effect is defined as ‘Effects that are at variance with some of the landscape characteristics, adversely affecting the character (adverse), or fitting well with the landscape characteristics but changing their emphasis for improvement (beneficial)’. The visual effects would vary from high- moderate/adverse for those dwellings immediately overlooking the site and users of certain public rights of way, to negligible or minor adverse for other identified receptors (including distant dwellings, users of local roads and schools). Ultimately, the LVIA concludes that the character of the site would undoubtedly be changed significantly by the implementation of the proposed development. However, it is not considered that the inherent character of the wider landscape or the character of west Nuneaton itself would be subject to any significant adverse landscape effects. Furthermore, it indicates that the majority of the relevant landscape policy objectives and recommendations from the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies could be
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 42 met through an appropriate design response that relates to the site specific circumstances.
Despite the conclusions of the LVIA, Officers had considerable concerns that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area. Indeed, the proposed development seemed to fail to meet a number of the landscape guidelines for this area as outlined within the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies. Nonetheless, it was recognised that the professional and specialist nature of LVIAs is such that a full and independent review would need to be carried out by a Chartered Landscape Architect. This was required to establish whether Officer’s concerns were justified and defensible in the event of a refusal on these grounds. The Council therefore commissioned TEP, who have carried out the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies, to undertake a review of the applicant’s LVIA. They were also asked to complete an individual site assessment of the application site as has been carried out for other sites in the Borough that were carried forward as a potential development areas by the Council.
In terms of landscape qualities, the TEP individual site assessment of the application site consequently indicates that:
‘The land at Hill Farm and its immediate surroundings is mostly consistent with the landscape character of the wider area, although characteristics such as frequent wooded field ponds and the pattern of buildings often being set below the highest ground are missing. The site and its immediate surroundings contain some attractive features, with some less attractive features typical of a landscape in proximity to the urban edge. Attractive features include the undulating farmland with intact hedgerows and mature trees and Hill Farm farmstead, which connects with open farmland west of Plough Hill Road. The landscape in and immediately surrounding the site is generally in a moderate condition, although there are some disused farm buildings within the site and some areas where grassland management has been relaxed. As well as reduced management of farmland in places, less attractive features are associated with the proximity to the urban edge, particularly in more extensive views from elevated locations and/or where there is limited screening to the urban edge. Development at Plough Hill Golf and Conference Centre is not particularly intrusive, but roadside signage, in combination with ribbon development along Plough Hill Road and traffic using the road adds to an urban fringe feel in places. These urban influences result in a landscape that cannot be considered to be remote or tranquil, although the level of disturbance perceived varies depending on viewpoint and proximity to Plough Hill Road’.
In terms of visual qualities, the TEP assessment indicates that:
‘The elevated position of the southern part of the site means it has visual prominence from the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network east and west of Plough Hill Road and from parts of Plough Hill Road. More distant views of this part of the site are also possible from other elevated locations in the western part of Nuneaton. Visual prominence of other parts of the site is limited by topography and the disused railway line and mature vegetation along it. The land within the site provides a setting for Hill Farm farmstead, with attractive views towards the farmstead with farmland in the
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 43 foreground from PRoWs west of Plough Hill Road in particular. In addition, the relatively rapid transition from urban to rural character means that from some locations, particularly low-lying areas, there are some attractive views of intact farmland, which include mature hedgerows and trees, and where the urban edge is largely screened from view. To the south of the site the residential urban edge at Galley Common is partly softened by low hedgerows and some hedgerow trees and garden vegetation, such that short rows of houses are seen on the skyline in views toward higher ground. Views of the residential urban edge on lower ground at Whittleford, to the east is largely screened by mature vegetation along the intervening disused railway line, limiting views of this part of the urban edge to glimpsed views of some rooflines above trees. Views from elevated ground at the site’s southern boundary looking north and northeast is of a partially visible urban edge in the distance, with some vegetation interspersing views of residential development built on sloping ground at Hartshill and Camp Hill. Public accessibility within and immediately surrounding the site includes the network of PRoWs crossing the site and extending west, which connect to Plough Hill Road and the disused railway line and allow some public views. Views from the Plough Hill Road and the disused railway line are limited by intervening mature vegetation’.
The assessment consequently concludes that the landscape capacity of this site is moderate with the scope for mitigation being high. Indeed, it reasons that ‘the landscape between Plough Hill and Galley Common is already influenced by proximity to development, particularly the ridgeline development at the southern edge of the site. The resulting landscape and visual qualities mean that the site has some capacity for residential development and there is scope to improve the appearance of the existing urban edge at the southern boundary of the site. Mitigation in the form of the retention of some areas of open managed grassland and the retention and strengthening of hedgerows, hedgerow trees and woodland clumps would be appropriate and would assist in minimising adverse effects on landscape character and views’. It therefore recommends that the site can be taken forwards for development in landscape terms but makes the following recommendations to:
Conserve and enhance hedgerows and hedgerow trees, particularly oak trees, through appropriate management and replacement and ensuring that new hedgerows and tree planting follow field patterns. Utilise new woodland and tree planting to create a wooded horizon interspersed with built form so that properties appear as loose clusters or single farm houses, rather than continuous lines of development. Concentrate the higher density residential development toward the eastern part of the site adjacent to the disused railway line and on lower lying land adjacent to the driving range as this land is less prominent. Lower density residential development should be located on higher ground in the western part of the site and avoid built form on more prominent north facing slopes. Retain the contribution made by the local landmark Hill Farm farmhouse to landscape character and views by retaining open managed grassland to the north of the farmhouse. This should be broad enough to maintain open views of the farmhouse from the north and northwest and should not contain new tree planting which would impede views.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 44 Conserve areas of managed grassland within new development to maintain separation between settlement at Plough Hill and Galley Common and to retain openness either side of Plough Hill Road. Ensure that new residential development faces onto open managed grassland with hedgerow, hedgerow trees and woodland clump planting to create an attractive urban edge. Retain the natural course of streams and maintain river banks of wooded riparian vegetation. New development should predominantly use red brick to match the north elevation of Hill Farm farmstead. Incorporate some variation in building materials, which make reference to the local vernacular to break-up the mass of development in views. Generally, roof materials should be in recessive colours to help reduce the prominence of urban edges. The height of new residential development should not exceed the ridge height of modern residential development to the south of the site, so that the visual prominence of Hill Farm farmhouse is not compromised. Ensure a sensitive treatment of the urban edge, with variation in built form to create an attractive, high quality settlement setting. This could be achieved through variation in building heights and rooflines, house types and orientation of dwellings, to avoid a monotonous and straight-lined urban edge. Sensitively incorporate PRoWs within new development to create attractive and overlooked routes, which are adjacent to open space wherever possible. Highway improvements should be carefully designed to avoid any urbanising effects.
Following this individual site assessment, TEP undertook a review of the applicant’s LVIA. This review noted some irregularities to the assessment, however, it was considered that overall, the applicant’s LVIA provides sufficient information to determine the planning application. Critically, they agree with the conclusions of the LVIA which indicate that the proposed development would have a moderate adverse significance of effect on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area and character of the settlement fringe. They also agree that the visual effects for footpath users and adjoining residential properties would be of temporary high adverse significance during construction and then of high to moderate adverse significance after 15 years establishment of mitigation planting. Finally, they agree that the visual effects for other receptors would be of largely neutral or minor adverse significance. In conclusion, TEP consider that:
‘Although parts of the site on higher ground are prominent, the combination of mature hedgerows, hedgerow trees and linear woodland on site and in the wider area and the views of the existing urban edge on high ground to the site’s southern boundary mean that the site is considered to have some capacity for residential development, including a local convenience store and additional school car park.
New residential development on higher ground to the southwest and more prominent part of the site should not extend north across prominent north facing slopes and should be designed to improve the appearance of the urban edge at Galley Common.
The three storey Georgian farmhouse at Hill Farm on high ground adjacent to the southern boundary forms a prominent landmark and attractive feature in the local area (this is also stated in the applicant’s
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 45 LVIA). In planning residential development on the site, particular care will need to be given to ensuring that open views of the farmhouse are retained from the north and northwest. The height of new residential development will also need to ensure that the prominence of the farmhouse is maintained.
The development of the site should maintain separation between Plough Hill and Galley Common through the retention of a proportion of managed grassland on site’.
In view of the above, Officers consider that despite initial concerns that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area, there would not be sufficient justification or evidence to warrant refusing the proposal on these grounds. However, the application would only be acceptable if the recommendations within the applicant’s LVIA and consultants assessment are carried forwards into the detailed design of the reserved matters application. A condition would therefore be required to ensure conformity to this.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that this assessment relates to a very large and broad area of land. Indeed, unlike other sites in the Borough, no further individual site assessment for this specific application site was carried out as part of the Land Use Designation Studies. This is because the site, along with other areas of land in the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area, was not carried forward as a potential development area by the Council. It is within this context that Planning Policy has previously highlighted that there are 13 landscape character areas within the Borough and that this landscape area is only one of three where the landscape strategy is to conserve and enhance. They further note that whilst the landscape is not formally designated, it is of high value for Nuneaton and Bedworth.
Taking into account the findings and recommendations of the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies, the applicant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA, 2014) relating specifically to this application site. This LVIA concludes that the proposed development would result in a medium magnitude of change which would have a moderate adverse effect upon the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area and settlement fringe character. A medium magnitude of change here is defined as a ‘Partial loss of or alteration to one of more key elements/features/characteristics of the existing landscape or view and/or the introduction of elements that may be prominent but not uncharacteristic within the receiving landscape’. Equally, a moderate adverse effect is defined as ‘Effects that are at variance with some of the landscape characteristics, adversely affecting the character (adverse), or fitting well with the landscape characteristics but changing their emphasis for improvement (beneficial)’. The visual effects would vary from high- moderate/adverse for those dwellings immediately overlooking the site and users of certain public rights of way, to negligible or minor adverse for other identified receptors (including distant dwellings, users of local roads and schools). Ultimately, the LVIA concludes that the character of the site would undoubtedly be changed significantly by the implementation of the proposed development. However, it is not considered that the inherent character of the wider landscape or the character of west Nuneaton itself would be subject to any significant adverse landscape effects. Furthermore, it indicates that the majority of the relevant landscape policy objectives and recommendations from the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies could be
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 46 met through an appropriate design response that relates to the site specific circumstances.
Despite the conclusions of the LVIA, Officers had considerable concerns that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area. Indeed, the proposed development seemed to fail to meet a number of the landscape guidelines for this area as outlined within the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies. Nonetheless, it was recognised that the professional and specialist nature of LVIAs is such that a full and independent review would need to be carried out by a Chartered Landscape Architect. This was required to establish whether Officer’s concerns were justified and defensible in the event of a refusal on these grounds. The Council therefore commissioned TEP, who have carried out the Council’s Land Use Designation Studies, to undertake a review of the applicant’s LVIA. They were also asked to complete an individual site assessment of the application site as has been carried out for other sites in the Borough that were carried forward as a potential development areas by the Council.
In terms of landscape qualities, the TEP individual site assessment of the application site consequently indicates that:
‘The land at Hill Farm and its immediate surroundings is mostly consistent with the landscape character of the wider area, although characteristics such as frequent wooded field ponds and the pattern of buildings often being set below the highest ground are missing. The site and its immediate surroundings contain some attractive features, with some less attractive features typical of a landscape in proximity to the urban edge. Attractive features include the undulating farmland with intact hedgerows and mature trees and Hill Farm farmstead, which connects with open farmland west of Plough Hill Road. The landscape in and immediately surrounding the site is generally in a moderate condition, although there are some disused farm buildings within the site and some areas where grassland management has been relaxed. As well as reduced management of farmland in places, less attractive features are associated with the proximity to the urban edge, particularly in more extensive views from elevated locations and/or where there is limited screening to the urban edge. Development at Plough Hill Golf and Conference Centre is not particularly intrusive, but roadside signage, in combination with ribbon development along Plough Hill Road and traffic using the road adds to an urban fringe feel in places. These urban influences result in a landscape that cannot be considered to be remote or tranquil, although the level of disturbance perceived varies depending on viewpoint and proximity to Plough Hill Road’.
In terms of visual qualities, the TEP assessment indicates that:
‘The elevated position of the southern part of the site means it has visual prominence from the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network east and west of Plough Hill Road and from parts of Plough Hill Road. More distant views of this part of the site are also possible from other elevated locations in the western part of Nuneaton. Visual prominence of other parts of the site is limited by topography and the disused railway line and mature vegetation along it. The land within the site provides a setting for Hill Farm farmstead, with attractive views towards the farmstead with farmland in the
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 47 foreground from PRoWs west of Plough Hill Road in particular. In addition, the relatively rapid transition from urban to rural character means that from some locations, particularly low-lying areas, there are some attractive views of intact farmland, which include mature hedgerows and trees, and where the urban edge is largely screened from view. To the south of the site the residential urban edge at Galley Common is partly softened by low hedgerows and some hedgerow trees and garden vegetation, such that short rows of houses are seen on the skyline in views toward higher ground. Views of the residential urban edge on lower ground at Whittleford, to the east is largely screened by mature vegetation along the intervening disused railway line, limiting views of this part of the urban edge to glimpsed views of some rooflines above trees. Views from elevated ground at the site’s southern boundary looking north and northeast is of a partially visible urban edge in the distance, with some vegetation interspersing views of residential development built on sloping ground at Hartshill and Camp Hill. Public accessibility within and immediately surrounding the site includes the network of PRoWs crossing the site and extending west, which connect to Plough Hill Road and the disused railway line and allow some public views. Views from the Plough Hill Road and the disused railway line are limited by intervening mature vegetation’.
The assessment consequently concludes that the landscape capacity of this site is moderate with the scope for mitigation being high. Indeed, it reasons that ‘the landscape between Plough Hill and Galley Common is already influenced by proximity to development, particularly the ridgeline development at the southern edge of the site. The resulting landscape and visual qualities mean that the site has some capacity for residential development and there is scope to improve the appearance of the existing urban edge at the southern boundary of the site. Mitigation in the form of the retention of some areas of open managed grassland and the retention and strengthening of hedgerows, hedgerow trees and woodland clumps would be appropriate and would assist in minimising adverse effects on landscape character and views’. It therefore recommends that the site can be taken forwards for development in landscape terms but makes the following recommendations to:
Conserve and enhance hedgerows and hedgerow trees, particularly oak trees, through appropriate management and replacement and ensuring that new hedgerows and tree planting follow field patterns. Utilise new woodland and tree planting to create a wooded horizon interspersed with built form so that properties appear as loose clusters or single farm houses, rather than continuous lines of development. Concentrate the higher density residential development toward the eastern part of the site adjacent to the disused railway line and on lower lying land adjacent to the driving range as this land is less prominent. Lower density residential development should be located on higher ground in the western part of the site and avoid built form on more prominent north facing slopes. Retain the contribution made by the local landmark Hill Farm farmhouse to landscape character and views by retaining open managed grassland to the north of the farmhouse. This should be broad enough to maintain open views of the farmhouse from the north and northwest and should not contain new tree planting which would impede views.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 48 Conserve areas of managed grassland within new development to maintain separation between settlement at Plough Hill and Galley Common and to retain openness either side of Plough Hill Road. Ensure that new residential development faces onto open managed grassland with hedgerow, hedgerow trees and woodland clump planting to create an attractive urban edge. Retain the natural course of streams and maintain river banks of wooded riparian vegetation. New development should predominantly use red brick to match the north elevation of Hill Farm farmstead. Incorporate some variation in building materials, which make reference to the local vernacular to break-up the mass of development in views. Generally, roof materials should be in recessive colours to help reduce the prominence of urban edges. The height of new residential development should not exceed the ridge height of modern residential development to the south of the site, so that the visual prominence of Hill Farm farmhouse is not compromised. Ensure a sensitive treatment of the urban edge, with variation in built form to create an attractive, high quality settlement setting. This could be achieved through variation in building heights and rooflines, house types and orientation of dwellings, to avoid a monotonous and straight-lined urban edge. Sensitively incorporate PRoWs within new development to create attractive and overlooked routes, which are adjacent to open space wherever possible. Highway improvements should be carefully designed to avoid any urbanising effects.
Following this individual site assessment, TEP undertook a review of the applicant’s LVIA. This review noted some irregularities to the assessment, however, it was considered that overall, the applicant’s LVIA provides sufficient information to determine the planning application. Critically, they agree with the conclusions of the LVIA which indicate that the proposed development would have a moderate adverse significance of effect on the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area and character of the settlement fringe. They also agree that the visual effects for footpath users and adjoining residential properties would be of temporary high adverse significance during construction and then of high to moderate adverse significance after 15 years establishment of mitigation planting. Finally, they agree that the visual effects for other receptors would be of largely neutral or minor adverse significance. In conclusion, TEP consider that:
‘Although parts of the site on higher ground are prominent, the combination of mature hedgerows, hedgerow trees and linear woodland on site and in the wider area and the views of the existing urban edge on high ground to the site’s southern boundary mean that the site is considered to have some capacity for residential development, including a local convenience store and additional school car park.
New residential development on higher ground to the southwest and more prominent part of the site should not extend north across prominent north facing slopes and should be designed to improve the appearance of the urban edge at Galley Common.
The three storey Georgian farmhouse at Hill Farm on high ground adjacent to the southern boundary forms a prominent landmark and attractive feature in the local area (this is also stated in the applicant’s
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 49 LVIA). In planning residential development on the site, particular care will need to be given to ensuring that open views of the farmhouse are retained from the north and northwest. The height of new residential development will also need to ensure that the prominence of the farmhouse is maintained.
The development of the site should maintain separation between Plough Hill and Galley Common through the retention of a proportion of managed grassland on site’.
It is clear that the proposed development would change the character and appearance of this locality. Indeed, it would result in the loss of open agricultural fields and the permanent replacement of this with urban development in the form of housing, school car park and convenience store, albeit with provisions for green infrastructure. Within a wider context this site falls within the Galley Common Hills and Valleys Landscape Character Area which is deemed to be of strong strength and therefore in need of conservation and enhancement. However, the evidence indicates that this specific site is of a lower value and sensitivity than the wider character area and therefore has the capacity to accommodate residential development without causing substantial harm to the wider character area. Nonetheless, this would only be achieved if a full landscape strategy utilising Green Infrastructure is prepared and then implemented on site. Care would also be required to ensure that built development is located away from the more sensitive areas. In this respect it is noted that this is an outline application and that matters relating to layout, scale and landscaping would all be considered at a later date. Despite this, the applicant has prepared a design and access statement, development framework plan and illustrative layout plan, to demonstrate that the proposed development could be designed and accommodated on the site in accordance with the LVIA recommendations. On balance, it is therefore considered that the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development in this location would not be sufficiently detrimental to weigh significantly against the application subject to suitable mitigation.
5. Trees and Hedgerows An arboricultural assessment has been submitted with the application, the results of which indicate that out of a total of 56 individual trees, 41% were high quality, 36% were moderate quality, 18% were low quality, and 5% were in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees. Of the 10 tree groups, 3 were found to be moderate quality and 7 were found to be low quality. The 1 woodland on the site was found to be high quality whilst all of the hedgerows, from an arboricultural viewpoint, were found to be low quality. The protection and enhancement of these existing trees and hedgerows is necessary to ensure that the proposed development does not have a significant adverse impact on the landscape. The Arboricultural Assessment consequently confirms that the trees and hedgerows are of sufficient arboricultural quality and benefit to the proposed development so as not to prevent this from occurring.
As this is an outline application, matters relating to layout, scale and landscaping would all be considered at a later date when a reserved matters application is submitted. Officers would only then be able to examine the full impact of the proposed development on the identified trees and hedgerows. A condition requiring details of all trees and hedgerows to be retained on the site and measures for their protection during construction would therefore be necessary to control this. It is also considered that a condition imposing a 5 metre wide buffer zone from the built
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 50 development to the hedgerows, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council, would be necessary to ensure the continued protection of hedgerows.
Overall, it is noted that the vast majority of trees and hedgerows across the site could be retained if permission is granted. A full assessment of the impact on trees and hedgerows would need to be made when detailed reserved matter applications are considered. However, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site without resulting in the loss of any hedgerows classified as being important under the Hedgerow Regulations. Nonetheless, access requirements necessitate that there would be some gaps/breaks created in the hedgerows. It is also possible that one or more hedgerows could be removed owing to design, layout and future maintenance considerations. However, such breaks and loss could be mitigated against through the reinstatement and enhancement of other hedgerows on the site. This would therefore help to ensure that the overall value of hedgerows and trees on the site is retained and enhanced.
6. Heritage and Archaeology The NPPF outlines the need to assess the impact of proposed developments on the historic environment when considering planning applications. The applicant has therefore submitted an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (2014) and Geological Survey Report (1014). The Archaeological Assessment draws together available archaeological, historic, topographic and land use information, including the findings of a walkover survey, to establish the heritage significance and archaeological potential of the site. The Geological Survey was ultimately used to create a map of potential subsurface archaeological features that help to further establish the potential presence of archaeological assets and heritage assets on this site.
Just outside of the application site to the south is Hill Farm House which is designated as a locally listed building within the Local Plan. The assessment identifies that this building is considered to be of sufficient significance to warrant being seen as a non-designated heritage asset. In particular, it notes that the building dates to the mid to late 19th Century with its significance being derived from its historic and architectural interest. A positive contribution to its significance is also made by the plot boundary which would not be directly impacted by the proposed development. The wider landscape setting of the building, including the application site, is considered to have a neutral effect on its significance. The proposed development would consequently not cause detrimental harm to this non-designated heritage asset. Furthermore, the design and access statement, development framework plan and illustrative layout plan indicates that the development could be accommodated on the site whilst allowing for no development on land to the immediate south of the building. This would consequently further ensure that this non-designated heritage asset would not be harmed.
WCC Archaeology has subsequently carried out an independent assessment of the archaeological assessment and geological survey. Their response is one of no objection subject to a condition requiring an appropriate programme of further archaeological work including evaluative trial trenching. This response has been made on the basis that this is an outline application with the detailed layout reserved for consideration at a later stage.
7. Highway Safety, Traffic Flows and Accessibility Access
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 51 This is an outline application to include access with all other matters reserved. In this respect it is proposed that the site would be accessed off Plough Hill Road in two places. The first access point would take the form of a simple T-junction which would act as the main vehicular access to the proposed development. The second access point would also take the form of a simple T-junction and would be located further south of this first main access point. It is intended that this would provide access to a new 24 space parking facility for Galley Common Infant School whilst also providing an emergency access point for the proposed residential development.
The Transport Assessment (2014) submitted with the application indicates that both accesses would be constructed to adoptable standards to include footways which would link into the existing pedestrian infrastructure along Plough Hill Road. They would consist of 5.50 metre carriageways with 2 metre footways on either side. Minimum visibility splays of 2.40 metes x 120 metres and junction radii of 8 metres would be provided.
The Assessment acknowledges the current incidences of regular parking along Plough Hill Road by parents dropping off and picking up their children at Galley Common Infant School. The proposed 24 space parking facility is therefore proposed to reduce this by providing safe and convenient off-street parking. It is considered that this would lessen the likelihood of ‘shuttle running’ on Plough Hill Road, thus improving traffic flows, whilst also making it safer for parents/children crossing the road to the school. In this respect, it is also noted that the applicant is proposing to provide a new pelican crossing point across Plough Hill Road to aid crossing and ensure the link between the car park and school is appropriate. This would be secured through inclusion within a S106 Agreement. To further reduce the likelihood of on-street parking in this area, it is proposed that appropriate Traffic Regulation Orders to restrict car parking could be implemented along the stretch of Plough Hill Road adjacent to the school and proposed car park access.
Warwickshire County Council Highways has assessed the proposed access points and raised no objection subject to conditions stipulating that this is provided in accordance with the submitted plans.
Traffic Flows In addition to the impact of the proposed access on the immediate area, it is recognised that the traffic flows from the proposed development would have an impact on a much wider area. It is within this context that the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment (TA) and Framework Travel Plan (TP) in order to assess the effect of traffic flows likely to be generated.
The TA provides an assessment of existing traffic levels within the local highway network and sets out the impact that would arise from the vehicular trips generated by the proposed development. In this case, it has been calculated that the proposed development would result in a total of 219 morning peak and 260 evening peak trips. Traffic movements on the highway network have been distributed via the existing turning proportions obtained from traffic surveys. The TA further takes into account the increase in traffic flows from committed developments and Local Plan aspirations. It consequently concludes that there would only be a modest impact from the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed development that would access the highway network.
Further to the above, the TA has sought to establish the impact of traffic at the following three junctions:
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 52 1. Plough Hill Road/Laurel Road/Coleshill Road: AM Peak trip increase of 8% (moderate impact severity) and PM Peak trip increase of 10% (moderate impact severity). 2. Hickman Road/Valley Road/Tunnel Road: AM Peak trip increase of 17% (moderate impact severity) and PM Peak trip increase of 20% (moderate impact severity). 3. Tunnel Road/Birmingham Road/ Arley Road/Ansley Road: AM Peak trip increase of 7% (minor impact severity) and PM Peak trip increase of 7% (minor impact severity).
Detailed junction capacity assessments were subsequently carried out for the main site access and where a moderate impact severity was established above. The results of this are as follows: 1. Site Access/Plough Hill Road Junction: Would operate within capacity and would adequately accommodate development proposals. 2. Plough Hill Road/Laurel Road/Coleshill Road: Would operate within operational capacity. 3. Hickman Road/Valley Road/Tunnel Road: Would operate within operational capacity.
In terms of the wider traffic impact, the TA also looked at the impact on 87 individual junctions. The results of this indicate that the proposed development would not result in a material difference in the level of queuing at these junctions whilst having a negligible impact on mean network delay levels.
Sensitivity assessments based on traffic turning counts, queue surveys and background growth have been carried out at the following junctions: 1. Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road/Laurel Road: Would operate without any significant operational issues. No significant impact. 2. School Hill/Coleshill Road East/Coleshill Road West: Would operate within capacity. Development would have minimal impact on junction’s level of operational performance. 3. Victoria Road/Camp Hill Road/Bucks Hill Road/Coleshill Road: Would operate within capacity. Development would have minimal impact on junction’s level of operational performance.
In terms of accident analysis, the TA identifies that the number of accidents within the wider area of the application site over the past five years are typical for roads with these levels of traffic flows. It therefore contends that the proposed development would not exacerbate any pre-existing highway safety issues present on the local highway network.
Notwithstanding the findings of the TA, the applicant has carried out investigations into how to improve the practical performance of the Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road junction with a view to overcoming the reason for refusal for previously considered application ref: 032824. Consideration has therefore been given to the existing arrangements and parking/queuing issues along Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road. The outcome of this is such that a highway improvement scheme at the junction of Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road has been proposed. This scheme includes the proposed introduction of parking restrictions through a Traffic Regulation Order, provisions for repositioning centre line markings, introducing kerbed build-outs in the highway, widening part of the existing footway and a new location to reposition an existing bus stop on Coleshill Road. It is intended that this would enable unobstructed two way traffic movements along Plough Hill Road whilst also allowing
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 53 space for on-street parking. This would therefore overcome the existing situation in which traffic builds up behind parked cars on Plough Hill Road and waits for oncoming traffic to clear before manoeuvring around this.
WCC Highways has assessed the proposed access points, proposed highway improvement scheme and the impact of the proposed development on traffic flows and highway safety and commented as follows:
‘At Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council’s Planning Committee on 28th October 2014, Members decided to refuse the previous application, citing highways as a reason for refusal.
The Highway Authority’s main issue related to the operation and approach to the Plough Hill Road, road narrowing and obstructions were holding back traffic from the junction, and causing queuing away from the junction. As such it was extremely difficult to mirror the existing situation in the modelling and we had no confidence in the future year predications.
Since the application has been refused we have been working with the applicant and their transport consultants to try and identify suitable mitigation on Plough Hill Road. In consultation with our Safety Engineers the applicants have come up with a scheme, that through localised widening creates informal parking areas on Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road, allow cars to park and not impede two way traffic movements. This is supported by a scheme to introduce parking restrictions on Plough Hill Road at pinch points on the approach to the Coleshill Road junction. The parking restrictions will also help discourage illegal parking which is taking place on the side road junctions of Plough Hill Road’.
WCC Highways has consequently raised no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions. Previous application ref: 032824 was refused on the grounds that the proposed development could have a severe, significant and detrimental impact on highway safety. In view of the further work undertaken by the applicant, the submission of a Highway Improvement Scheme for the Plough Hill Road and Coleshill Road junction and the response of no objection from WCC Highways, it is considered that the previous reason for refusal can no longer be substantiated.
Accessibility of Facilities and Services The NPPF seeks to promote a mix of land uses within large scale residential developments. A range of local services and facilities should all be within walking distance of most properties. Such an approach is endorsed within Building for Life 12 which the Council draws on when considering applications. Further guidance is set out in the Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) publication Guidelines for Providing Journeys on Foot (2000) which provides a widely accepted standard for assessing reasonable walking distances. This indicates that an acceptable walking distance for most purposes is considered to be 800 metres with a preferred maximum of 1.2 km. For schools and employment sites it indicates that an acceptable walking distance for most purposes is considered to be 1km with a preferred maximum of 2 km. However, the Guidelines make the point that what is acceptable in individual terms will vary depending on such factors as the quality and size of shops, individual fitness and physical ability, the purpose of the journey, alternative travel options and general deterrents to walking.
Further guidelines are outlined in Manual for Streets which sets out that ‘walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 54 minutes’ (up to about 800m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot. However, this is not an upper limit and PPS13 [note: now replaced by the NPPF] states that walking offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly those under 2km’. Paragraph 4.4.2 further outlines that ‘the public transport network and established walking and cycling routes are fundamental to achieving more sustainable patterns of movement and to reducing people’s reliance in the car’.
Manual for Streets 2 indicates that cyclists should generally be accommodated on the carriageway with direct, barrier free routes which follow desire lines. Junctions should be designed to accommodate cyclists’ needs. It notes that is widely considered that cycling has the potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under 5km, and form part of a longer journey by public transport. It also outlines that cycling is another key issue in assessing the sustainability of a development location in the Transport Assessment and the development of Travel Plans and developments which give priority to this mode of transport are to be encouraged under national planning policy.
In respect of this site, it is noted that the closest potential dwelling to the closest food retail shop and local centre (at the corner of Valley Road and Hickman Road) would be approximately 480m away whereas the furthest potential dwelling is approximately 1,450m away. Some of the dwellings on the site would therefore be beyond the preferred maximum walking distances to the closest shops. The topography of the area is also such that residents would have to walk uphill/downhill to access these shops which would decrease the perceived attractiveness of walking. However, it is equally recognised that the proposed development includes provisions for a small convenience store on the application site. In the event that this is constructed, all dwellings on the site would be within the preferred maximum walking distances. However, the construction of this store cannot be guaranteed. In the event that this is not constructed, it would have to be accepted that people could be more inclined to drive to the nearest shop and local centre rather than walk or cycle.
The proposed dwellings on the site would be beyond the preferred maximum preferred walking distances to the closest secondary school, college, GP surgery, dentist, supermarket, library, public house and leisure centre. The proposed dwellings would also be located a significant distance away from the town centre and areas of employment. These are all local services, facilities, centres and employment areas that would be needed by future occupiers. It is consequently necessary to consider whether existing sustainable transport options in Galley Common are sufficiently able to accommodate the needs of the future residents that would occupy this proposed development.
In respect of the above, existing public transport services within Galley Common are limited to a bus service which is considered to be poor. The applicant has consequently agreed to improve bus service provision to the site in addition to providing two new bus shelters by the site access. This is considered in full under the ‘Bus Service Improvements and Bus Shelters’ sub-section of the ‘Planning Obligations’ heading below.
Aside from public transport services, Manual for Streets 2 outlines that cycling has the potential to replace short car trips under 5km. In the respect the application site is located immediately adjacent to National Cycle Network Route 11 which is located within The Shuntings. However, the existing unsurfaced nature of this route is such that this is not readily accessible or usable by cyclists for every day of the year.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 55
It is within the context of this that Parks and Countryside have requested financial contributions of £259,531.89 towards the upgrading and maintenance of the surface of The Shuntings with tarmac and creation of a cycle link across a section of Nuneaton Common into Sustrans Route NCN524 which takes people into Nuneaton Town Centre and connects to National Cycle Network Route 52 for wider travel.
Parks and Countryside have undertaken extensive work to ensure that their request is fully justified and CIL compliant. The exact route that a contribution is being sought for has consequently been specifically identified with advice from the Council’s engineer and is therefore suitable and deliverable. The selected route is also directly related to the development site in that it concerns an area of The Shuntings that runs directly adjacent to the application site and links into the National Cycle Network and wider cycle network. The amount of contribution sought has also been fully costed by the Council who have obtained the services of an independent quantity surveyor who has provided fully detailed, fair and accurate costings that are reasonably related to the development. The required works would be on Council owned land and Officers consider that the identified scheme is fully deliverable. Officers therefore consider that the identified scheme is robust and meets the CIL tests. The request has been submitted to and agreed by the applicant and would be secured in a S106 Agreement. The effect of this is such that the contribution would result in the creation of excellent cycle links from the site to the surrounding area. This would help to encourage the future occupants of the proposed development to cycle to essential facilities, services, centres and employment areas that they would need rather than using private cars.
The applicant is willing to provide ‘Welcome Packs’ for the occupants of new dwellings which would include details regarding public transport, walking and cycling routes between their home and surrounding amenities. Moreover, the Travel Plan submitted with the application includes a number of provisions and recommendations for encouraging alternatives to private cars. A condition could therefore be imposed to ensure compliance with this. The bus service improvements financial contribution, provision of bus shelters, welcome packs and implementation of the recommendations in the Travel Plan, would all help to encourage the use of public transport and sustainable transports options which would help to encourage a reduced reliance on private vehicles.
8. Public Rights of Way The NPPF establishes the need for planning to protect and enhance public rights of way and access.There are currently four public rights of way which cross the site - public footpaths N17, N18, N50 and N6. As this is an outline application, matters relating to layout, scale and landscaping would all be considered at a later date when a reserved matters application is submitted. Officers would only then be able to examine the full impact of the proposed development on these public rights of way. However, the plans show that public footpaths N17 and N18 would need to be diverted to accommodate the indicated layout.
WCC’s Rights of Way Team has considered the proposal and commented that:
The current Development Framework plan (revision 011) shows that some of the public footpaths crossing the site (N17 and N18) would need to be diverted to enable the proposed development. The proposed diversion routes have also been shown on the plan, running mainly alongside the proposed access roads. Diverting public rights of way along access roads is generally considered
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 56 undesirable in terms of amenity and it is preferable for public rights of way to be accommodated within landscaped areas or green corridors wherever possible. Public footpath N50 (proposed to be retained along its current alignment) will also run alongside access roads but would at least benefit from some landscaping along its western edge.
The Rights of Way team has no objection in principle regarding this application for outline consent but recommend that consideration is given to the amenity of public rights of way at the detailed planning stage, should consent be granted. We would wish consideration to be given to whether public rights of way can be accommodated or diverted through greener, more pleasant, open or landscaped environments within the site.
As indicated above, this is an outline application and any proposal to divert the public footpaths would ultimately be considered within the assessment of a detailed reserved matters application. However, the points regarding the amenity of the public footpaths are noted and further discussions regarding a suitable alignment would therefore be necessary. Indeed, there is the potential for longer and less direct footpath diversions which could run through or adjacent to the proposed areas of public space on the site if preferred. A condition could therefore be imposed requiring details of public footpaths running across the site to be submitted for consideration.
Aside from the consideration of public rights of way on the site, it is further recognised that the future occupants of the proposed development would use other public rights of way within the surrounding area. In this respect, WCC’s Rights of Way Team has requested a financial contribution of £12,990 towards improvements to public rights of way N2, N5, N6 N16, N17, N18 and N19 which are located within the immediate vicinity of the application site. They indicate that these improvements would include path surface improvements, stiles to gates and bridge improvements. This financial contribution could therefore be secured within a S106 Agreement.
9. Air Quality The NPPF establishes the need to consider whether the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of air quality to the detriment of new or existing development.
In respect of the above, the applicant has submitted an Air Quality Screening Report 2014 with the application. This identifies that the site is not located in an existing Air Quality Management Area or known area of concern with regards to poor air quality. As agreed with the Council’s Environmental Health Department, the report reviews the predicted increase in traffic on roads resulting from the proposed development. In this respect, the highest impact would be on Plough Hill Road with around a 10% rise in traffic. The report concludes that ‘Although it is recognised that there are residential properties located along Plough Hill Road that may be affected by development-generated traffic, the local pollutant levels are observed to be well below the annual mean objectives for both NO2 and PM10’.
Environmental Health has subsequently raised no objection to this report and it is consequently considered that the proposed development would not result in unacceptable levels of air quality to the detriment of new or existing development in the area.
10. Flood Risk and Drainage
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 57 The NPPF requires that consideration is given to the potential impact of flooding on new development whilst also ensuring that flood risk is not increased elsewhere as a result of it. It also sets out a sequential risk-based approach to the location of development to steer this away from the areas at highest risk.
In view of the above it is necessary to have regard to the Council’s ‘Climate Change – Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)’ at Level 1 (2008) and Level 2 (2012). The level 1 SFRA outlines the results of a review of available flood related policy and data across the region. It then sets out recommendations and guidance in relation to flood risk and drainage policy which generally underpins national guidance. The level 2 SFRA builds on this and also outlines a detailed assessment of potential development sites that have been put forwards in relation to flood risk. It also sets out recommendations for Flood Risk Assessments for individual sites and general guidance for flood risk.
The SFRA subsequently indicates that the application site is located within flood zone 1 (low probability of the flooding) but does identify that there is a watercourse which runs along part of the northern boundary of the site and notes that no incidences of flooding have been recorded on the site. It also identifies that the site is located immediately adjacent to the Nuneaton Centre and West Critical Drainage Area. This area was identified following reported sewer and surface water flooding incidences, the SFRA analysis showing significant surface water flooding hotspots and properties shown as affected in the DG5 flood risk register. However, the SFRA does not contain a detailed assessment of the application site as this did not form part of any potential development areas in the Borough Plan. Despite this, general recommendations are made which include the need for full sequential and exception tests where applicable. It particularly indicates the need to ensure that development is designed so that there is no flooding to the development in a 1 in 30 year event and no property flooding in a 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. Finally, it recommends that surface water management, including the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, should be incorporated.
The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 2014 which is based on a topographical survey, desktop studies, drainage survey, hydrological calculations and walk over inspection of the site. It identifies that the area is at low risk of flooding in Flood Zone 1and considers that the bed level of the identified watercourse is lower than the development site and as such has limited potential to pose any flood risk to the site. In terms of surface water risk, it identifies that there is a general fall across the site from south to northeast. The housing estate to the south of the site is noted as being higher but includes a full drainage network flowing down in a southerly direction away from the site thereby preventing water entering this. The railway line to the east is flat and low lying whilst Plough Hill Road to the west runs downhill away from the development and also contains highway drainage. The risk to the site from overland flooding is therefore considered to be low whilst measures could further be incorporated within the development to ensure rainfall runs away from new buildings. In terms of the risk from sewers and drains flooding, the FRA identifies that all of the sewers and drains within the area are located outside of the application site. It therefore indicates that there would be a low risk of flooding from exceedance failure or blockage. Providing new on site drains are maintained, it also considers the risk to new development is low. Finally, it considers that there is a low risk from groundwater and artificial sources.
Having established the probability of the site flooding from different sources, the FRA outlines a Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) strategy which seeks to firstly
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 58 prevent runoff and then control runoff at source by installing water butts into new homes and potentially incorporating permeable paving (subject to positive infiltration testing owing to clay soils). Rainwater runoff from residential plots and the highway would then be directed via a gravity drainage network to an on site detention pond in the northeast corner. It notes that detention ponds are unlike balancing ponds in that they remain dry during periods of low rainfall. However, during periods of rainfall, water from the drainage network would be stored within the detention pond and then discharged into the adjacent watercourse at controlled flow rates.
As this is an outline application, the final layout and associated drainage strategy is not yet known. Nonetheless, the FRA does outline preliminary drainage proposals to demonstrate that the site can satisfactorily deal with worse case storm water volumes in the indicated manner. Overall, the FRA confirms that the proposed development could be designed so as to ensure water runoff rates are no greater than what already occurs on this Greenfield site. This would therefore ensure that flood risk off the development site would not increase.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that the long-term management of the SUDS would be essential for this to function over the lifetime of the proposed development. In this respect, it is anticipated that STW would adopt the gravity drainage network. The applicant has further indicated that the detention pond would be adopted by the final developer of the site via a private maintenance company if required. This could therefore be secured through a S106 Agreement requiring the appointment of a management company responsible for the long term maintenance of the pond.
The Environment Agency has subsequently assessed the proposed development and FRA and raised no objections. WCC’s Flood Risk Management Team has also assessed this and raised no objection subject to conditions requiring a detailed drainage design and maintenance plan to be submitted. Furthermore, Severn Trent Water has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring the submission of plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage.
Taking into account the above, it is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site without being at risk from flooding. It is also considered that the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere.
11. Ecology The NPPF outlines a need to minimise the impact of proposed developments on biodiversity as well as contributing to and enhancing this where possible. It particularly highlights the need to consider the impact on ecological networks, protected wildlife, priority species and priority habitats.
The applicant has submitted an Ecological Appraisal 2014 which is based on an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. This has involved the undertaking of a desktop survey, field survey (including an assessment of hedgerows and mature trees) and habitat/faunal surveys. The applicant has also submitted a Protected Species Report (2014) which includes the results of bat, great crested newt and reptile surveys.
Overall, it is considered that the recommendations and mitigation strategies set out in the ecological appraisal and protected species report would help to ensure that the proposed development would not have such a significant and detrimental impact on ecological matters so as to warrant refusal. Indeed, suitable conditions could be
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 59 imposed on the outline permission to ensure that biodiversity across the site, including habitats and protected/priority species, are protected. Furthermore, matters relating to layout and landscaping would ultimately be considered at the detailed reserved matters application stage. The Council would therefore be able to request any justified changes to the scheme at this point to ensure biodiversity requirements are met.
12. Noise The NPPF outlines the need to consider the impact of noise resulting from new development on health, quality of life and areas of tranquillity. It also indicates the need to consider measures, including the use of conditions, to minimise noise and mitigate against the impact from it.
The applicant has submitted a Noise Screening Report 2014. In relation to existing noise sources affecting the development site, the report considers that the dominant existing source of noise affecting the development site would be road traffic on the local road network, in particular Plough Hill Road. In relation to potential noise sources affecting the proposed development, the report indicates that due to the site’s semi-rural location on the edge of Nuneaton, the potential impact from existing road traffic is unlikely to be significant. They therefore contend that the required external and internal noise limits, applicable to road noise, should be achieved across the development without the need for mitigation. However, they note that this would be confirmed at the detailed design stage. Aside from this, they consider that the net increase in local road traffic due to the proposed development may result in a small increase in noise at existing residential properties. However, this is considered likely to be a non-significant change in noise level and should therefore not be a determining factor.
The Council’s Environmental Health Department has subsequently assessed the report and do not object to the proposed development, but have requested that a condition is imposed on the outline application requiring the submission of a noise attenuation scheme.
The proposed convenience store (A1 use) on the site would have the potential to give rise to noise from the operations of the proposed use, deliveries to the site and the comings and goings of customers. There is consequently the potential for this noise to cause disturbance to existing properties which border the application site and the proposed properties that would be constructed if permission is approved. The exact siting of the proposed convenience store would be considered as part of the detailed reserved matters application. However, the current outline application indicates that this would be located to the southeastern corner of the application site and would border the rear gardens of existing properties in Chesterton Drive and Marlowe Close and also be located in close proximity to the proposed residential dwellings. Environmental Health has raised some concerns with this proposed convenience store being located in close proximity to residential properties and have requested that a condition be imposed requiring details of all external plant, extraction equipment, associated noise mitigation and boundary treatments. They have also requested that an hours condition be imposed stipulating that deliveries are limited to 8am-6pm weekdays, 9am-6pm Saturday and not at all on Sunday or Bank Holidays. Further to this, a condition requiring details of the proposed hours of use would be required.
It is therefore considered that subject to conditions, the proposed development would not cause significant and detrimental noise to warrant refusal.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 60
13. Contamination The NPPF sets out the need to ensure that contaminated land does not affect the health of the future occupiers of new development.
A Ground Conditions Desk Study (2013) to formulate a preliminary conceptual model of geo-environmental site conditions, including a preliminary understanding of the likely geological and hydrological conditions has been submitted with the application.
Environmental Health has subsequently reviewed this study and requested that the Council’s contaminated land conditions be imposed to ensure there is no risk to future occupiers. The Environment Agency has also requested that contaminated land conditions are imposed to protect the quality of ‘Controlled Waters’ receptors on and in the vicinity of the site.
In view of the above, it is considered that conditions would ensure that contaminated land does not affect the health of the future occupiers of new development.
14. Convenience Store Impact Planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development, setting out support for the vitality and viability of existing town, district and local centres and that the provision of facilities, such as shops, should be planned for positively to enhance the sustainability of those communities.
In this case, the proposed development includes provisions for a 186 square metre A1 retail use convenience store on site. The Council has no relevant and up-to-date policies on out-of-centre retail developments within the Local Plan and must therefore rely on the NPPF which outlines the need for Council’s to apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Essentially the sequential approach means that a proposal for an out-of-centre development that is not in accordance with an up-to-date plan will fail this test if there are suitable, available and viable alternative sites either in an ‘edge-of-centre’ location or within existing centres.
The intention is that this store would aid in serving the needs of the new residential development on the site. It would further help to meet local need in Galley Common whilst also attracting a small amount of passing trade. Spatially, the catchment area can therefore realistically be defined as the built up residential area of Galley Common which would be contained by open countryside to the north, a disused railway line to the east, Nuneaton-Birmingham railway line to the south and open countryside to the west.
The applicant has submitted a sequential assessment as required by the NPPF. This identifies that the Kingswood Road and Chapel End District Centres, located 1.2km to 1.4km away from the site respectively, are the only two existing centres within the area of influence of the site. However, it contends that locating the proposed store in either of these centres would not be suitable to cater from the same needs which the store is seeking to serve. It further notes that there are no sites within the existing centres which are suitable of meeting the same requirements of the 186 square metres of provision associated with the proposed development. Aside from the District Centres, the assessment considers the existing local centre in Galley Common. In this respect, it indicates that there are no potential sites which are available either within or on the edge of this centre. Finally, in relation to the
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 61 approved Chesterton Drive convenience store application, the assessment outlines that this is an out of centre location and therefore provided no policy protection by the NPPF.
It is considered that the application site is considered to be the most sequentially preferable site for the proposed convenience store.
15. Economic Growth The NPPF highlights the need for the planning system to support sustainable economic growth with notable references to job creation and prosperity. A Socio- Economic Statement (2014) has been submitted with the application. This has identified the following headline local economic benefits as being derived from the provision of new homes on the application site:
£30.4 million investment in construction on site; 113 full time equivalent construction jobs per year average over a 5 year build period; £1.87 million household spend uplift in Nuneaton town; £2.28 million household spend uplift in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough; 18 new full time equivalent jobs in Nuneaton; 22 new full time equivalent jobs in the local area; Greater population helping to continue the viability of local retail and other businesses; 13 jobs sustained in local public services in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough; Circa 405-415 economically active residents within the new development; and £2.1 million paid to Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council over a 6 year period by way of the New Homes Bonus.
This statement consequently clearly indicates that the proposed development could make a significant and positive contribution to the local economy and the prosperity of the Borough. This is consequently considered to be a matter which carries significant weight in favour of the application.
16. Planning Obligations The NPPF sets out that the planning obligations should be considered where otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable. However, paragraph both the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2012 make it clear that these obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
a. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b. directly related to the development; and c. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Following consultation with a number of consultees, the Council has received a number of requests for planning obligations to offset the impact of the development as listed below:
a. Education WCC has undertaken an assessment of the impact of the proposal on education facilities within the catchment area of the application site.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 62 It has been calculated using a formula that a financial contribution of £1,207,253 would be required towards education provision within this locality to offset the detrimental impact on education provision that would otherwise be caused. This is for 8 pupils in the early years, 41 secondary pupils and 10 post 16 pupil spaces. In addition to cater for special educational needs 1 primary school places and 3 secondary school places are requested. The applicant has agreed this amount and indicated that they would enter into a S106 Agreement to secure this contribution.
b. Galley Common Infant School Car Park The application includes proposals for the provision of a car park for use by Galley Common Infant School. This car park would be located on the opposite side of Plough Hill Road to the school and would provide 24 off road parking spaces. The applicant has offered this voluntarily and indicated it this would contribute to an alleviation of pick up and drop off related traffic along Plough Hill Road, and other related roads. The car park would be given to WCC for adoption and maintenance. WCC has consequently outlined that they are, in principle, happy to accept this. The provision of this car park and subsequent adoption and maintenance could therefore be included within a S106 Agreement.
c. Plough Hill Road Crossing The application includes proposals for the provision of a Pelican crossing along Plough Hill Road between the application site and Galley Common Infant School. Specific details of this crossing need to be confirmed by WCC Highways and the applicant but could be secured within a S106 Agreement.
d. Bus Service Improvements and Bus Shelters WCC Highways, in association with Stagecoach, are seeking a financial contribution of £240,000 towards funding enhanced bus service provision to the site over a period of three years. This would specifically be used in order to provide connectivity between this significant new development on Plough Hill Road, Nuneaton town centre and nearby settlements. They indicate that the enhanced bus service provision would be focused on Service 18 (Nuneaton Town Centre - Chapel End - Galley Common - Ansley - Old Arley - Gun Hill - Ansley - Galley Common - Chapel End - Nuneaton Town Centre), which is currently an hourly service operated commercially by Stagecoach Midlands. The scope of the enhanced bus service provision involves diverting the Service 18 to access the new development and increasing the service frequency to half-hourly between 0700 - 1900 (Mondays to Saturdays). They indicate that this would substantially improve the attractiveness of the bus service, which would compensate for the extension to journey times in order to serve the new development. The applicant has agreed this amount and indicated that they would enter into a S106 Agreement to secure this contribution.
Further to the above, the application includes proposals for the provision of two bus shelters along Plough Hill Road by the application site which could be secured within a S106 Agreement.
e. Play and Open Space The applicant is proposing to provide 5.6 hectares of public open space on the application site in addition to one on site equipped children’s play area and one on site Multi-Use Games Area with associated teenager facility. They would also provide site securing (including gates and trip rails) and amenity lighting on site. The applicant has also indicated that a management company would be created to manage the open space and play areas rather than this being transferred to and maintained by the Council. The effect of this is such that financial contributions for
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 63 offsite provision are only required for a playing pitch and signage. This equates to 13.89% of the full play and open space contribution. The total financial contribution for each 1 bedroom dwelling would therefore be £274 whilst for 2+ bedroom dwellings this would be £391. This would comply with CIL regulations and would be secured within a S106 Agreement.
f. GP Practices NHS England has commented that there are 5 GP practices situated in the Galley Common and Camp Hill Locality. And 3 of these practices have capacity to accept extra patients. It would therefore not be reasonable to request a financial contribution towards GP practices in the area as this would not be in accordance with the CIL Regulations listed above.
REASON FOR APPROVAL: Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised above, and the consultation responses received, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, would not materially harm the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience.
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS: 1. This permission is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, on an outline application and the further approval of the Council shall be required with respect to the undetermined matters hereby reserved before any development commences: a) Layout; b) Scale; c) Appearance; and d) Landscaping.
2. In the case of the reserved matters specified above, application for approval accompanied by all detailed drawings and particulars, must be made to the Council not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
3. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of all reserved matters.
4. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans contained in the following schedule:
Plan Description Plan No. Date Received
Location Plan 2013-043/01 23/12/2014 Site Access Plan C13742 004 D 14/01/2015 Development Framework Plan GLA-10 014 19/02/2015 Plough Hill/Coleshill Road Junction 1416/02 A 04/02/2015 Highway Improvement Scheme Design and Access Statement GLA 10 DAS 3 23/12/2014 Planning Statement N/A 23/12/2014 Landscape and Visual Impact 2070_R01b_JJ_AS 23/12/2014 Assessment
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 64 Transport Assessment R/C13742/003 6 23/12/2014 Framework Travel Plan R/C13742/004 4 23/12/2014 Ecological Appraisal Rev C 23/12/2014 Protected Species Report N/A 23/12/2014 Arboricultural Assessment N/A 23/12/2014 Ground Conditions Desk Study R/13742/001 1 23/12/2014 Flood Risk Assessment and Surface R/13742/002 3 23/12/2014 Water Drainage Strategy Foul Drainage Strategy N/A 23/12/2014 Air Quality Screening Report MTW/CS/LE12158/002 23/12/2014 Noise Screening Report CMD/NA/LE12158/003 23/12/2014 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment PRC/AT/16929/01 23/12/2014 Archaeological Geophysical Survey J7385 14/01/2015 Soil Resources and Agricultural Use 915/1c 23/12/2014 and Quality of Land Socio-Economic Impact of New N/A 23/12/2014 Housing Development Objectively Assessed Housing Need N/A 23/12/2014 Report Statement of Community Involvement N/A 23/12/2014
5. Prior to the submission of any applications for approval of reserved matters, a Phasing Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Phasing Plan shall provide details of the sequence and timing of development across the entire site, including: a. The provision of all major infrastructure including accesses, roads, footpaths and cycle ways; b. Residential dwellings; c. Convenience store; d. School car park; e. Public open space; f. Equipped play area (and associated 6,000 sq.m landscaped buffer), multi-use games area and teenager facility; g. Drainage pond; and h. Ecological and landscaping enhancement areas. The development, and the release of dwellings for occupation, shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.
6. No development shall take place, including any site clearance, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: a. The routeing and parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b. Hours of work; c. Loading and unloading of plant and materials; d. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; e. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; f. Wheel washing facilities; g. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and h. A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 65 7. No development shall commence until full details and samples of materials proposed to be used in the external parts of any building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
8. No development shall commence until full details of the boundary treatments, including new walls, fences and retaining walls, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the boundary treatment to that plot has been carried out in accordance with the approved details. The use of the convenience retail store shall not commence until all boundary treatments to this store have been carried out in accordance with the approved details.
9. No development shall commence until full details of earthworks, site levels and finished floor levels, including proposed grading and contours and a schedule of implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No construction work shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details and schedule.
10. No works shall commence on site until full details of a drainage scheme to the site, including all surface water and foul sewers and drainage to all hardstandings with associated detailed design drawings and supportive calculations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include: a. Provisions to limit the rate of surface water run-off generated by the site to discharge at no more than the existing Greenfield rate as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment hereby approved. b. Provisions for the attenuation of surface water on site to the 1 in 100 year flood event standard plus an allowance of 30% for climate change, using SuDS as proposed in the Flood Risk Assessment hereby approved. c. The outcome of site porosity testing and contamination testing to indicate the suitability of the ground for infiltration purposes. d. Provisions for the disposal of surface water run-off through the use of at-source sustainable drainage methods (for example, a soakaway as detailed in Approved Document Part H of the Building Regulations 2010, and BRE Digest 365 - Soakaway Design). e. A fully labelled network drawing showing all dimensions of all elements of the proposed drainage system including any on/offline control devices and structures. f. Detailed network calculations that correspond to the above network drawing. g. Modelled results for critical storms, including as a minimum 1 year, 30 year, and 100 year +30% climate change events of various durations. A submerged outfall should be used for the modelling. An electronic copy of the model must be submitted to WCC Flood Risk Management Team. h. Detailed drawings showing plans and sections of the proposed SuDs features, together with inlet and outlet headwalls. i. If the drainage network is to be adopted, evidence of an agreement with the adopting body. j. Evidence of overland flood flow routing in case of system failure or overtopping. This should include the hydraulic modelled flow routes with depths/velocities of the flow. k. Details of any on/off-line structures will need to be provided along with maintenance details. l. Locations of storage systems and associated maintenance regimes.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 66 m. Provisions for clearing all siltation build up during the construction of the development from within the detention basin/swales following completion of the development. n. A Maintenance Plan giving details on how the entire surface water system shall be maintained and managed after completion for the duration of the life of the development. This shall include: i) The name of the maintenance company and contact details for who will be responsible for the site. ii) Grass cutting for both amenity and filter grass within the attenuation basin/swale. iii) Management of overgrowth of the watercourse. iv) Litter and debris collection and disposal from the watercourse, headwall and trash screen. v) Tree and shrub maintenance. vi) Periodic inspection and management of existing trees and hedgerows. vii) Inspection of structures associated with the function of the SuDS including trash screen, headwalls and hydro-brake. viii) How the trash screen will be cleared regularly and cleansed before, during and after any high intensity storm event. ix) Periodic de-silting of the detention basin (10-15 years). No sewage discharge shall be brought into operation until the drainage works have been completed in accordance with the approved drainage scheme. Further, no dwelling shall be occupied and the use of the convenience retail store shall not commence until the approved drainage scheme has been provided in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme. The approved scheme shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved details.
11. No development shall commence until the main site access shown on Drawing Number 004 Revision E has been provided.
12. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall commence until full details of the school parking area, including access, manoeuvring areas, surfacing, drainage, levels, lighting, landscaping, boundary treatments and barriers, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the school parking area, bus stop improvements on Plough Hill Road adjacent to the site and signalised crossing on Plough Hill Road adjacent to Galley Common Infant School as shown on Drawing Number 004 Revision E has been provided.
13. No dwelling shall be occupied until the Plough Hill Road/Coleshill Road Junction Highway Improvement Scheme, as shown on Drawing Number 1416/02 Revision A, has been provided.
14. No development shall take place until full details of the precise alignment, specification and maintenance of dedicated foot and cycle paths have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
15. No development shall commence until full details of the provision of car parking, driveways, access and manoeuvring areas, including surfacing, drainage and levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the car parking, driveways, access and manoeuvring areas for that dwelling have been laid out in accordance with the approved details.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 67 The use of the convenience retail store shall not commence until the car parking, access and manoeuvring areas for that dwelling have been laid out in accordance with the approved details. Such areas shall be permanently retained for the purpose of parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, as the case may be.
16. No dwelling shall be occupied until a travel plan based on the Framework Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall include the objectives, targets, mechanisms and measures to achieve the targets, implementation timescales, provision for monitoring, and arrangements for a Travel Plan coordinator, who shall be in place until 5 years after the completion of the final phase of development. The approved plan shall be audited and updated and submitted for the approval of the local planning authority at intervals no longer than 18 months. The measures contained within the approved plan and any approved modifications shall be carried out in full.
17. No development shall take place, including any site clearance, until an Ecological Construction Management Plan (ECMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved ECMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The ECMP shall include details of: any pre- construction checks required; the species safeguards to be employed; appropriate working practices and timings of construction works; site clearance methods; the extent of buffer zones and stand-offs for sensitive ecological features; and what to do if protected species are discovered during construction. The ECMP shall also include details of a suitably qualified Ecological Clerk of Works to oversee implementation of the ECMP and address any contingency measures where appropriate.
18. No development shall commence until an Ecological and Landscape Strategy Management Plan (ELSMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The ELSMP shall set out how the measures and recommendations detailed in the TEP Landscape and Visual Review (ref: 4705.002) and hereby approved Ecological Appraisal, Protected Species Report and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Assessment will be implemented and maintained. The ELSMP shall also include details of: a Green Infrastructure Strategy; Ecological Design Strategy; ecological buffer zones; wildlife enhancements to SUDs; existing and proposed services plan; habitat enhancement for Bats; habitat and biodiversity creation and enhancement across the site; green infrastructure; green links into the wider countryside; species rich hedgerows; native structural landscape planting; details of planting to provide additional foraging areas for bats; details and position of roosting and nesting bricks, tiles, boxes and terraces for bats and breeding birds; a timetable for the implementation of all of the ecological and landscape mitigation and enhancement measures; and a scheme securing future maintenance and retention. The ELSMP must also demonstrate how, measured across the site as a whole, the measures it contains will achieve a net gain for the biodiversity of the site, rather than simply neutralising the impact of the development.
19. No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority giving details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site, any to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of the development. No tree or hedgerow other than so agreed shall be removed, and no construction works shall commence unless the approved measures for the protection of those to be retained have been provided and are maintained during the course of development.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 68 20. No development shall take place until details of the layout of the open space, including the equipped play area and associated 6,000 sq.m landscaped buffer, Multi Use Games Area and associated teenager facility, public open space, ecological and landscaping enhancement areas, boundary details (including knee rail fencing), site securing (including gates, trip rails and kissing gates), surfacing, drainage, bins, seating, amenity lighting, signage and notice/information boards, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
21. The details required by condition 1(d) and 18 shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of the development and subsequently maintained in the following manner:
Any tree or plant (including any replacement) which, within a period of five years from the implementation of the scheme, dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of a similar size and species unless the local planning authority consents in writing to any variation.
22. No development shall commence until a scheme for the lighting of the housing, convenience retail store and associated access roads, parking areas and open spaces has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme should outline how the lighting scheme avoids potential negative effects upon the habitats used by foraging and commuting bats as evidenced by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
23. No development shall commence until a noise attenuation scheme to meet the standard for internal (including 45dB LAFmax in bedrooms at night from 23:00 - 07:00 hours) and external noise levels as defined in table 4 and section 7.7.3.2 of BS8233:2014, including glazing and ventilation details, has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied other than in accordance with the approved details.
24. No development shall commence until: a. A contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the local planning authority; b. The approved remediation works shall be completed on site, in accordance with a quality assurance scheme, agreed as part of the contaminated land assessment; c. If during implementation of this development, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and a specific contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the additional remediation works are carried out. The agreed strategy shall be implemented in full prior to completion of the development hereby approved; and d. On completion of the agreed remediation works, a closure report and certificate of compliance, endorsed by the interested party/parties shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
25. Prior to the submission of any reserved matters applications for any phase of development: a. A Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for a programme of archaeological evaluative work across this site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 69 b. The programme of archaeological evaluative work and associated post-excavation analysis, report production and archive deposition detailed within the approved WSI is to be undertaken. A report detailing the results of this fieldwork is to be submitted to the local planning authority; and c. An Archaeological Mitigation Strategy document shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This should detail a strategy to mitigate the archaeological impact of the proposed development. Dependent upon the results of the trial trenching, this may include further archaeological fieldwork and/or the preservation in situ of any archaeological deposits worthy of conservation. Unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority, no development shall take place until any fieldwork detailed in the approved Archaeological Mitigation Strategy document has been completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The post-excavation analysis, publication of results and archive deposition shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Mitigation Strategy document.
26. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of adequate water supplies and fire hydrants, necessary for fire fighting purposes at the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied until provision has been made in accordance with the approved details.
27. No development on the convenience retail store shall commence until full details of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: a. Bin storage area for the store. b. Litter bin for use by the public. d. CCTV cameras. e. Security bollards. f. External lights and lighting columns. The development and subsequent use of the convenience retail store shall not commence other than in accordance with the approved details.
28. The use of the convenience retail store hereby approved shall not commence until the days and hours of operation of the use, and days and hours for deliveries and servicing in connection with the use, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The use shall not operate other than in accordance with the approved days and hours. No deliveries and servicing, including refuse collection, shall be carried out other than within the approved days and hours.
29. No development on the convenience retail store shall commence until the exact position and full details (including specification of noise attenuation measures and maintenance schedules) of all external plant, equipment or machinery (including refrigeration equipment, air conditioning units, extraction units and condensers) and associated maintenance schedules have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details should demonstrate that all such plant, equipment and machinery does not exceed the existing calculated background noise level by more than 5 dB at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at 1 metre from the closest façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to the method outlined in BS 4142:1997. The approved plant, equipment or machinery shall then not be located and installed on site other than in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the convenience retail store. The approved plant, equipment and/or machinery shall subsequently be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 70
30. The covenienience retail store hereby approved shall not be used other than for any purpose within Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
31. There shall be no outside storage of goods and materials in asociation with the convenience retail store hereby approved.
32. No vehicle greater than 12.30 metres in length shall deliver to and/or service the convenience retail store unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
33. Prior to the submission of any applications for approval of reserved matters, and before any construction work commences and within one month of the planned commencement of works, an assessment of the trees on the site for bat roosts shall be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist. No construction work shall commence until the assessment, including any necessary mitigation plans, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and any necessary mitigation has been implemented and if necessary maintained in accordance with the approved mitigation plan.
34. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities, maintenance schedules and public accessibility for all landscape, play and open space areas (including hard and soft landscaped areas, boundary treatments, equipped play area and associated 6,000 sq.m landscaped buffer, multi-use games area and teenager facility, public open space, ecological and landscaping enhancement areas, boundary details including knee rail fencing, site securing including gates, trip rails and kissing gates, surfacing, drainage, bins, seating, amenity lighting, signage and notice/information boards, the drainage pond, trees, hedgerows, foot and cycle paths), other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.
35. No development shall be located within a 5 metre wide ecological buffer zone adjacent to existing hedgerows on the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. No development shall commence until full details of the location of these ecological buffer zones have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
36. No development shall be located within a 15 metre wide ecological buffer zone adjacent to The Shuntings Local Wildlife Site to the East of the site and Wooded Stream Potential Local Wildlife Site to the North-East of the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. No development shall commence until full details of the location of these ecological buffer zones have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
37. No dwelling shall be occupied until that dwelling has first been provided with a sustainability pack in accordance with details which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 71
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 72
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 73
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 74
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 75
Item No. 4 REFERENCE No. 033152
Site Address: Site 42B001 - Land rear of 28-44 The Long Shoot, Nuneaton
Description of Development: Erection of 6 no. additional dwellings (C3) to approval 032399
Applicant: Mr Kevin Scott of Bellway Homes Ltd
Ward: St Nicholas
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Committee is recommended that Head of Development Control be given delegated authority to grant planning permission subject to a S106 legal agreement relating to affordable housing and in line with the conditions as printed.
INTRODUCTION:
This application is for the erection of 6 no. additional dwellings (C3) to approval 032399, which is the site of the previously approved Bellway Phase One application at The Long Shoot, Nuneaton. The original outline application allowed for up to 120 dwellings, these additional plots would allow for up to 126 dwellings within the same red line site. All six additional plots are proposed on land that was already approved for housing, there is no loss of open space or landscaping. The six additional plots are split across two parts of the site, three plots to the northern portion of the site and three plots to the middle portion. As there are an additional 6 plots proposed, two of the proposed plots are affordable, in line with the rest of the 25% across the site and in line with policy. The two additional affordable units are made up of a detached four bed dwelling and a four bed terraced property. Overall, proposed are a mix of 32, 2, 3 & 4 bedroom affordable dwellings including two 2 bedroom bungalows and 94, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom market housing.
Each of the six additional dwellings, has off street parking and would all use the same already approved highway network and access on to The Long Shoot.
The previously approved plots have been made smaller to fit the additional dwellings in, therefore, there is a separate application being considered for a change of house types to some of the surrounding plots, this does not form part of this assessment.
The two elements of the site, where the proposed housing is located is currently still open farm land, classified as Env.3 Countryside, although the development has begun to the southern end of the site, at the access.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 76
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 33153: Substitution of house types to plots 21-30 and 103-108 of approval reference 032399 On-going 33110: Variation of house type to plot 5 following grant of planning permission 032399 Approved 28/1/15
33111: Substitution of house type to plot 8 following grant of planning permission 032399 Approved 28/1/15
032855: Non-Material Amendment to house type Olton of permission 032399 (plots 30, 38, 48, 56 & 69) Approved 4/8/14
032399: Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 031589 (resubmission following refusal of 32223) Approved 26/11/13
032223: Residential development of 120 dwellings, including public open space and landscaping (Approval of Reserved Matters relating to Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale. Following Outline permission 31589) Refused 15/10/13
031589: Residential development of up to 120 dwellings, including public open space and landscaping (Outline application to include access) Approved 11/07/13
BACKGROUND: This application is being reported to Committee at the request of Councillor Keith Kondakor.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: Saved Policies of the Local Plan 2004 - ENV14: Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents - Residential Design Guide 2004, National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: NBBC Housing, WCC Highways, NBBC Policy, NBBC Parks, Nuneaton Society, CV11 Action Group
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
No objection from: WCC Highways, NBBC Policy, NBBC Parks
No response from: NBBC Housing, Nuneaton Society, CV11 Action Group
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: Site notices were erected on street furniture on the 9th February
NEIGHBOURS RESPONSES:
Objections POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 77
There has been one letter of objection from Cllr. Kondakor raising the following point: Concern that the developer is packing in additional dwellings, on the assumption it makes no difference.
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of this application are; 1. Principle of development 2. Housing need & s.106 obligations 3. Residential Amenity 4. Visual Amenity 5. Highway Safety 6. Approved details
1. Principle of development The proposed new housing is within a site already granted full planning permission. The access is already approved and constructed, as are some of the previously approved dwellings. The proposed new plots are on land that previously made up housing plots, therefore, there is no loss of open space or landscaping. Therefore, the principle of residential development is acceptable at this site.
2. Housing need and s.106 obligations It has been well established that the Council has a shortfall in the 5 years housing supply land. This application provided 120 houses towards this target, which weighed significantly in favour of the original outline consent. These additional 6 dwellings, although a much smaller contribution, also goes towards meeting this target.
The red line of the application only surrounds the two portions of the site where the additional plots are proposed. Therefore, only the six new plots are being considered. As of November 2014 the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) states that s.106 obligations can not be sought for applications of less than 10 properties if that contribution is ‘pooled’. The standard play and open space contribution normally sought would fall under this ‘pooled’ contribution, therefore, no additional s.106 contributions for Play & Open Space can be sought for this application.
However, this is not the same for the provision of affordable housing, which is still being sought in line with current guidance. Therefore, two of the six proposed units are to be affordable. This can be secured through a legal agreement to vary the original s.106.
3. Residential Amenity The parcel of land to the north proposes 8 dwellings, where five were originally approved. These are plots 104-108 & 124-126. Each plot is smaller than previously approved but all remain as detached dwellings apart from plot 104, which is an end terrace. These properties face on to the open space, and the properties to the rear are the same as previously approved. Plot 103 which is outside of the red line, has now become a mid-terrace, however the newly arranged plot 104 does not impact upon the residential amenity of this property detrimentally as all of the guideline in the RDG are complied with. Plot 126 has not changed significantly, and is the end of a row, therefore, there is limited impact on residential amenity. Plot 108, 124 & 125 are fairly close to the properties at the rear of them, at around 16-18m at the closest points. However, these properties are orientated such that this is not a direct window to window distance, therefore, privacy is protected and the impacts this could have mitigated. Plot 104-107 do have more of a direct alignment with the neighbours to the
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 78
rear, although this is still not direct. The separation distance is currently between 23- 25m which is a shortfall as the window to window distance should be 30m to protect privacy. However, considering these are not direct views, due to the plot orientations and that there would be no impact to existing residents it is not considered that this warrants refusal of the application.
The plots to the middle portion of the site, forming the second element of the application, are 21-30 & 121-123. There were previously 10 plots approved here, the proposal sees an increase to 13. There were previously three plots facing the open space, this has been increased to four, the plots are positioned in the same place as the three previously approved in terms of separation distances and the layout is very similar. Plot 29 and 21 are the ends of the row that face the main roads, although these house types have changed, they remain relatively the same as before in terms of layout. However plot 29 is now 13.5m from the side wall of plot 30, which is a shortfall of 0.5m, however, as plot 29 is an end plot, there are open views passed plot 30. Plot 21 is still a substantial distance from the side wall of the opposing property. There are two additional plots along this staggered row of detached houses the separation distances between the properties are the same as previously approved.
4. Visual Amenity The proposed additional houses are in keeping with the scale, massing and character of the other previously approved properties across the site. They are made up of a mix of sizes and designs which create visually interesting street scenes. There is a mix of materials that are proposed, which are conditioned to ensure they are reflective of the rest of the site.
5. Highway Safety The access to the site itself was established through the original outline application for the site and has since been constructed off The Long Shoot. In addition, the internal highway network of the site and parking arrangements were approved at a subsequent Reserved Matters stage. The six additional plots have been assessed by the Highway Authority and they have no objection to the application.
6. Approved details Along with the application, details of drainage & finished floor levels, plot landscaping, external materials and boundary treatments have been submitted. These plans cover the whole site, however, the red-line determining the application site only allows for consideration of the identified plots see plan (AAH5145-4-S) and details relating to those (plots: 21-30, 121-123, 96-108 & 124-126). The agent has been made aware of this and if any details have altered must be addressed through the conditions of the outline application. These details need to be considered again for the additional plots.
With regard to materials, whilst details have been submitted and approved for the outline application, to ensure that the current scheme reflects the approved details a condition is suggested to agree materials for these houses.
The boundary treatment detail provided for these plots and is in line with the already approved details, as is the plot landscaping.
The finished floor levels for the plots within the red lines have altered from the previously approved. However, these changes are not significant all under 0.5m for the portion to the north, this is the same for the portion of houses to the middle. Some
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 79
of the plots are higher, some are lower- overall the difference is negligible, with residential amenity for residents remaining the same. Therefore, further details are not required.
REASON FOR APPROVAL: Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised above, and the consultation responses received, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, would not materially harm the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience.
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS: 2. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans contained in the following schedule:
Plan Description Plan No. Date Received Site Layout (Composite) AAH5125-4-S 21st January 2015 Proposed Plot Landscape 1of3 12-16-13 F 09th January 2015 Proposed Plot Landscape 2of3 12-16-14 F 09th January 2015 Boundary Treatments AAH5145-5 19th December 2014 Street Scenes AAH5145-11-A 19th December 2014 House Type S04- 01(LS) 19th December 2014 House Type GLO-04 19th December 2014 House Type STA-09 19th December 2014 House Type GLO-05 19th December 2014 House Type STA-08 19th December 2014 House Type GRA+-03 19th December 2014 House Type CHA-13 19th December 2014 House Type BID-03 19th December 2014 House Type BEW-05 19th December 2014 House Type SO2+-05 19th December 2014 Single Garage 13/GAR/SIN/01 19th December 2014 Proposed Levels & Drainage 1of4 101-I 19th December 2014 Proposed Levels & Drainage 2of4 102-K 19th December 2014 Proposed Levels & Drainage 3of4 103-H 19th December 2014
3. No development shall commence until full details and samples of materials proposed to be used in the external parts of any building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 80
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 81
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 82
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 83
Item No. REFERENCE No. 032990
Site Address: Site 94D023 – Bedworth College, Rear of 7-23 Newtown Road, Bedworth, CV12 8QB
Description of Development: Erection of 32 apartments in 1no. two-storey block, including residential space in the roof space, car parking areas, landscaping and associated works (including demolition of existing buildings)
Applicant: Mr Tarjit Singh
Ward: Slough
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Committee is recommended to approve planning permission subject to conditions as printed and the completion of a legal agreement relating to a contribution towards the provision of open space and play facilities in the area and affordable housing, the Head of Development Control be given delegated authority to grant planning permission.
INTRODUCTION:
The site currently consists of a group of buildings which are used by Bedworth College and the land around these buildings including parking areas and manoeuvring space, to the rear of properties on Newtown Road, Margaret Avenue and George Street Ringway. The site lies just to the West of the Bedworth Town Centre.
Next to the site is Beada House which has recently been given permission to be used as residential. Beada House is a two-storey unit which will contain separate residential space. The site is surrounded by other development, such as the two- storey terraced houses on Newtown Road between which the access to the site is to be made. George Street Ringway is a mixture of some commercial uses and two- storey semi-detached and detached housing and single storey bungalow on the corner with Margaret Avenue. Margaret Avenue itself is characterised by two-storey, bay fronted, semi-detached properties.
The access to the site is between two of the terraced properties on Newtown Road. There are double yellow lines on parts of this access road, however a good deal of parking appears to take place on the access road at different times of day.
The Bedworth College site is a collection of single-storey cabin like buildings which fill the majority of the site, with hard standing tarmac areas for car parking. There are some older single storey buildings on the site including the flat roofed red brick building to the East of the site.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 84
The site levels are fairly consistent across the site, but it does drop slightly towards the rear (north) of the site towards the gardens of Margaret Avenue.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: None relevant to this planning application.
BACKGROUND: The application is being presented to planning applications committee since it proposes not to pay planning obligations in accordance with the standard tariff.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: Saved Policies of the Local Plan 2004 – ENV14: Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents - Residential Design Guide 2004, H6: Planning Obligations Policies R8 - Green Track Networks T10 Car Parking – Standards H3 – Affordable Housing, H5 – Houses Capable of Adaption National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: Severn Trent Water, WCC Highways, NBBC Environmental Health, Warwickshire Police, NBBC Refuse and Cleansing, WCC Land Drainage, NHS Property Team, NBBC Housing
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
No objection from: NBBC Housing, Warwickshire Police, Warwickshire Archaeology, NHS Property Team, Warwickshire Education and Libraries, NBBC Parks and Countryside
No objection subject to conditions: WCC Highways, NBBC Refuse and Cleansing, NBBC Environmental Health, Severn Trent Water,
Objections from: None.
Comments from: NBBC Land and Property Manager
No response from: WCC Land Drainage
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED:
54-92 (even) Margaret Avenue 2, 8, 10, 12, 12a, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 George Street Ringway
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 85
57, 57a, 59, 59a, 61, 63 Mill Street 1, 1a, 3, 5, 7, 9, 9a, 11-19 (odd), 20, 21, 21a, 22, 23, 23a, 24, 25, 25a, 26, 27, 27a, 29, 29a, 31, 31a, 33, 34 (Croft House), Newtown Road Beada House, Newtown Road, Bedworth
Neighbouring properties were sent letters notifying them of the proposed development on the 12th November 2014. Site notices were erected on street furniture on the 6th October 2014 and the application was advertised in the Nuneaton News on 10th October 2014.
NEIGHBOURS RESPONSES:
Objections There have been 8 letter of objection from 4 addresses raising the following points: Loss of privacy and overlooking Overshadowing and loss of light The development is two-storey (higher than existing buildings) Over-development of the site Air pollution and noise pollution There may be asbestos on site Traffic, congestion and highway safety concerns Concerns over access to wall for maintenance Concerned over who will be living in the apartments Impact on amenities; water, sewage, drainage Concerns over anti-social behaviour
Comments
There has been one letter of comment from 58 Margaret Avenue, raising the following points: Keep the original obscure glazing and extend to upgrade the existing.
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of this application are; 1. The Principle of the Development, 2. Housing Need and Land Supply, 3. Impact on Highway Safety and Traffic Flows, 4. Impact on Residential Amenity, 5. Impact on Visual Amenities of the Area, 6. Flood Risk and Land Drainage 7. Contaminated Land 8. Air Quality 9. Noise 10. Planning Obligations and Viability
1. Principle of Development (including Sustainable Development) There is a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development. In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in accordance with the development plan and other policies within the National
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 86
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), unless material considerations or adverse impacts indicate otherwise.
The proposed development of 32 apartments on the site of the Bedworth College would constitute development on previously developed land, often referred to as ‘Brownfield Land’. Paragraph 111 of the NPPF states that; “decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value”. This land is not considered to have a ‘high’ environment value.
The development of this land for residential purposes is considered to be an appropriate use of the land. The surrounding area is primarily residential with some commercial uses and the Town Centre is only a few hundred metres away to the East. Being in close proximity to the Town Centre brings added benefits such as the shorter walking distance to shops and facilities, the increased links to the rest of the Borough and further afield with bus routes and other means of sustainable means of transport, and the added benefits to sustainable living that these afford.
This site is within the urban area, and as such it is preferential to site new development within the urban area first before extending beyond the settlement area. Given that the site is Brownfield land, there is a presumption in favour of development here, as there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The principle of the development in this location is acceptable. These factors therefore weigh significantly in favour of the application.
2. Housing Need and Land Supply Overall, it is recognised that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land to meet the identified housing need. On the 4th February 2015 a resolution was taken by the Borough Council’s Cabinet to approve the use of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment figure of 9900 new homes to be provided within the Borough by 2031. This pushes the Borough’s current deliverable housing supply lower still, below the 3.1/3.41 year figures of the previous 7900 home target. This is a matter which weighs significantly in favour of the application.
3. Highway Safety Access is proposed to be made via the narrow access way from Newtown Road which currently services Bedworth College and Beada House. The access way is currently marked out in double yellow lines, but at the time of site visit some cars were parked on the small access road, on the ‘pavement’ either side of the carriageway. The entrance to the site is from Newtown Road, a main road which leads from the Town Centre towards the West of Bedworth.
WCC Highways Authority have been consulted on the application and have raised no objection. They also asked that the development provide sustainability welcome packs for all of the new development. A condition has been suggested to deal with
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 87
this and this is broadly consistent with how other developments in the borough have been treated.
The proposal provides 32 car parking spaces which will include 1 disabled space. It is also proposed to provide some extra space to allow motorcycles to park. This is just under 1:1 ratio of car parking provision and given the proposals proximity to the Town Centre, and bus routes and Bedworth Train Station (650m away) it is considered that this level of car parking is an acceptable level of car parking.
In regard to this development its proximity to the shops, services and amenities in the Town Centre mean that the accessibility of the application site by a range of sustainable transport options is good thereby reducing reliance on private vehicles.
4. Residential Amenity Impact on numbers 5-23 Newtown Road Numbers 5-23 Newtown Road is a row of two-storey terraced properties, a few of which have been converted in to flats, which have gardens to their rear. The boundaries of these rear gardens join the site. The proposed flats are in a roughly ‘T’ shaped block with one element of the building coming within 5m of the rear boundary of the gardens of these properties. The first floor windows in this section of the building are secondary windows serving lounges and kitchens and are to be obscure glazed and because of this there will be no significant overlooking of these gardens. A condition to ensure that in the future the windows remain obscure is suggested. There will be no significantly adverse impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties at 5-23 Newtown Road from overlooking as separation standards are met.
Impact on George Street Ringway To the east of the development is George Street Ringway, the properties on this street have a mixture of uses with some commercial uses as well as residential properties. To the south-east corner of the site is the showroom for ‘Home Comforts’ which is set only between 50cm-1m from the boundary with the site. On this eastern elevation, at ground floor in the proposal, are some habitable room windows which serve bedrooms and a lounge. They will be between 5-6m away from this blank elevation of the Home Comforts showroom. This is below the minimum separation of 12m set out in the RGD, however given that the lounge also has a south facing window serving the same room it is considered that there will be adequate light to the lounge. The bedroom windows will have some reduced amenity because of the proximity of the neighbouring building, however since the distance standards in section 9.0 of the Residential Design Guide 2004 are just guidelines and are designed to be applied flexibly, it is considered that there is a certain amount of ‘buyer beware’ and that any future occupiers would be able to appreciate this proximity to the Home Comforts showroom building and decide at the time if this was significant issue.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 88
Further along George Street Ringway are residential properties - numbers 10 to 18. These properties are well over the minimum 30m separation distance recommended by the RDG, and the windows in the proposed eastern elevation of the apartment block are more than 7m from the rear private amenity space of the existing residential properties. It is therefore considered that the proposal would have no significant detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the properties on George Street Ringway.
Impact on Margaret Avenue The properties on Margaret Avenue are a mixture of semi-detached houses and terraced properties. They have reasonably long gardens which in some cases are around 30m long.The first and second floor habitable windows in the proposal’s northern elevation are sited well over the 20m, and 30m, separation distances between them and the rear of the properties on Maragret Avenue. The proposal is also more than 7m from the rear private amenity space of the existing houses on Margaret Avenue.
Overall therefore since distance standards contained within the RDG are easily met, it is not considered that there would be any unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of the properties on Margaret Avenue.
Impact on Beada House Beada House is the two storey building to the west of the site. It was recently given consent to convert part of the building in to residential use. There is to be a habitable window in the side elevation of Beada House facing directly towards the blank side elevation of the proposed apartments. This is shown on the layout plan to be 14m away from the proposed building, which complies with guidance in the RDG. Since this guidance is met, it is not considered that there would be any significant detriment to the amenity of the neighbours.
5. Visual Amenity The proposal is designed as a fairly large, roughly ‘T’ shaped building. It is to be two- storey with living accommodation in the roof space and roof-lights in the roof slopes. The roof is to be hipped with the exact type, colour and texture of tiles to be agreed by condition. In regard to the elevations the windows do respect a hierarchy, where taller windows are on the ground floor and the first floor windows are shorter. This helps to reduce the vertical perspective of the building, and should make the elevation seem less tall and imposing as well as aesthetically being more pleasing. The windows are shown on plan as having stone cills, with brick ‘flat-arch’ headers. Render strips have been used to break up the expanse of the elevations to good effect, with the render elements housing French doors which have small glazed balconies. The glazed elements (windows, doors and balconies) should give a good mix of textures to the elevations with reflective materials enlivening flat brick work and render with reflected colour and movement. To the bottom of the elevations a brick plinth has been added
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 89
which should add interest to the elevations and improve the appearance of the apartment block.
There will be limited views of the proposal from Newtown Road, through the access road, and these will be only from quite an oblique angle. The land does drop down slightly across the site too, so the roof line of the proposal will be significantly lower than that of Newtown Road so will not be visible in the street from that side. There will be views between houses and through the openings in between buildings from George Street Ringway, however because of the lower land levels within the site, the proposal will not create an incongruous feature in the street scene of George Street Ringway. From Margaret Avenue, there will be virtually no visible impact by the proposal, there will be glancing views in between the properties occasionally as one travels down Margaret Avenue, but this again will not create an incongruous feature within the street scene, and there will be no significant detriment to the visual amenity of the area.
Overall it is considered that the proposed design is good and that the applicant has broadly followed officers advice in pre- application discussions. It is considered that there would be no unacceptable impact on visual amenity of the area. A condition will be added to ensure that details and samples of the materials proposed to be used in the apartment building are submitted to and approved by the local authority.
6. Flood Risk and Land Drainage The site is not within a Flood Risk Zone and therefore the Environment Agency were not consulted. However, the applicant has indicated that they propose to deal with surface water from the proposed development via main sewers. This approach is usually considered to be undesirable, however the site is a brownfield site which is already mostly hard-surfaced, and as such the surface water run off created by the proposal is unlikely to be significantly different form the existing. WCC Flood Risk were consulted but have not responded to the request for comments. In the absence of a response from them Severn Trent Water have responded with a no objection subject to a condition, so a condition will be added which requires details of surface water drainage prior to development.
7. Contamination Environmental Health has requested that the Council’s standard contaminated land conditions be imposed to ensure there is no risk to the health of future occupiers.
8. Noise Environmental Health have been consulted and do not object. There are a good deal of residential properties surrounding the site, and although there are some non- conforming uses nearby, the noise from these should not be over and above what would be expected living close to a town centre and some busy road junctions. It is therefore considered that the impact of noise on the future occupiers of the proposal, or the existing occupiers of the surroundings, will not be significant enough to warrant a refusal on these grounds.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 90
9. Viability and Planning Obligations The NPPF sets out that the planning obligations should be considered where otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable (paragraph 203). However, paragraph 204 of the NPPF and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2012 makes it clear that these obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
d. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; e. directly related to the development; and f. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
One of the core planning principles outlined within paragraph 17 of the NPPF also outlines the need for planning to ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs’. Policy H6 of the Local Plan is consistent with this and indicates that ‘the Council will seek appropriate planning obligations to meet any increased demand for, health, education, social/community, public transport services and facilities, public open space, nature conservation mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures that arises directly from the development’. Following consultation, the Council has requested that this development provides financial contributions towards play facilities, open space and education provision to offset the impact of the development.
WCC Education Team have requested £58,435 to support the provision of 1 pre- school place and 4 primary pupil places. Play and Open Space contributions of £79,095 are requested, which are determined by a fixed tariff charging system.
In regard to affordable housing, Policy H3 of the Saved Nuneaton and Bedworth Local Plan 2006 requires that 25% affordable housing be provided for all developments of 15 dwellings or more. There has however been a recent change to the National Planning Practice Guidance which introduces something called the Vacant Building Credit (paragraph 021 of Planning Obligations section of NPPG). The new section states that; ‘where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions would be required for any increase in floorspace.’ This Vacant Building Credit is therefore calculated:-
Description Size Gross floor area of existing buildings 840m2 Proposed building has a floor area 1921m2 Increase 1081m2.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 91
This increase of 1081m2 equates to a 56% floor space increase. The NPPG therefore states (in Paragraph 022 of Planning Obligations) that a ‘credit’ should be applied to the development meaning that only 56% of the affordable housing required can be asked for. The standard 25% requirement would equate to 8 units, but once the 56% credit has been applied this it is 4.5 units, and therefore rounded up to 5 affordable units.
The application was accompanied by a Viability Assessment which attempted to justify that the Applicant was unable to offer any affordable housing, or any monies for other planning obligations such as play and open space and education. The Viability Assessment was scrutinised by the NBBC Land and Property Manager and it was concluded was that there was some capacity for the provision of affordable housing and planning obligations.
After further negotiation agreement has been reached between Officers and the Applicant for £26,000 for Play and Open Space directed towards the Bedworth Sloughs Site, nothing for the County Council request for education contributions, and 5 units of affordable housing to be provided on site with the tenure to be agreed in negotiation of the Section 106 legal agreement, but this is likely to be 75% Social Rented and 25% Shared Ownership.
Full Planning Planning Obligations Trigger Obligation Request Proposed by Point Applicant Proposed Play and Open £79,095 £26,000 towards Upon Space Bedworth Sloughs occupation of 1st dwelling WCC Education £58,435 £0 - Affordable 5 units 5 units Upon Housing Provision occupation of 24th dwelling
In conclusion therefore it is considered that the contributions offered by the applicant meet the tests of the CIL Regulations and are acceptable to offset the impact on the development.
REASON FOR APPROVAL:
Having regard to the pattern of existing development in the area, relevant provisions of the development plan, as summarised above, and the consultation responses received, it is considered that subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this permission, the proposed development would be in accordance with the development plan, would not materially harm the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 92
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS: 2. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans contained in the following schedule:
Plan Description Plan No. Date Received Location Plan 3828-10 23rd September 2014 Existing Site 3823-01a 23rd September 2014 Proposed Elevation 3823-06d 23rd September 2014 First Floor Plan 3823-03j 6th November 2014 Ground Floor Plan 3823-02l 6th November 2014 Cross Section A-A 3823-08c 6th November 2014 Cross Section B-B 3823-09b 23rd September 2014 Roof (2nd Floor) Plan 3823-05g 23rd September 2014
3. No development shall commence until full details and samples of materials proposed to be used in the external parts of any building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
4. No development shall commence until: i. A contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. ii. The approved remediation works shall be completed on site, in accordance with a quality assurance scheme, agreed as part of the contaminated land assessment. iii. If during implementation of this development, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and a specific contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the additional remediation works are carried out. The agreed strategy shall be implemented in full prior to completion of the development hereby approved. iv. On completion of the agreed remediation works, a closure report and certificate of compliance, endorsed by the interested party/parties shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
5. No development shall commence until full details of the boundary treatments, including new walls and fences, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No dwelling shall be occupied until the boundary treatments to the development have been carried out in accordance with the approved details.
6. No development shall commence unless and until a method statement detailing the demolition of the existing buildings on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
7. No development shall commence until full details of the site levels and finished floor levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No construction work shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
8. No development shall commence until full details of the drainage to the site, including all surface water and foul sewers and drainage to all hardstandings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No construction work
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 93
creating surface water run off shall be carried out and no dwelling shall be occupied until the required drainage has been provided in accordance with the approved details.
9. The first floor windows shown on the approved plan in the South-Western elevation of flats 13 and 14 (as identified on plan 3823-03J received by the Council on 6th November 2014) shall not be fitted or subsequently maintained other than in obscure glazing. No new window or opening shall be provided at first floor level in the South-Western elevation of these flats without the prior written consent of the Council.
10. No development shall commence until details of Sustainable Welcome Packs (including public transport information) has been submitted and approved in writing by the Council. The approved packs shall be provided to each dwelling prior to the first occupation of any dwelling.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 94
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 95
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 96
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 97
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 98
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 99
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 100
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 101
Item No. REFERENCE No. 033133
Site Address: 24 Charles Street, Nuneaton
Description of Development: Erection of 7 flats (utilising the roof space) (including demolition of existing dwelling and repairs garage) (Amended scheme following refusal of 32625)
Applicant: Mr Colin Scaife
Ward: AB
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Committee is recommended to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as printed.
INTRODUCTION: Erection of 7 flats (utilising the roof space) (including demolition of existing dwelling and repairs garage) (Amended scheme following refusal of 32625) at 24 Charles Street, Nuneaton.
Charles Street is a residential street which consists of terraced housing on both sides, and a turning head for vehicular traffic at the top. Also at the top of the road is Charles Street Garage (Car maintenance and testing facility) which is currently closed and, along with 24 (the residential end of terrace property), forms the application site. The street has a mixture of materials, ranging from traditional red brick, and stones headers and sills, to white/cream render. The roofs of the properties are clay tiles with decorative ridge tiles and chimneys. The road is fairly narrow but with ‘lay-by’ like sections for on-street parking.
22 is the adjoined terrace and is constructed of red brick. The properties rear garden is seems to be much lower than the application site, perhaps by as much as 80- 100cm. The property has two rear facing windows, a ground floor window (which is reasonably enclosed by the rear projection of number 22 itself, and a first floor window to a bedroom. The side elevation of the property at 24 (to the north) sticks above the roof slope and first floor rear projection of number 22.
Some properties in the street have maintained their ground floor bay windows, others were built without them, or have had them removed. Those built without bay windows feature large stone headers. There are no dormer windows in the street scene currently.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 102
032625 – Erection of 7 flats (utilising the roof space) (including demolition of existing dwelling and repairs garage) – Refused – 10th June 2014
BACKGROUND: This application is being reported to Committee at the request of Councillor Jill Sheppard.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: Saved Policies of the Local Plan 2004 - ENV14: Supplementary Planning Guidance / Supplementary Planning Documents - Residential Design Guide 2004, H6: Planning Obligations National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
CONSULTEES NOTIFIED: NBBC Environmental Health, NBBC Parks and Countryside, WCC Highways
CONSULTATION RESPONSES:
No objection subject to conditions: NBBC Environmental Health, WCC Highways
No response from: NBBC Parks and Countryside
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED: Station Workshop, James Street. 11-21 (odd), 14, 18, 20-24 (even) Charles Street.
Neighbouring properties were sent letters notifying them of the proposed development on the 23rd December 2014.
NEIGHBOURS RESPONSES:
Objections There has been 1 letter of objection from 1 address raising the following points: Existing residents struggle with parking Construction process will cause disruption There are currently no green areas or play areas here
APPRAISAL: The key issues to assess in the determination of this application are: 1. The principle of the development and housing need and supply, 2. Planning obligations, 3. Impact on the residential amenity 4. Impact on visual amenity, and 5. Impact on highway safety.
1. The Principle of Development and Housing Need and Supply There is a presumption in favour of applications for sustainable development. In broad terms, this means that the application should be approved providing that it is in
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 103
accordance with the development plan and other policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), unless material considerations or adverse impacts indicate otherwise.
This site is within the urban area, and as such it is preferential to site new development within the urban area first before extending beyond the settlement area.
It is recognised that the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land to meet the identified housing need. On the 4th February 2015 a resolution was taken by the Borough Council’s Cabinet to approve the use of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment figure of 9900 new homes to be provided within the Borough by 2031. This pushes the Borough’s current deliverable housing supply lower still, below the 3.1/3.41 year figures of the previous 7900 home target. This is a matter which weighs significantly in favour of the application.
2. Planning Obligations The proposal will be creating new residential units and as such would previously have been required to provide planning obligations for each new unit. The applicant would usually sign a legal agreement to agree to pay these contributions. In this case that would have been; 6 x 1beds, and 1 x 2 beds, charged at £1926 per 1 bed and £2750 per 2 bed.
However a recent change to the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states that contributions, such as the Boroughs Play and Open Space monies, should not be requested on developments of less than 10 units and for developments which are below the threshold of 10 units Local Authorities should not request contributions to ‘pooled funding pots’. It is therefore considered that in this case, as the development is for 7 units only, that it would be unacceptable to ask for Play and Open Space contributions and that to do so would be against the guidance contained within the NPPG.
3. Impact on Residential Amenity Impact on 22 Charles Street Number 22 is the terraced property attached to number 24, and is proposed to be attached to the block of 7 flats if this application is approved. The house has a narrow, but reasonable length garden, two rear facing windows and a single storey projection to the rear. The levels on site mean that the two storey part of number 24 is already much higher than the first floor parts of number 22.
The proposal will extend at a two storey height, for only a very short distance beyond the first floor level of the rear of number 22, this is the main difference between this scheme and the previous refused application. The proposal then extends at ground floor for level for around 5m. The land levels are quite different between the site and the rear garden of 22, and there is approximately 0.5m difference between the existing first floor element of number 24 Charles Street and number 22, number 24 being higher. Number 22 has two rear facing habitable windows, the ground floor of these is already substantially over-shadowed by the property’s own single storey projection, the first part of which appears to be original to the house. The amendments made to the proposal, mean that the ground floor element will have a substantially reduced impact on the amenity of number 22 than the previous scheme. The single storey projection will only have the sloping pitched roof visible above the
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 104
boundary wall, and this is sloping away from the boundary meaning again, the impact is reduced. There is also a first floor, rear facing, habitable window. This, at the moment, is somewhat overshadowed by what is there currently, given the land and levels difference. The proposal has been amended so the two storey element will no longer breach a 60 degree line drawn from the centre of this window, it is considered the level of impact on this window is now vastly reduced by the amendments to the scheme. This is especially so considering how the window is currently affected by the existing adjoined neighbour, and that the orientation of the proposal will be to the north therefore meaning as the sun passes over, light to the house and garden will be similar to the existing situation.
The impact of the proposal on the rear private amenity space should also be considered. Adjacent to the garden area of 22 is a ground floor single storey projection. Although this will run approximately 0.6m further down the garden than than the 4m guideline set out in the RDG, these guidelines are designed to be applied flexibly. Given that only a small portion of the sloping roof would be visible above the boundary wall, it is felt that the harm to the residential amenity and enjoyment of this rear garden would not be unacceptably detrimental. The development will be dug-in slightly to the site, so this should also help to reduce the impact on the neighbouring property.
Overall it is considered that the proposal does not result in a significant level of harm to the residential amenity of its neighbours at number 22 to a level that would warrant a refusal of planning permission.
Impact on 20 Charles Street Number 20 Charles Street is the adjoined neighbour of number 22. It is the next terraced property in the row, and is a handed version of number 22. It also has a single storey rear projection, which appears to be original. There is a side facing, ground floor window in this rear projection, which appears to be to a habitable room (most likely a kitchen). The RDG states that side facing windows will be protected from significant overlooking or overshadowing. There are to be no windows in the proposed elevation facing the garden and rear projection of number 20 Charles Street, so overlooking is not considered to be a problem. The proposal will be tall, but the amendments mean that the tallest part will no longer project far beyond the rear of number 22 (only 850mm), and a single storey projection will instead extend along the boundary for around 5m thusly creating a vastly reduced sense of overshadowing to the windows at 20 Charles Street, in comparison to the previous scheme, in particular the side facing window in the single storey rear projection.
The window is currently overshadowed slightly by the existing first floor element of number 24, and the levels difference magnifies this to some extent. It is considered that the proposal would generate some very minimal overshadowing of this side facing window, as there would be views past the proposal thanks to the single storey element. This very minimal amount of overshadowing is not to a degree which would be classed as significant, especially given the orientation of the proposal (to the north side of the window), and the existing situation.
Overall therefore is it considered that the proposal would not generate significant harm to the residential amenity of number 20 Charles Street.
4. Impact on Visual Amenity
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 105
The proposal does attempt to replicate some features which exist in the street scene, such as the materials which will attempt to fit with the existing such as redbrick and plain tiles. A chimney has also been included, and this should help to blend the proposal with the rest of the street. A materials condition will be added to ensure that the materials used are of a high enough quality. To the front of the building the applicant is proposing dormer windows, and although there are none already in the street, it is not felt that this would adversely impact upon the visual amenity of the area. The fenestration of the front elevation has been amended from the previous scheme too, to include more windows, these are positioned more logically on the front of the proposal with four windows at first floor, and a door and window at ground floor. On the ground floor there also is the entrance to the rear car parking area, this is reasonably wide, and there is only enough space for one window and a door in the front elevation at ground floor. Overall, it is felt that the front elevation does enough to not have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity.
The proposal also ‘sides’ on to the open space and footpath to the north, the elevation which faces this direction does include windows, and dormer windows, these will all contribute to creating an active frontage to overlook this public area.
The rear elevation is quite concealed from most public areas and meets with relevant guidance in the RDG.
5. Impact on Highway Safety Access to the rear parking court which will serve the development is made through the ‘coach house’ design which allows cars to pass under the first floor element of the building. This access way is 5m wide for the first 7,5m to comply with the requirements of the Highways Authority, after this it is over 3m wide for the majority of its length but does narrow to a pinch point of just under 3m at one point in the middle.
In regard to parking spaces, 7 are proposed for the 7 individual flats. It is considered that this 100% car parking provision is acceptable.
The Highways Authority have assessed the application and responded with no objection subject to conditions which relate to; no gates to be hung within 6m of the highway, a footway extension prior to development, access and other details to be submitted, no landscaping/structures within 2.4m of highway, a wheel wash condition, construction traffic time limits only between 9am and 3pm.
It is considered that some of these conditions suggested by the Highways Authority do not meet the tests for planning conditions contained within the NPPG, and National Planning Policy Framework. These tests state that conditions must be; necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and; reasonable in all other respects
The wheel wash condition suggested can actually be enforced by Highways Legislation and it is therefore considered to be unnecessary. The construction traffic condition asks that no construction traffic should visit the site other than between
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 106
9am and 3pm, this is considered quite restrictive and unreasonable. It is not foreseen how construction traffic to and from the site outside of these hours, for example at 4pm or 5pm, would be detrimental to highway safety, because of this the condition is not added.
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans contained in the following schedule:
Plan Description Plan No. Date Received Elevations & Ground Floor 3529-03h 11th December 2014 First and Second Floor 3529-04a 11th December 2014
3. No development shall commence until full details and samples of materials proposed to be used in the external parts of any building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
4.No development shall commence until a noise attenuation scheme to meet the standard for internal (*including 45dB LAFmax in bedrooms at night (11pm -7am)) and external noise levels defined in table 4 and section 7.7.3.2 of BS8233:2014 (including glazing and ventilation details) has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. (This is to include the section over the vehicular access way and rooms within the roof space). The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details and no dwelling shall be occupied until the glazing, ventilation and sound insulation to that dwelling has first been provided in accordance with the approved details.
5. No development shall commence until details of the noise insulation between the flats hereby approved and any adjoining dwelling, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No flat shall be occupied until the work has been carried out in accordance with the approved details.
6. No development shall commence until: i. A contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. ii. The approved remediation works shall be completed on site, in accordance with a quality assurance scheme, agreed as part of the contaminated land assessment. iii. If during implementation of this development, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and a specific contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority before the additional remediation works are carried out. The agreed strategy shall be implemented in full prior to completion of the development hereby approved. iv. On completion of the agreed remediation works, a closure report and certificate of compliance, endorsed by the interested party/parties shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
7. No development shall commence until full details of the boundary treatments, including new walls and fences, have been submitted to and approved in writing by
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 107
the Council. No dwelling shall be occupied until the boundary treatments to the development have been carried out in accordance with the approved details.
8. No development shall commence unless and until a method statement detailing the demolition of the existing buildings on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. Development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
9. No development shall commence until full details of the site levels and finished floor levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No construction work shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
10. No development shall commence until full details of the drainage to the site, including all surface water and foul sewers and drainage to all hardstandings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No construction work creating surface water run off shall be carried out and no dwelling shall be occupied until the required drainage has been provided in accordance with the approved details.
11. No gates shall be hung within the vehicular access to the site so as to open within 6.0 metres of the near edge of the public highway footway.
12. The access to the site for vehicles shall not be used unless the existing public highway footway crossing has been extended in a southerly direction by no less than 1.3 metres and no greater than 1.8 metres. Details of this are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to occupation of the dwellings, and the development shall not take place other than in accordance with these approved details.
13. No development shall commence until full details of the provision of the access, car parking, manoeuvring and service areas, including surfacing and drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. No dwelling shall be occupied until the areas have been laid out in accordance with the approved details. Such areas shall be permanently retained for the purpose of parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, as the case may be, and no car parking spaces shall be specifically allocated to a unit. The vehicular access to the site shall not be constructed in such a manner as to reduce the effective capacity of any highway drain or permit surface water to run off the site onto the public highway.
14. No structure, tree or shrub shall be erected, planted or retained within 2.4 metres of the near edge of the public highway carriageway exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public highway carriageway.
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 108
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 109
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 110
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 111
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 112
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 113
POA Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 114 GUIDE TO USE CLASSES IN ENGLAND Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order (as amended 2014) Class Category Description Permitted Change A1 Shops Shops, retail warehouse, post offices, ticket and travel To a mixed use as A1 & up to 2 flats. Temporary permitted change agencies, sale of cold food for consumption off the premises, (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with hairdressers, funeral directors, hire shops, dry cleaners, notification). Permitted change to C3, together with building internet cafes. operations ‘reasonable necessary’ for conversion (subject to prior approval process) A2 Financial & Professional Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies, To Class A1 where there is a ground floor display window and to a Services professional services (not health or medical services) betting mixed use of any purpose within Class A2 & up to 2 flats. Temporary offices permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) Permitted change to C3, together with building operations ‘reasonable necessary’ for conversion (subject to prior approval process) A3 Food & Drink Restaurants and cafes To Class A1 where there is a ground floor display window and Class A2. Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) A4 Drinking Establishments Public houses, wine bars or other such drinking To A1, A2 or A3 establishments Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) A5 Hot Food Takeaway For the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises A1, A2 or A3 Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification)
B1 Business a) Office other than a use within Class A2 Permitted B1 change to Class B8 subject to total floorspace being b) Research and development of products or processes no greater than 500 sq m c) For any industrial process (which can be carried out in any B1(a) office permitted change to C3 subject to: prior approval residential area without causing detriment to the amenity of processes; previous use timings; limitations and exempt area (until the area 30/5/16) Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) Permitted change from B1 to state funded school (and back to previous lawful use) B2 General Industrial Industrial process other than one falling within Class B1 B1 and B8. Permitted change to B8 is subject to total floorspace being no greater than 500 sq m B8 Storage or Distribution Use for storage or as a distribution centre B1 subject to total floorspace being no greater than 500 sq m
C1 Hotels Hotels, boarding and guest houses, (where no significant To state funded school or registered nursery (and back to previous element of care is provided) lawful use) (prior approval) C2 Residential Institutions Residential accommodation, care homes, residential schools, To state funded school or registered nursery (and back to previous colleges or training centres, hospitals, nursing homes lawful use) (prior approval) Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 115 Class Category Description Permitted Change C2A Secure Residential Prisons, young offenders institutions, detention centres, To state funded school or registered nursery (and back to previous Institutions secure training centres, custody centres, short-term holding lawful use) (prior approval) centres, secure hospitals, secure local authority accommodation, military barracks C3 Dwellings Use as a dwelling house, (whether or not a main residence) Permitted change to C4 by: a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household; b) Not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or c) Not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than use with Class C4) C4 Houses in Multiple Use of a dwelling house by 3-6 residents as a “house in Permitted change to C3 Occupation multiple occupation” (HMO). NB: Large HMO’s (more than 6 people are unclassified therefore sui generis)
D1 Non Residential Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A1, A2, Institutions non-residential education and training centres, museums, A3, B1 (interchangeable with notification) public libraries, public halls, exhibition halls, places of worship, law courts D2 Assembly & Leisure Cinemas, concert halls, bingo halls, dance halls, swimming To state funded school (and back to previous lawful use). Temporary baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums, other areas for indoor or permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sq m to A1, A2, A3, B1 outdoor sports and recreation not those involving motorised (interchangeable with notification) vehicles or firearms Sui-generis Includes: theatres, large HMO’s, hostels, petrol filling stations, No permitted change except casino to D2 shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, scrap yards, retail warehouse clubs, nightclubs, launderettes, taxi or vehicle hire businesses, amusement centres, casinos, funfairs, waste disposal installations. Other Changes of use Agricultural buildings See 2013 GPDO amendment for flexible changes to A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1, D2 (subject to limitations and conditions including some prior approval requirements) See 2014 GPDO amendment for permitted change to C3, together with building operations ‘reasonably necessary’ for conversion (subject to prior approval process) See 2014 GPDO amendment for permitted change to state-funded school or registered nursery
Planning Applications Committee - 10th March, 2015 116