(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Applications Committee

Public Document Pack

Simon W. Baker B.Ed MBA MISPAL Chief Executive

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Thursday, 17 October 2019, 2.00 pm The Council Chamber, Moorlands House, Stockwell Street, Leek

Contact Officer: Pat Trafford. 01538 395551 - [email protected]

SITE VISITS: A coach for Committee Members will leave Moorlands House at 9.30 a.m. prompt on the day of the meeting. Appropriate footwear is recommended.

Speaking at Committee: Under the Council's Constitution, applicants (or their agent) and objectors/supporters are eligible to speak at this Committee for 3 minutes each. The maximum number of speakers on any item is six (three speakers for and three speakers against) plus any Ward Councillors. All speakers, including Ward Councillors, should register by ringing Committee Services on the above number between 10.00 a.m. Monday and 4.00 p.m. Wednesday on the week of the meeting. Also please note that speakers need to re-register if an application has been previously withdrawn from an agenda. Registered speakers should report to the Council Chamber no later than 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.

An information leaflet relating to these procedures is available from the main Council Offices, on the Council’s website and will be available at the meeting. Speakers are advised to read the leaflet prior to the meeting.

Note: In the event of a delayed return by the Committee, following the site visits, the start time for the Committee may be postponed. Also the order of business on the agenda may change at the discretion of the Chair. As it is not possible to give a precise time when an item may be discussed, it is always advisable to arrive for the start of the meeting.

Please be aware that meetings open to the public may be recorded by representatives of the media or by members of the public. A guidance document for the recording of public Council meetings is available on the Council’s website. P.T.O.

www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk Moorlands House, Stockwell Street, Leek, Staffordshire Moorlands, ST13 6HQ. Tel: 0345 605 3010

Available in an alternative format by prior request and on the Council's website: www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk Planning Applications Committee - Thursday, 17 October 2019

A G E N D A (Continued)

1. Chair's announcements

a) Webcasting; b) Introductions of Members and Officers; c) Other announcements.

2. Apologies for absence, if any.

3. Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 5 - 12)

(a) To approve as a correct record the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 19th September 2019. (b) Reports on matters arising, if any.

4. Urgent items, if any.

5. Declarations of Interest

i. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests; ii. Other Interests; iii. Lobbying Interests.

6. SMD/2019/0436 - Olive Tree Park, Uttoxeter Road, Checkley. (Pages 13 - 22)

7. SMD/2019/0398 - School Green, Ipstones. (Pages 23 - 38)

8. SMD/2019/0213 - Land off Macclesfield Road, Leek. (Pages 39 - 60)

9. SMD/2019/0005 - Land off Black Lane, to the East of No's 4 and 5 The Plain, Whiston. (Pages 61 - 76)

10. SMD/2019/0465 - 71 Woodhouse Lane, Biddulph. (Pages 77 - 84)

11. Section 106 Agreement at Churnet View Road. (Pages 85 - 88)

12. Appeals Report. (Pages 89 - 102)

13. NOTE - A Late Representations Report will be circulated prior to the meeting i.e. any representations received since this agenda was published. Planning Applications Committee - Thursday, 17 October 2019

A G E N D A (Continued)

Published 9 October 2019

Membership of Planning Applications Committee Councillor P Roberts (Chair) Councillor B Emery (Vice-Chair) Councillor B Cawley Councillor S Coleman Councillor J Davies Councillor K Flunder Councillor M Gledhill Councillor T Holmes Councillor K Hoptroff Councillor A Hulme Councillor L D Lea Councillor T Riley Councillor I Whitehouse Councillor P Wilkinson This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2019

PRESENT: Councillor P Roberts (Chair)

Councillors B Cawley, S Coleman, J Davies, B Emery, K Flunder, M Gledhill, T Holmes, K Hoptroff, A Hulme, L D Lea, T Riley and I Whitehouse

IN ATTENDANCE: S Hampton Member and Community Services Officer P Trafford Member & Community Services Officer J Stannard Planning Officer B Haywood Head of Development Services Z Walker Legal Advisor, Freeths LLP

APOLOGIES: Councillor P Elkin

39 CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

a) The Chair confirmed that the meeting was being broadcast live to the internet and was capable of repeated viewing. The images and sound recording could be used for training purposes within the Council. The Chair had the discretion to terminate or suspend filming if it was his opinion that continuing to do so would prejudice the proceedings of the meeting. It was likely that recording cameras would capture the image of persons seated in the public gallery and that image would become part of the broadcast. Any views expressed by any speaker in the meeting were the speaker’s own and did not necessarily reflect the views of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. b) Members of the Committee and Officers present were introduced by the Chair. c) The Chair requested that mobile phones be switched off or to silent.

40 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED – That the Public Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Applications Committee held on 15 August 2019 be APPROVED as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

41 URGENT ITEMS, IF ANY.

There were no urgent items.

42 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following declarations were made at this point, unless stated otherwise:-

Member Declaring Agenda Item Nature of Interest InterestPage 5 1 Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2019

Member Declaring Agenda Item Nature of Interest Interest Cllrs. Cawley, Coleman, Davies, Emery, Flunder, Gledhill, Holmes, “Other” – 2 speakers were Hoptroff, Hulme, Lea, fellow District Cllrs. Agenda Item 6 – Riley, Roberts and SMD/2018/0789 – Whitehouse Blythe Park, Cresswell “Other” – Spoken at other Cllr. Flunder meetings about this, would abstain. Cllr. Hulme “Other” – District Cllr. Cllrs. Cawley, Coleman, Agenda Item 7 – Davies, Emery, Flunder, SMD/2019/0397 – Gledhill, Holmes, “Other” – Speaker was a Land adjacent to Hoptroff, Hulme, Lea, previous SMDC Employee Prospect House Farm, Riley, Roberts and Sutherland Road, Whitehouse Longsdon Lobbied – Copied into emails Cllr. Roberts to officers. No response Cllrs. Cawley, Coleman, Davies, Emery, Flunder, Gledhill, Holmes, “Other” – Speaker was a Hoptroff, Hulme, Lea, previous SMDC Employee Agenda Item 8 – Riley, Roberts and SMD/2019/0142 – Whitehouse 197 High Lane, Brown Cllr. Flunder “Other” – County Cllr. Edge “Other” – Chair of Brown Cllr. Lea Edge Parish Council, took no part in discussions Cllrs. Cawley, Coleman, Agenda Item 9 – Davies, Emery, Flunder, “Other” – 2 speakers were SMD/2018/0679 – Gledhill, Holmes, fellow District Cllrs., 1 was a Land at Bridge End, Hoptroff, Hulme, Lea, previous SMDC Employee Macclesfield Road, Leek Riley, Roberts and Whitehouse Cllrs. Cawley, Coleman, Davies, Emery, Flunder, Agenda Item 10 – Gledhill, Holmes, “Other” – Speaker was a SMD/2019/0404 – Hoptroff, Hulme, Lea, fellow District Cllr. 2 Breach Road, Riley, Roberts and Brown Edge Whitehouse Cllr. Flunder “Other” – County Cllr.

Agenda Item 10 – “Other” – Chair of Brown SMD/2019/0404 – Cllr. Lea Edge Parish Council, took no 2 Breach Road, part in discussions Brown Edge Page 6 2 Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2019

Member Declaring Agenda Item Nature of Interest Interest “Other” – Knew Developer Cllr. Whitehouse (declared when item was announced) Cllrs. Cawley, Coleman, Agenda Item 11 – Davies, Emery, Flunder, SMD/2019/0451 – Gledhill, Holmes, “Other” – Speaker was a Land at rear of former St Hoptroff, Hulme, Lea, fellow District Cllr. Johns School, Mill Lane, Riley, Roberts and Wetley Rocks Whitehouse

43 SMD/2018/0789 - BLYTHE PARK, CRESSWELL

VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 10, 11, 12, 18 AND 39 IN RELATION TO PLANNING PERMISSION REF. SMD/2014/0576 (OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED (SAVE ACCESS) FOR CREATION OF UP TO 168 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS (USE CLASS C3), UP TO 33,480 SQM OF USE CLASS B1, B2 AND B8 FLOORSPACE, ANCILLARY USES TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY CENTRE AND A SHOP (USE CLASS A1), TOGETHER WITH HIGHWAY WORKS, LANDSCAPING, PUBLIC REALM, CAR PARKING AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS) FOR SCENTAREA Ltd.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application: Mrs. Linda Malyon - Objector Mr. Glyn Johnson - Objector Cllr. Pat McLaughlin - Draycott Parish Cllr. Clr. Peter Wilkinson - War Cllr.

For the application: Mr. Howard Clulow - Applicant

NOTED - 1. Late Representations Report (LRR) contained:-  Highways Officer comments – no objection;  SMDC Officer comments;  Clarification of condition 18 – addition of the words “shall commence”.

2. Clarification of confusion regarding reference within the report to ‘Plot 1’ and ‘Phase 1’ – resulted from Highways Officer’s comments being quoted in full.

3. Confirmed that grant money available for Highways works had been paid directly to SCC, along with the Applicant’s contribution and was, as such, safe. Page 7 3 Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2019

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions and informative also contained in the report and the amended condition referred to above. Also subject to the completion of an S.106 deed of variation by 30 September 2019 (the determination date in the event of an otherwise suitable and agreed time extension with the Council). The time extension agreement accounts for scheme negotiations primarily in relation to highway matters.

2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal), prior to the decision being issued the Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Lea.)

44 SMD/2019/0397 - LAND ADJACENT TO PROSPECT HOUSE FARM, SUTHERLAND ROAD, LONGSDON

ERECTION OF SINGLE DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RE- SUBMISSION OF SMD/2018/0788) FOR MR. AND MRS. MCDERMOTT.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests. Councillor Roberts had declared a lobbying interest.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application: Ms. Erica Hegewald - Objector Mr. Kevin Day - Objector Ward Councillor Norma Hawkins had registered to speak against the application, but was unable to attend.

For the application: Mr. Gary McDermott - Applicant Mr. David Breakwell - Applicant’s Agent

NOTED - 1. LRR contained:-  Erratum correction – Applicants’ names were Mr. & Mrs. McDermott, nor Mr. & Mrs. Carter as shown in the report;  Additional neighbour representation;  Officer comments confirming that the existing Ecology report was valid for up to 24 months and that a Grampian condition requiring a drainage scheme to be fully implemented prior to occupation was required.

2. As previously clarified, access to the existing underground drains on the site was a civil matter and not a planning consideration. Page 8 4 Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2019

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions also contained in the report and the additional Grampian condition referred to above.

(Proposed by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Gledhill.)

45 SMD/2019/0142 - 197 HIGH LANE, BROWN EDGE

OUTLINE APPLICATION WITH DETAILS OF ACCESS (ALL OTHER MATTERS RESERVED) FOR THE ERECTION OF 8 DWELLINGS FOR AMACOR CAPITAL Ltd.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representation from the undermentioned speaker:-

For the application: Mr. Rob Duncan - Planning Consultant

NOTED - 1. LRR contained:-  Erratum in paragraph 7.2, adding the words “will be permitted” after the words “larger villages”;  Additional neighbour representation;  Additional condition required relating to minimum space standards as the car park was in separate ownership and could be fenced off at any time whether or not the development was approved.

2. Highways had no objection despite the access being close to a pedestrian crossing, which was NOT to be moved.

3. Site formed an unofficial car park for several local businesses. The loss of the use of the car park was likely to create difficulties for the businesses and patrons. This was NOT a material planning consideration.

Councillor Lea proposed REFUSAL, which was seconded by Councillor Flunder. However, when the vote was taken, the motion was LOST.

2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, varyPage or add 9 conditions / informatives / planning 5 Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2019

obligations or reasons for approval / refusal), prior to the decision being issued the Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Gledhill and seconded by Councillor Davies.)

Councillor Cawley left the meeting at this point.

46 SMD/2018/0679 - LAND AT BRIDGE END, MACCLESFIELD ROAD, LEEK

ERECTION OF 5 DETACHED, SINGLE STOREY 5 BEDROOMED DWELLING HOUSES FOR URBAN NU Ltd.

(Report recommended Refusal)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application: Miss Lorraine Ingram - Objector Mr. Ross Ankers - Objector Cllr. Lytton Page - Ward Cllr. Cllr. Lyn Swindlehurst - Ward Cllr.

For the application: Mr. Rob Duncan - Planning Consultant Mr. Michael Banjo - Applicant

NOTED - 1. LRR contained neighbour representation requesting that 2 videos supplied showing flooding should be shown to members. Officers confirmed that they had forwarded the videos to the Lead Local Flood Authority.

2. Chair confirmed that matters relating to the access road were a civil (private) matter and, as such, not a material planning consideration.

RESOLVED – That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report.

(Proposed by Councillor Gledhill and seconded by Councillor Hoptroff.)

47 SMD/2019/0404 - 2 BREACH ROAD, BROWN EDGE

OUTLINE PERMISSION WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED (EXCEPT ACCESS, LAYOUT AND SCALE) FOR A SINGLE BEDROOM BUNGALOW WITH 1-2 PARKING SPACES AND SCREEN FENCE ALONG EXISTING STONE BOUNDARY WALL ALONG LEEK ROAD FOR MR. A CHATTERTON.

(Report recommended Refusal) Page 10 6 Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2019

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representation from the undermentioned speaker:-

For the application: Mr. Peter Wilkinson - Supporter

NOTED - 1. Application did not meet national space standard requirement.

RESOLVED – That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report.

(Proposed by Councillor Lea and seconded by Councillor Emery.)

48 SMD/2019/0451 - LAND AT REAR OF FORMER ST. JOHNS SCHOOL, MILL LANE, WETLEY ROCKS

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT ACCESS ROAD FOR JCM GROUP HOLDINGS.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

For the application: Mr. David Breakwell - Planning Consultant Cllr. Mike Worthington - Ward Cllr.

NOTED - 1. LRR contained:-  Comments from Trees Officer – no objections;  Highways Officer comments – no objections;  Additional condition required provision of structural calculations and construction details for the retaining wall supporting the highway.

2. The key issue was seen as the implications for openness. The road would be screened by hedging and would be partially on the existing road.

3. Additional conditions to ensure a) re-alignment of the existing Gatepost and b) safeguarding of the Well which was on the site.

2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal), prior to the decision being issued the Head of Development Services had Pagedelegated 11 authority to do so in consultation with 7 Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2019

the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Flunder and seconded by Councillor Holmes.)

49 APPEALS REPORT

Ben Haywood reported on a broadly positive set of appeal decisions received (see below), noting that no appeals had been lodged since the last report.

Ref. Location Decision Recom. Decision Appeal level Decision SMD/2018/0121 325 Delegated Approve Approved Allowed Armshead 11/1/2019 with with 2/7/2019 Road, conditions conditions Werrington DET/2019/0002 Town Head Delegated Refuse Refused Dismissed Farm, Foxt 1/3/2019 12/7/2019 SMD/2018/0622 Freshwater Delegated Refuse Refused Allowed House, 14/12/2018 12/7/2019 Rudyard SMD/2018/0749 Fair View, Delegated Refuse Refused Dismissed Caverswall 22/1/2019 8/7/2019 SMD/2018/0746 Troughstones Delegated Refuse Refused Dismissed Farm, 15/3/2019 19/7/2019 Biddulph

It was noted that 2 of the appeal decisions (SMD/2018/0121 & SMD/2018/0749) were in respect of conditions removing Permitted Development Rights, with opposing results.

RESOLVED – That the report be NOTED.

The meeting closed at 4.45 pm

______Chairman ______Date

Page 12 8 Agenda Item 6

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

17th October 2019

Application SMD/2019/0436 No: Location Olive Tree Park, Uttoxeter Road, Checkley, ST10 4NA Proposal Extension to existing brick built amenity building Applicant Mr and Mrs Price Agent Mr Roger Yarwood Parish/ward Checkley Date registered: 6th August 2019 If you have a question about this report please contact: Benjamin Hurst tel: 01538 395400 ex 4127 [email protected]

REFERRAL

The application is presented at the request of the local member, Cllr Wilkinson on behalf of the Parish Council because of visual impact and over development of the site 20m2 to 50 m2. The extension is larger than the original.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site is a private family caravan site that provides pitches for three touring caravans, parking for the applicant’s vehicles and a brick built utility building with a pitched tiled roof. The pitches are provided in a linear row to the rear of the site, furthest from the roadside, so that the caravans line up toward the south west boundary. The utility building currently provides a small kitchenette, one toilet and a shower. It was built using a ‘rustic’ red brick, plain tiles and incorporates brick detailing at eaves and a round porthole window in the gable apex.

2.2 The site lies in a rural area that is outside of a designated settlement boundary in between Lower Tean and Checkley. The surroundings are distinctly rural and attractive. The landscape is of high quality, characterised by rolling topography, hedges and small wooded areas. A further element of the area’s character is the sporadic housing between villages (alongside the A522) and the presence of the cricket club to the west. Within this context the site is of limited visibility from the roadside. The boundary fence close to the highway, and the vegetation to east and west site boundaries, restrict views into the site. Any views through the access into the site have been modified with effective landscaping. From the roadside the peak of the utility building’s end gable, with its round porthole

Page 13 window, and its roof are apparent above the mature hedgerow planting. From the public rights of way to the north, where the land rises on the opposite side of the road, the tops of the caravans and the roof of the utility building can be seen more clearly.

3. THE APPLICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The applicant’s are travellers that have a nomadic way of life, particularly in respect of their work and employment. The families ‘gypsy status’ for planning purposes has been previously accepted by the Council. The existing caravan site that provides their accommodation was granted a planning permission last year. Benefitting from the scope of that planning permission, the brick utility building, already on site, is just 5metres by 4.2metres. It provides one small kitchenette, a single toilet and shower for the occupants of a three pitch caravan site. The site is currently occupied by 7 adults (Mr. and Mrs. Price, their unmarried son, two married sons and their spouses) and 6 young children.

3.2 The building would be extended so that in addition to the existing kitchenette there would be an additional toilet and shower (taking site total to two toilets and two showers) and one separate ‘day room’ with an internal floor area of 4.6metres by 3.5metres. The day room would be available to all site occupants and, in particular, provide the children with space to study or be active when they can not be outside. With the extension, the existing building would be essentially doubled in size and width, with toilet and shower units provided along the rear under a cat slide roof.

3.3 The original proposal included an extension to the building’s roadside end gable that would require a pine tree to be removed. However, during the application process the scheme has been revised to reduce toilet and shower provision and the overall size of extensions, leaving the end gable and tree intact. A revised layout plan shows how the three caravan pitches could be retained essentially in their existing locations, without significant displacement.

3.4 The caravan site provides a settled base for the travelling families to return to in relation to their nomadic way of life. The site has a full planning permission that restricts the site to the personal use of the applicant and his family. When the families cease using the site it is a condition of the planning permission that the utility building shall be removed. If the building were extended permission for a new larger building could be subject to a very similar condition that requires it to be removed when it is no longer needed.

3.7 Details of the application scheme can be viewed at:

http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet? PKID=128617

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

10/01062/FUL Caravan Site. Refused 10th Feb 2011.

Page 14  Appeal Allowed 2nd Aug 2011. The Inspector granted planning permission subject to a condition limiting the use to a 3 year period.

SMD/2014/0572 Caravan Site. Approved 6th Jan 2015 subject to a condition limiting the use to a 3 year period.

SMD/2017/0820 Caravan Site. Approved 16th Feb 2018, the permission is not time limited but it is restricted to the personnel use of the applicant and his family. The permission is tied to a particular site layout with limited pitch numbers and provides for the existing utility building.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1 The Development Plan comprises of:

 Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (Adopted 1998)  Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted March 2014)

Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy DPD (26th March 2014)

5.2 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-

. SS1 Development Principles . SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development . SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources . SS6 Rural Areas . SS6c Other Rural Area Strategy . H3 Gypsy and Traveller Sites . DC1 Design Considerations . DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting

Emerging Local Plan

5.3 A full schedule of main modifications to the Local Plan is expected to be subject to consultation early this autumn. The schedule will consist of modifications that the Inspector has so far deemed necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Following the consultation, the Inspector is expected to consider the responses before issuing his final report. Depending on the recommendations in the report, the Council may then be in a position to adopt the Local Plan.

Page 15  The degree of consistency of policies with the NPPF – given that the Council has submitted a Local Plan that it considers to be sound, all policies are deemed to be consistent with the NPPF.

Emerging Policies

5.5 The following policies (including their weighting) are considered to be relevant to this application:

. SS1 Development Principles (Moderate) . SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (Significant) . SS10 Other Rural Areas Strategy (Limited) . SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources (Limited) . H4 Gypsy and Traveller Sites (Significant) . DC1 Design Considerations (Moderate) . DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting (Significant)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

5.6 The following documents supplement and provide an evidence base to the development plan:

Staffordshire Moorlands Design Guide (2018) Landscape Character Assessment (2008)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revised.

5.7The following sections of the NPPF are particularly relevant to this application:

2: Achieving sustainable development 6: Building a strong, competitive economy (supporting rural economy) 12: Achieving well-designed places. 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

6. CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Site Notice posted 10th September 2019. Expiry date 1st October 2019.

No public comments have been received

Checkley Parish Council: Strong Objection. The addition would be twice the size of the original building. If the applicant and his family need a larger building this implies that they are no longer travellers but are instead settlers. Concerned about the visual impact on the area and nearby residents that a larger building would impose.

Severn Trent Water: No Objection

7. OFFICER COMMENT AND PLANNING BALANCE

Principle of development and the main issue for consideration

Page 16 7.1 The site is located in a rural area that is outside of a designated settlement boundary in between Lower Tean and Checkley. In a location such as this, the ‘Other Rural Area’ strategy SS6c of the Core Strategy generally only provides for development which meets an ‘essential’ local need. Such a need would be considered ‘essential’ when it can not be met elsewhere. The main issue for consideration, therefore, is whether the development’s impact on the character and appearance of the area would lead to a degree of harm that would outweigh considerations in favour, specifically in this case, the applicant and his family’s need for more space and facility within their utility building given the absence of any other available sites or accommodation that would meet there need.

The personal need of the applicant and his family 7.2 It was well established and concluded last year, when planning permission was granted for the families to use the site, that there was no other accommodation or site available that would meet the applicant’s needs. Moreover, the Council was no longer seeking to make traveller site allocations through the local plan process.

7.3 The applicants can only use touring caravans on the site because their planning permission is restricted by condition. This does however limit the space and facility that the caravans alone can provide and inevitably, as with most caravan sites, the occupants rely on a site utility building for ablutions and shared cooking. Given the number of occupants, the building is small at just 5m x 4m and provides one toilet and a shower for the whole site. The occupants have coped with this building for well over 10 years while, with the arrival of children, the family has grown. Living for that time with the uncertainty of ‘temporary’ or ‘time limited’ planning permissions and some threat of Council enforcement action, there has been little choice but to just ‘make do’ with such limited facility and relative hardship. However, the site was eventually granted a full planning permission in February last year and this provides opportunity to improve their ongoing and future quality of life.

7.3 The site is now occupied by a total of 7 adults (Mr. and Mrs. Price, their unmarried son and their two married sons and spouses) and 6 young children of, or fast approaching, school age. On this basis it does seem apparent that the site occupants are under served by existing onsite facility. An additional shower room and toilet would not be excessive and indoor space where the children, and the adults for that matter, could study, socialise and play, particularly in poor weather or when they can not go outside, does not seem unreasonable. The applicant’s need must be considered in the context of there not being any other site or accommodation available.

7.4 Within the ‘other rural areas’, the provision of development, including the extension of a rural building, that meets an essential local need would comply with the strategy for these areas set out at SS6c of the Core Strategy. In these respects the applicant’s need, particularly where there is an absence of larger or alternative sites available, is a significant consideration that weighs in favour of the development.

The Impact on the Character and Appearance of the area 7.5 The surroundings are distinctly rural and attractive. The landscape is of high quality and from the rising ground and the public rights of way to the north, from

Page 17 which the existing site, particularly the tops of the caravans and building, can be seen clearly, the site has some prominence in the landscape. The landscaping along the boundaries which now has some maturity, height and density, is limited in the extent to which it assimilates the site in these respects. It has already been judged as part of considerations relevant to previous applications that the existing site and building has for these reasons resulted in some harm to the appearance of the countryside. While the landscaping and fences do help with the assimilation of the site in respect of views from the roadside, the cricket club and the adjacent dwellings, the landscaping would have to be considerably taller before it provided a screening effect in respect of views from the footpath. There is, therefore, already some conflict with the Development Plan with regard to Policy DC3 of the Core Strategy which requires the Council to resist development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the landscape, but ultimatley last year, it was concluded that the applicant’s essential need, in the balance of considerations outweighed that harm.

7.6 In that context it is necessary to consider whether making the brick utility building bigger in the way that is proposed would, in terms of the building’s impacts and that of the site as a whole, more significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. Views of the building from the road would be largely unaltered or changed because the bulk of the extension would be on the otherside of the building, the builidng would continue to present the top of its roadside gable to the road and have the same proximity to the boundary. From the footpath and the higher ground opposite the additional roof line of the extended builidng might be visible from certain vantages but, in terms of the areas character and appearance, this would have insignificant or inconsequential impact relative to that of the buildings exisitng tiled roof and the tops of the caravans. There is currently a 9 metre gap between the side of the existing building and the site’s south west boundary, the extension would reduce this to around 4metres, a submitted layout plan demonstrates that the three caravans and associated vehicles would still have space to line up along the site’s rear boundary without being displaced to positions that would perhaps be more conspicuous and closer to the roadside boundary.

7.7 The site’s harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape has been established and accepted as a neccesity of the applicant’s need, this proposal would not cause significant or discernible additional harm over and above that existing impact. It is not considered, for the reasons stated above that any impact that the building extension would have on the character and appearance of the area would be a matter of harm that weighs heavily in the balance of considerations and, specifically, it would not outweigh the ‘significant consideration in favour’ that should be attributed to the applicant’s essential need on the site for improved facility.

Planning Balance & Conclusions 7.8 The limited and less than significant harm that may occur to the character and appearance of the area does not outweigh the ‘essential’ needs of the applicant and his family.

8. RECOMMENDATION

A. That planning permisison be granted subject to the following conditions:

Page 18 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:- To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended)

2. The development permitted and described above shall only be carried out in complete accordance with the drawn and written details that are shown on the revised ‘LAYOUT’ plan and the revised ‘PROPOSED PLANS’ 8/10/19 that were both submitted on the 8th October 2019.

Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The development permitted and described above shall only be carried out using red facing bricks and roof tiles as the external facing materials that match those of the existing builing.

Reason:- To ensure a satisfactory external appearance.

4. The development permitted and described above shall only be used by and available to the following: Mr. David and Johanna Price, Pacer Price, Annemarie Neddick, John Curtis Price, Ethil Price, and their resident dependents, who shall only continue to use and occupy the site under the terms and conditions of the planning permission ref. SMD/2017/0820.

Reason: To tie the use of the builidng to that of the site which can only be used by the applicant and his family because their personal need is a matter of significant weight in circumstances where the development would not normally be acceptable.

5. When the devlopment permitted and described above ceases to be used and the site is no longer occupied by those named in condition 4 above, the whole of the brick utility building (including the original building and the parts that have been extended as a result of this planning permission) shall be removed and the land restored to its condition before the development took place.

Reason:- To tie the use of the building to that of the applicant and his family, because their personal need is a matter of significant weight in circumstances where the development would not normally be acceptable, and to ensure that the character and appearance of the landscape is restored if they cease to need and use the land.

6) Throughout the life of the development, the site shall be set out in accordance with the attached layout plan numbered CS 1 (the Layout Plan). There shall at no time, without the written approval of the local planning authority, be any alterations made to the site layout, including any introduction of additional:

Page 19 • external lighting at the site; • alterations to the access to the site; • alterations to the internal layout of the site; • or provision made for the siting of caravans, parking, turning and ancillary buildings or structures. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the landscape in this locality and the amenity of adjacent residents.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative

1. The application is for a sustainable form of development which complies with the development plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. In the spirit of paragraph 38 of the NPPF amendments were secured to reduce the impact of the scheme.

Page 20 Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

17th October 2019

Application SMD/2019/0398 No: Location School Green, Ipstones

Proposal Alterations and change of use from garage to holiday accommodation Applicant Not stated Agent Byatt Oliver Associates Parish/ward Ipstones Date registered 25th July 2019 / Ipstones If you have a question about this report please contact: Arne Swithenbank tel: 01538 395578 or e-mail [email protected]

REFERRAL

The application is a Full Minor and is referred to Committee at the request of Cllr Lynda Malyon in order for committee to consider in particular the implications for neighbour amenity.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve with conditions.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1The site is a detached garden plot of 100m2 bordering the north west side of the tarmac square known as School Green at the head of Brookfields Road close to the centre of Ipstones. A characterful brick and tile single storey building c.3.9m x 7.3m with dual pitched roof stands to the northerly edge of the site with gable end garage doors opening into School Green. There is a further breeze block garage with mono-pitch sheet roof also opening into School Green towards the south easterly end of the site. A tall stone wall between the two garages forms the boundary with School Green. The remainder of the site is generally to grass.

2.2A public footpath follows a ginnel along the northerly edge of the site through to High Street. The site is closely overlooked by houses to the north and west. The front elevation of the nearest dwelling to the west (a back-to back with No.2 Twist Intake) is 10m from the garage. The front elevation of Garden Cottage – the nearest dwelling to the north – is similarly close at c.12m to the original front elevation.

Page 23 2.3There are at least three Listed Buildings within the vicinity including The Old School House (Grade II) 25m to the SE; the Weslyan Chapel 25m to the east and Twist Intake (Grade II) c.25m to the west.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1The proposal is to change the use of the brick and tile garage to one- bedroom holiday accommodation along with a small extension off the southerly elevation into the garden area to form a small bathroom. A new doorway entrance to the building would be formed in this elevation. The garage doors would be replaced with a window comprising hit and miss upright boards alternating with glazing strips. An existing pedestrian door in the westerly gable would be replaced with a similar designed window to the full height. Three conservatory style roof lights would be inserted in the southerly roof slope.

3.2 The breeze block garage would be demolished and a pull-in formed for a single vehicle.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 None directly applicable to the site.

4.2 01/00853/FUL on the adjacent garden plot to the west – retrospective application for wooden shed – approved

4.3 89/00369/OLD for Garden Cottage – detached garage and vehicular access – refused

4.4 03/00866/FUL for Garden Cottage – two storey rear extension – approved

4.5 SMD/2018/0111 for Garden Cottage – construction of garden room – refused

4.6 SMD/2018/0450 for Garden Cottage – construction of garden room – approved

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1The development plan comprises the adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (26th March 2014) and supporting evidence documents.

Core Strategy Development Plan (Adopted 26th March 2014), S01 Spatial Objectives

Page 24 SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6a Larger Villages Area Strategy SS7 Churnet Valley Area Strategy H1 New Housing Development E3 Tourism and Cultural Development DC1 Design Considerations DC2 The Historic Environment NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance (SPD/G):  Space About Dwellings SPG  Design Principles SPG  Churnet Valley masterplan SPD (March 2014)

Core Strategy Supporting Evidence Documents:  Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) July 2018 Paragraphs 1 – 14 Section 4 Decision making Section 12 Achieving well designed places Section 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Local Plan Submission Version (February 2018) SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS7 Churnet Valley Area Strategy SS8 Larger Villages Area Strategy E4 Tourism and Cultural Development DC1 Design Considerations DC2 The Historic Environment H1 Rural Housing NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

Local Plan process 5.2 The Council agreed to publish the Local Plan Submission Version for representations in February 2018. At this point, the Council agreed that the Local Plan was “sound”. Formal representations were then invited from residents, businesses and other stakeholders to provide them with the opportunity to support or challenge the soundness or legal compliance of the Local Plan. This stage in the process followed three previous public consultations since 2015 which had informed the preparation of the Local Plan alongside a comprehensive evidence base.

Page 25 sound and legally compliant. Subject to the findings of the appointed inspector, the Local Plan is expected to be adopted later in 2019. At that point, it will supersede the adopted Core Strategy and become part of the statutory development plan for the District.

5.4 In this context, the Council’s position on the weight to be given to the policies contained in the Local Plan Submission Version in terms of the three criteria set out in Paragraph 48 of the NPPF is as follows: - The stage of preparation: the Local Plan is now at an advanced stage of preparation as the Council has submitted it to the SoS for examination; - The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies: this varies depending on the policy in question. Where reference is made in this report to any emerging policies the level of outstanding objections to each policy will be noted and recommendation made as to the amount of weight to be given to the policies at this stage in the process; - The degree of consistency of policies with the NPPF: given that the Council has submitted a Local Plan that it considers to be sound, all policies are deemed to be consistent with the NPPF

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Public 6.1 Neighbour consultations x 13 for response by 21st August 2019. Site notice posted for responses by 17th September 2019. Press notice for 4th September 2019. Representations raising objections have been received from 8 neighbouring households variously raising issues as follows:  Noise and disturbance from holiday makers in close proximity to dwellings – “an inappropriate mix of planning uses”  Poor amenity and outlook for occupiers of the building – risk of parked vehicles blocking the living room window outlook and light  Parking congestion  Close proximity to neighbour gardens  Loss of access to the drying green for neighbouring dwellings with pegging rights  Unsightly and out of keeping development – will denigrate the area  The site was linked with two flats on High Street and the two parking spaces of the site should be reserved to serve these flats  Ipstones already has a significant number of holiday let properties which are not currently let to full capacity and therefore there is no economic need to create such a property. Indeed, in doing so, it may pave the way for an opportunity for the applicant to seek to change the property to residential status at a later stage for commercial gain.  Loss of local vernacular character of this building  for the property to be a viable development it would have to be rented long term, which is not what the application implies.  Fear of potential antisocial occupancy

Page 26 Parish Council 6.2 Ipstones Parish Council – voted against this application for the following reasons: - • Parking – there are parking issues in the School Green area • That the development would be unneighbourly • There is inadequate space for the development • It would impact on the services/sewerage/drainage in the School Green Area.

SMDC Conservation Officer 6.3 The proposed conversion of the garage is now much improved as it works with the form and character of the existing brick structure with a small extension within the garden to form a shower room. Subject to joinery details, vents and ducts, rainwater goods there are no objections.

6.4 The key issue with the scheme is the impact on the boundary wall and nearby concrete garage. The creation of the new opening in the stone wall will harm the appearance of the area by disrupting the enclosure and opening up a view of the garden area. A compromise would be to remove the unsightly concrete garage and enlarge this opening in the wall slightly to provide parking for two cars. This would be far less disruptive and enable more of the historic dry-stone wall to be retained.

SMDC Ecology / Public Rights of Way 6.4 No ecology / protected species survey has been submitted. It is judged likely that the two buildings involved will be found to have negligible potential for bats but it is essential that this is confirmed by appropriate expert survey. The applicant has been invited to submit this in time for the committee date. If not received in time it will be necessary to defer determination to a later date.

6.7 The public right of way to the immediate north lies outside the site boundary and would not be affected.

Severn Trent Water 6.8 Advise that the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system and therefore there are no objections to the proposals and no requirement for a drainage condition to be applied. STW advises that that there may be a public sewer located within the application site. Although the statutory sewer records do not show any public sewers within the area specified, there may be sewers that have been recently adopted under the Transfer of Sewer Regulations 2011. Public sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent and contact must be made with Severn Trent Water to discuss the proposals. STW will aim to assist in obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building.

SCC Highways 6.9 No objections and no issues raised.

Page 27 7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS / PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context 7.1 The Local Planning Authority is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless there are material circumstances which indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan for the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council consists of the Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (March 2014) with regard also being given to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance documents: ‘Space About Dwellings’ and ‘Design Principles’ and the Council’s Core Strategy Supporting Evidence Document: Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008). Development boundary mapping remains for the present time as approved under the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (September 1998).

Principle of Development and Main Issues 7.2 In its general approach in accordance with policies SS1 and SS1a, the Council expects the development and use of land to contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvement of the Staffordshire Moorlands. When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. This means that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Core Strategy shall be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.3 Where there are no policies relevant to the application, or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether: (a) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or (b) specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted. In the rural areas outside of any development boundary Policy SS6c provides for the conversion of an existing rural building in accordance with Policies R1 and R2.

7.4 Being within the development boundary of a larger village, development is acceptable in principle but is subject to consideration of all material matters including, in particular, the implications for heritage being within the Ipstones Conservation Area and being in the close vicinity of at least three Listed Buildings.

7.5 Policy SS6a is that the larger villages shall retain and enhance their role as rural service centres by, inter alia, enabling appropriate development which supports and increases the range and quality of services and facilities available to the rural areas. SS6a(4) is to ensure that new development reflects and enhances each village’s special character and heritage by, inter alia, giving priority to the reuse and regeneration of existing redundant, underused or

Page 28 surplus sites and premises for new development and restricting the scale of new development.

7.6 The Churnet Valley Area Strategy policy SS7 identifies the Churnet Valley as an area for sustainable tourism and rural regeneration with particular support given to (inter alia) short stay and long stay visitor accommodation; and provision of compatible new tourism facilities. Ipstones is centrally located within the Churnet Valley Masterplan Area.

7.7 In principle a proposed tourism accommodation use is acceptable in this location as it is closely accessible to supplies, services and Ipstones transport links. The implications for neighbour amenity and for heritage are however key considerations.

Neighbour Amenity

7.8 The proposal makes use of an existing building. The small single storey extension proposed to the southerly elevation (westerly end) would project 1.9m and have a width of 2.5m. The eaves height would be the same as the existing building and the ridge height at 3m would be lower than that of the existing building by half a metre. The extension would be somewhat central to the outlook from the facing dwelling to the west. Due to its small size and low height the extension would not however intrude significantly; it would not be overbearing and would not breach any of the Space About Dwellings Guidelines – in particular its top height would not exceed the 25 degree line drawn forward from a mid height point of the facing ground floor principle windows. In fact it would be about 3m below.

7.9 In terms of any impacts from the use of the building, the active comings and goings are likely chiefly to come via the parking space to the door in the southerly facing elevation or from the pedestrian ginnel from High Street. Some outdoor amenity space is provided and this too is on the side of the building facing away from the closest neighbours.

7.10 There are to be no openings in the elevation facing Garden Cottage. The existing door in the west gable elevation would become a non-opening window serving the bedroom. It is appropriate to assess this as a principal window. Space About Dwellings guidelines expect a separation of 22m between this and the facing elevation the back-to-back with Twist Intake. The separation is between 10m and 11m. To safeguard privacy and sense of overlooking in either direction between the two properties it is proposed that this window be narrow slit glazed in alternation with timber boards. Consideration could be given to obscured glass which would certainly be necessary if a large single glazing pane were proposed. The alternate glass strip and board would however sufficiently disrupt the line of view to make this unnecessary and this is much the preferable design solution both for appearance and the amenity of occupiers.

Page 29 7.11 Overall the above arrangements are considered to satisfy the necessary amenity safeguards.

Heritage

7.12 Strict considerations apply in respect of heritage. For nearby Listed Buildings there is a statutory duty placed on the LPA, under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to consider the impact of the proposal on the special architectural and historic interest of the Listed Buildings affected, and their settings.

7.13 As regards the Conservation Area, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 places a statutory duty on the LPA in assessing planning applications in respect to any land or buildings in a Conservation Area to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. In reaching its decision the LPA has to demonstrate that the Section 72 Duty has been applied and discharged. Section 72 (and Footnote 6 of para.11 of the NPPF) creates a strong presumption in favour of the preservation of Conservation Areas and their setting.

7.14 An LPA can only discharge its duty if it has carried out a proper assessment of the impact on a Conservation Area and/or a Listed Building, is conscious of the duty and has demonstrably applied it in assessing the proposal. This assessment extends to setting – the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.

7.15 NPPF paragraph 193 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, “great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation”.

7.16 Paragraph 194 goes on to say that: “any harm or loss [to a heritage asset] should require clear and convincing justification.”

7.17 The application building is a relatively lesser structure within the Conservation Area. Nevertheless the earliest available OS map of 1887 shows a building present by that date which appears to correspond approximately with that extant today. The building has evident character and the patina of age in its brick work, stone cill and stone lintel to the east door. It is understood that the building was once a bakehouse and also that the enclosed garden space to its south side is a communal drying green.

7.18 The proposal establishes a future use for the building without which it may ultimately be lost.

7.19 The Council has an adopted Conservation Area appraisal for Ipstones. This describes at paragraph 2.7 a congested central area with workers’ terraces and smaller houses to the east. Paragraph 2.10 discusses the triangle SE of High Street and the nature of the settlement pattern suggesting originally the

Page 30 area to have been waste land of the parish with Old School House being the earliest (1775) development. Fig 2.4 refers. See also para. 4.6 and para. 5.2 which comments, “builders chose their own alignment irrespective of their neighbours”.

7.20 Negative impacts on the CA are discussed at section 10 and include congestion and visual impact caused by parked cars; loss of drystone walling. School Green is mentioned at 10.4. The village-scape analysis map at the end of the document specifically identifies as “significant wall” the walling around School Green including that of the proposal site.

7.21 The proposal is to retain the greater part of this wall. A significant benefit of the scheme is that it is proposed to remove the somewhat unsightly breeze block garage at the southerly end of this wall.

7.22 As regards the settings of the nearby Listed Buildings the nature and character of the outside space to the application site would not be greatly different from the current permitted usage. The key changes are the extension to the existing building and introduction of sky lights. It is judge though that these changes are not of a scale or proximity to harm the settings of the Listed Buildings.

Design

7.21 The Council’s adopted Design Guidance states as follows: “The guiding principle behind the design of any conversion should be that the character of the original building and its setting should be respected and retained. This means that in most cases the barn, mill or chapel should afterwards look like a converted barn, mill or chapel, and not like a new house or a new block of flats. When converting traditional buildings, new uses should not normally require the construction of extensions or ancillary buildings. However, if alterations are necessary and approached carefully, it may be possible to bring about a new understanding of historic buildings by making a clear distinction between what is old and what is new.”

7.22 The proposal appropriately uses existing openings and minimises new openings with the formation of a door at the position of an existing window. The extension however is a limitation of this scheme when assessed against the above guidance. It can though be readily seen that in this scheme it is necessary.

Other matters

7.23 Some representations received have drawn attention to the existence of drying rights on the application land. The LPA view is that the application does not necessarily preclude the continued exercise of these rights as most of the site will remain free of built development. Ultimately the ability to

Page 31 exercise any such rights will be a private matter between the rights holders and the land owner.

7.24 The concerns raised about loss of parking space are understandable. The property would be a one bedroom development not likely to accommodate more than two people and therefore unlikely to generate more than one associated vehicle and the scheme makes provision for this. Although in theory the site provides parking for two vehicles in the existing garages these seem to have been out of use for some time. With one garage removed as a result of the conversion a space becomes available within School Green as there is no longer requirement to avoid blocking the garage doors.

7.25 Whether parking in front of the glazed former doors to the development would be so harmful as to render the scheme unsupportable is a matter of judgement – it might reasonably be concluded not to be ideal. On balance it may however be judged to be acceptable for a non-permanent living place i.e. short term holiday accommodation.

7.26 As regards potential for noise and disturbance it is judged that this should not be any greater than from other nearby dwellings and gardens. As a single bedroom development usage would be expected to be by a single person or a maximum of two people.

7.27 Concern has been raised that there is no market for further holiday accommodation in the area and that this may result in a future request to make the building into a permanent dwelling. The LPA has no basis to conclude that a holiday let would not be viable and it is for the applicant to determine whether the proposal represents a viable business proposition. The role of the LPA is to determine whether or not the proposal us is acceptable in land-use terms, having regard to the planning considerations set out above. Having considered the matter carefully it is concluded that the building is suitable for holiday accommodation but for amenity reasons would not be suitable as a permanent dwelling. It will therefore be necessary and important to restrict the occupancy to holiday usage as its small size renders it inappropriate for permanent use as a dwelling. The consent if granted needs to be clear that permanent occupancy as a dwelling would not be acceptable and as noted, a condition to this effect would be essential. The developer will then be able to judge the viability or otherwise on this basis.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

7.28 Paragraph 122 of the Framework says that “decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account [inter alia]: b) local market conditions and viability c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use; d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change;

Page 32 7.29 The development is acceptable in principle. The impacts on heritage are found on balance to be acceptable as are any impacts for neighbour amenity and highways. Subject to the details being received re ecology as referenced at 6.4 above it is anticipated that the scheme will be acceptable in respect of protected species and in particular bats.

7.30 The necessity for the small extension is a compromise in terms of character and appearance and heritage. Anything larger would not be supported. It is recognised that this minimum sized bathroom is essential to the scheme. It is also important to recognise that overall the scheme brings an end use for the building which has some merit and character contribution. The scheme also removes the unsightly concrete block garage and will secure the stone wall noted in the Conservation Area appraisal.

7.31 As an obviously small dwelling it is appropriate to consider the Government’s criteria contained in the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard (2015) which is referenced at paragraph 127(f) footnote 46 of the NPPF (2018) in order to determine whether the building could offer an appropriate amount of living space internally. As a single bedroom two person proposal a minimum gross internal floor area of 50m2 would be required to meet the NDSS required for a dwelling. This scheme delivers c.27m2 internally – clearly well below the minimum standard. The use of the building as a permanent dwelling would not be appropriate and conditions to prevent this should be imposed accordingly. Subject to these conditions, the proposal is found to be acceptable.

7 RECOMMENDATION

A. Approve subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details as submitted in the application form and submitted specifications and as shown in drawings: 5468 005A Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details and approved plans, in the interests of good planning, for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.

3. The external facing and roofing materials shall match in colour, form and texture those of the existing building and prior to the commencement of development details including types and colours along with samples if requested of all roofing materials, facing materials and hard surfaces shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance

Page 33 with the details as subsequently approved and there shall be no variation without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the works harmonise with the existing development and in the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

4. Prior to the commencement of development detailed joinery plans and sections of the proposed windows and doors at a scales in the range of eg. 1:5, 1:10 and 1:20 as appropriate together with details of the materials and proposed finishes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details as subsequently approved. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory and appropriate to the building and the character of the Conservation Area.

5. Prior to the commencement of development details of all boundary treatments and hard landscaping shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval and prior to the first occupation of the development shall be completed in accordance with the design details as subsequently approved in writing. Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the amenities of the area and the character of the Conservation Area.

6. All noisy activities shall be restricted to the following times of operations: . 08:00 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); . 08:00 - 13:00 hours (Saturday) . No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. In this instance a noisy activity is defined as any activity (for instance, but not restricted to, building construction/demolition operations, refurbishing and landscaping) which generates noise that is audible at the site boundary. Reason: To avoid the risk of disturbance to neighbouring dwellings from noise during anti social hours.

7. Any removal of roof tiles and the carrying out of any development which may encroach into the roof structure shall be undertaken by hand observing for the presence of bats or bat droppings. In the event that bats or bat droppings are encountered during this work all operations shall be immediately ceased and advice obtained from an ecologically qualified bat specialist. Work shall then continue only in accordance with the advice obtained. Reason: To ensure that the development proceeds with appropriate protection and safeguard for European Protected Species.

8. All rainwater goods shall be of metal or wood to a profile the detail of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation.

Page 34 Reason: In the interests of the visual integrity of the building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

9. No external cowls, vents, ducts flues or extractor equipment whatsoever shall be installed at the premises of the development hereby permitted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual integrity of the building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and to enable the LPA to control any impacts on neighbour amenity.

10. The roof light details are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be fitted in accordance with the details approved. Roof lights shall be of Conservation standard and shall be designed to fit flush with the plane of the roof and the frame shall have a black finish. The glazed area shall be subdivided vertically. Reason: In the interests of the visual integrity of the building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

11. All pointing shall be of a strength and style appropriate to the type of walling materials used (see SMDC leaflet on pointing) and shall not include 'tuck', 'strap' or 'recessed' pointing. All raking out shall be by hand tools not using mechanical means. Reason: In the interests of the visual integrity of the building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

12.The existing extant built structure of the building as shown in submitted drawing 5468-002A shall be retained as existing within the development hereby approved and there shall be no demolition or rebuilding save for that approved in consequence of this consent to form the extension and the doorway in the southerly elevation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Reason: In the interests of the visual integrity of the building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

13.The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the concrete block work garage to the south east corner of the site has been cleared from the land and the parking area has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking area shall thereafter be retained unobstructed as parking for the life of the development. Reason: In the interests of amenity and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

14.The premises shall be used for short stay holiday accommodation not exceeding four weeks at any one time and for no other purpose including any purpose in Class C3 (dwelling houses) of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987. A register of such occupants including details of duration of stay shall be kept and made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority if requested.

Page 35 Reason: Due to the small size of the internal space and the close proximity of the building to the neighbouring dwellings and gardens the building is not considered suitable for permanent residential occupation.

B In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

Informatives

1. This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

10.APPENDICES TO THE REPORT

10.1 The link below to the Council’s website is where the detail of this application can be viewed.

http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSear chServlet?PKID=129999

Page 36 School Green, Ipstones – location plan

Page 37 Site at School Green, Ipstones

Page 38 Agenda Item 8

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

17th October 2019

Application SMD/2019/0213 No: Location Land off Macclesfield Road, Leek Proposal Approval of reserved matters following outline approval SMD/2013/1201 Applicant Grace Street Developments Ltd Agent Sammons Architectural Ltd Parish/ward Leek Date registered 03/04/2019 If you have a question about this report please contact: Rachael Simpkin [email protected]

REFERRAL

This is a major application and the Planning Applications Committee considered the related outline application and reserved matters submissions previously.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to recommended planning conditions.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The 0.47 hectare greenfield application site is situated within a peripheral location to the northwest settlement of Leek town centre. It lies broadly to the south of Macclesfield Road, to the rear of Bridge End Garden Centre and the White Lion Public House with intervening land. It also borders the rear of nos. 3, 4, 5 Orchard Court (on lower ground) and football club associated carpark to its eastern boundary. Separated by land within the applicant’s control, the blue edge would adjoin Bryn Helyg to its southern boundary, which is sited on higher ground. Continuing on rising ground, the site’s western boundary directly adjoins grazing land within the town boundary. A non-designated public footpath runs along the eastern boundary of the site. Access to the application site is gained via a track from Macclesfield Road to the northeastern corner of the site. It runs between Leek Town Football Club, Bridge End Garden Centre and the White Lion Public House. This track also serves the carpark for the football club. The site lies within the designated Leek Town Boundary. The site access is also sited within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

Page 39 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 A revised reserved matters consent for a scheme comprising of full details (excepting access) is sought for the erection of eleven, 2-storey dwellings with some split-level units, which would be arranged around a cul-de-sac type road. A mix of 3 and 4 bedroom properties are to be expressed as semi-detached and detached properties. Facing materials proposed are brick beneath a concrete tile and white uPVC joinery details. Each dwelling would benefit from mostly frontage off-street car parking spaces and private rear garden amenity space. Vehicular access, as approved, would be taken from the existing surfaced track leading up from the Macclesfield Road (A523) to form an internal access road with turning head to service individual driveway parking. The scheme follows the refusal of planning permission ref. SMD/2018/0706, which raised significant design and layout matters.

3.2 The extant outline approval ref. SMD/2013/1201 comprises details of access with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future consideration. The related planning obligation secured a financial contribution of £13,827 towards local education facilities.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

NMA/2019/0015 - Amendment to red edge on location plan. Ref SMD/2013/1201. Pending.

SMD/2018/0706 - Approval of reserved matters following outline approval SMD/2013/1201. Refused February 2019.

SMD/2013/1201 – Erection of 11 Dwellings (Outline) with details of vehicular access. Approved with conditions December 2016 (expires 13th December 2019).

SMD/2002/1218 - Outline for erection of 5 detached dwellings and extension to football club car park. Refused. Dismissed at appeal owing to a lack of a Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the safety of residents of the development would not be compromised in times of flood risk and loss of a greenfield site.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1 The Development Plan comprises of:

 Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (Adopted 1998)  Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted March 2014)

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (1998)

5.2 Development boundaries within the 1998 Adopted Local Plan are still in force until such time as they are reviewed and adopted through the site allocations process.

Page 40 Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy DPD (26th March 2014)

5.3 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-

. SS1 Development Principles . SS2 Future Provision of Development . SS3 Distribution of Development . SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development . SS5 Towns . SS5a Leek Area Strategy . SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources . SD3 Carbon-saving Measures in Development . H1 New Housing Development . DC1 Design Considerations . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

Emerging Local Plan

5.4 The existing development plan document for the Staffordshire Moorlands does not include any allocations for housing and other types of land uses. The new Local Plan will include sites for developments and boundaries. It will be a single document that will take a fresh look at the development needs of the district for the next 14 years to 2031. As well as early public engagement, the Council have undertaken public consultations on the draft plan site allocation options during 2015, preferred options and boundaries in 2016 and preferred options in 2017. The comments received in response have been used to prepare, publish and consult upon the final Local Plan draft ‘submission’ version, which was examined by the Inspector during sessions held in October 2018.

5.5 A full schedule of main modifications to the Local Plan is expected to be subject to consultation this autumn. The schedule will consist of modifications that the Inspector has so far deemed necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Following the consultation, the Inspector is expected to consider the responses before issuing his final report. Depending on the recommendations in the report, the Council may then be in a position to adopt the Local Plan.

5.6 In this context, the Council’s position on the weight to be given to the policies contained in the Local Plan Submission Version in terms of the three criteria set out in Paragraph 48 of the NPPF is as follows:

 The stage of preparation – the Local Plan is now at an advanced stage of preparation as discussed above.  The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies – this varies depending on the policy in question.  The degree of consistency of policies with the NPPF – given that the Council has submitted a Local Plan that it considers to be sound, all policies are deemed to be consistent with the NPPF.

Page 41 Emerging Policies

5.7 The following policies (including their weighting) are considered to be relevant to this application:

. SS1 Development Principles (Moderate) . SS1 a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development (Significant) . SS5 Leek Area Strategy (Limited) . SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources (Limited) . SD3 Carbon-saving Measures in Development (Moderate) . H1 New Housing Development (Limited) . DC1 Design Considerations (Moderate) . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources (Moderate) . NE2 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows (Significant) . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport (Moderate) . T2 Other Sustainable Transport Measures (Moderate)

Supplementary Planning Document

Space about Dwellings (1996)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Staffordshire Moorlands Design Guide (2018)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revised.

National Planning Policy Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Site Notice Published Expired Press Notice Published Expired Neighbour Notification (revised) Expiry date: 7th October 2019

6.1 A total of four letters of objection have been received, which are detailed as follows:

Pedestrian Access to Kiln Lane

There is a concern within the application that the walkway is being widened to allow more 'traffic' to head up to Kiln Lane. This is not a safe suggestion as this enters the Lane at a very dangerous point on a single track unadopted road.

Kiln Lane has experienced considerable subsidence over recent times with developments taking place on the Macclesfield Road area and there are concerns further development and subsequent impacts of such will cause more issues.

Page 42 As stated by Staffordshire Police ... "Although the site is tucked away, the presence of the currently informal (but to be formalised?) pedestrian link down the side of the site to Kiln Lane could provide offenders with the ready means to target the rear of the properties here."

My property is the existing property at the top of the lane and therefore the property most at risk of offender intrusion. The increase in pedestrian traffic will increase the risk which is aggravated by the fencing between the side of my land and the builder’s land that borders the side of 3 Orchard Court.

The separation is presently a 3 foot high fence reducing to almost 2 feet high at the front of the property which also provides a further means of offender escape. Does the builder have any plans to improve security between his land and mine? Increase fence size between our land or to fence the side of the pathway from the top rear corner of my land and the top of the path leading to the gate on Kiln Lane.

Fencing to the South of the Site

From what we can see the property garden fencing to the South of the site (back of the gardens facing our property and our field) is suggested as being 'post and rails' We understand that this maybe in keeping with the rural feel of the location, but is not in keeping with other developments surrounding the site i.e. Orchard Court. Within our property boundaries are sheep and horses and we would request that the development has fencing that 'contains' the privacy and noise of the proposed properties in a way that will not concern our animals. Suffice to say, the fencing needs to ensure that the proposed properties have privacy from our property as well.

Amenity (Orchard Court)

The height of the gardens that 3 Orchard Court will overlook is of a sloping height which means they will directly look down into my garden and so would create an issue of privacy. We are extremely disappointed that these plans do not do anything to address point 2 of the Refusal of Reserved Matters of the previous application SMD/2018/0706 in terms of proximity and height and the negative impact to numbers 3-5 Orchard Court.

Plots 3 and 4 are still too close to 4 and 5 orchard court and the gable to plot 3 will dominate the view from these properties. Plot 3 will overlook numbers 4 and 5 Orchard Court and restrict the privacy and quiet enjoyment of these properties and their gardens. The gable to plot 3 now contains 2 windows, one of which is to a bedroom and these are directly opposite the main bedrooms to number 4 and 5 orchard court which is a invasion of privacy. Plot 3 will obstruct the sunlight which is enjoyed by number 4 and 5 Orchard Court at the most important part of the day late of afternoon to early evening. As number 4 Orchard Court is split level my patio is at first floor level and will overlook the gardens of the new development in particular plots 3 and 4.

Plots 3 and 4 are still too close to numbers 4 and 5 Orchard Court and the height of the ridge to these plots is still as dominant as before. Although the applicant states that the ridge height has been reduced the repositioning of these blocks appears to

Page 43 have negated this reduction and the sections show that the ridge to Plot 3 appears to be above the ridge height of 5 Orchard Court.

The positioning of plots 3 and 4 will still obstruct sunlight and the quiet enjoyment of the gardens and properties of 4 and 5 Orchard Court. It should be noted that the gardens to 4 and 5 Orchard Court are much lower than the ridge height of these properties as they are themselves split level - and they will be overshadowed by the development. The applicant has stated that this will be limited to late afternoon, however this is the most important time of the day as the properties in Orchard Court were built for and are occupied by working families who seek to enjoy their gardens at that particular time of day i.e. when work and school is finished.

In addition I raised an objection that the gable to Plot 3 contained a window (to a hallway) which was directly opposite the main bedroom to 4 and 5 Orchard Court and therefore raised an issue of privacy. The revised application now contains 2 windows, one of which is higher and also into a bedroom which has increased the issue of privacy.

Character and Appearance

I also feel that as the development is two to three storeys in height and on a hillside it will dominate the view from Macclesfield Road and be detrimental to the appearance of Leek town as it is at an important entry point into the town which is portrayed as a market town and the development does not blend into the countryside.

Leek Town Council

Not unneighbourly. It is recommended the perimeter fence is more substantial, with regards to security.

SCC Local Highways Authority

Date: 08.10.19

NO OBJECTIONS subject to a condition.

1. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be retained unobstructed as parking and turning areas for the life of the development. Reasons To comply with NPPF Paragraph 108; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy policy DC1 and T1 in the interests of highway safety.

Notes to Planning Officer Plots 3, 4, 5 and 6 show 3 bedrooms but could technically have 4 bedrooms depending on the wises of the occupants. On that basis plots 4 and 6 have only two spaces where 3 spaces could be required. However, as other plots do now have adequate parking, no objections are raised. The access road will remain private. Access matters were considered at outline stage under SMD/2013/1201.

Page 44 SCC Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)

NO OBJECTIONS

To this reserved matters application in respect of: layout, scale, external appearance of the buildings and landscaping of the site.

SMDC Aboricultural Officer

Date: 08.10.19

NO OBJECTION subject to a condition. Noted that landscaping should not be approved as a reserved matter at this stage as a fully detailed/specified landscaping scheme has not been submitted.

I have the following comments in relation to the latest amended scheme for reserved matters approval, with proposed layout as now set out on “Planning Proposal Alternative Site Plan” Drg. No. 2019-2408-20 Rev H:

It is noted that a Non-Material Amendment application (NMA/2019/0015) is also submitted, seeking to amend the application red-edged site; the effect of this is to include an additional area of land at the south-west corner (previously part of associated blue-edged land) in order to accommodate the layout now proposed under SMD/2019/0213.

The NMA proposal would still allow for provision of a new mixed native species hedgerow along the western boundary (the interface between urban area and open field/countryside beyond). Although this would then bring dwellings (i.e. those at Plots 9 & 10) closer to the field, it is considered that in practice this would have little if any additional harmful impact on the character of the landscape nor any greater visual impact, as the combination of landform and several layers of intervening hedgerows screens the site from publicly available viewpoints beyond to the northwest/west/south-west.

Meanwhile the on-site effects of expanding the red-edge are to slightly free up the development density, allowing more potential soft landscaping areas to plot frontages which can usefully accommodate trees, structural shrub planting etc and generally give a slightly more spacious feel to the public realm area of the site itself. This would reduce the dominance of structures, hard-surfacing and parked vehicles compared to previous layout proposals for this site. Notwithstanding this, the proposed layout would also still make appropriate provision for the retention (and reinforcement) of the existing gappy/leggy hedgerow and included trees along the northern boundary.

I therefore have no objection to the current application as now set out on the amended layout Drg. No. plan 2019-2408-20 Rev H, and no also objection to the NMA application NMA/2019/0015, but would request that the following condition relating to temporary tree/hedge protection during construction be imposed in the event that reserved matters for layout is now approved:

Page 45 1. The first action on commencement of development, prior to any further action (including any site clearance, site stripping or site establishment) shall be the erection of temporary tree protection barriers fencing and advisory notices for the protection of the existing trees and hedgerows to be retained, in accordance with guidance in British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations, and this shall be retained in position for the duration of the period that development takes place, unless otherwise agreed by the LPA. Within the fenced areas there shall be no excavation, changes in ground levels, installation of underground services, provision of hard surfacing, passage of vehicles, storage of materials, equipment or site huts, tipping of chemicals, waste or cement, or lighting of fires unless otherwise agreed by the LPA.

It is noted that again there are no details of proposed landscaping submitted, despite “landscaping” being included on the application form as a reserved matter for which the current application seeks approval. There is an indication of some landscaping provision on the layout plan, but this needs to be worked up into a comprehensive, fully specified scheme in order for it to be approved – and as previously discussed on site with the applicant and agent we would seek a few amendments/additions to the currently indicative landscaping and have suggestions/advice as follows:

- The new native species hedgerow indicated to the rear (west) boundaries of Plots 10 and 11 should be extended along the full length of the western boundary of the overall site (red-edged plus blue-edged), and incorporate some suitable native standard hedgerow trees, in order to strengthen the boundary between urban area and open countryside beyond.

- A fully detailed specification for this native hedgerow planting (including trees) should be submitted, also to be used for infilling/reinforcing the existing but leggy/gappy mature hedgeline to the northern boundary.

- Planting positions for new trees to plot frontages should be located a minimum of 5m from dwelling footprints, in order to allow sufficient space for natural growth/development without the need for premature felling, or heavy reduction of tree crowns. Even so, it is suggested that tree species are chosen for relatively compact mature size (small – medium), and perhaps tending towards those with more upright/fastigiate form to reduce potential for lateral encroachment onto dwellings and also to complement the generally vertical housetypes. Where minimum 5m distance is not possible, large specimen shrubs could be considered instead of trees.

- Opportunity should be taken to introduce a further structural element to site landscaping through provision of blocks of shrubs to frontages, perhaps in underplanting beds beneath trees and/or as alternative to small areas which may be awkward/inefficient for grassing. Again, full specification of species/mixes, planting sizes and numbers/densities should be provided.

- The applicant’s attention should also be drawn to the landscape management plan required under condition 14 of the outline planning permission

Page 46 SMD/2013/1201 (actually prior to commencement of development, rather than under reserved matters, but quite possibly most effectively/efficiently drawn up and submitted in conjunction with the required fully detailed landscaping scheme for the whole site.

SMDC Waste

Awaited. Previously: AES waste collection service has no objections with space provided for bin storage, however, there may be a concern if the road is not adopted in the future. If it does remain unadopted then in order to enter the site to empty the waste bins, an indemnity would be required from the developer from any damage that the refuse vehicles may cause to the road.

Staffordshire Constabulary: Police Liaison Reduction Unit

Date: 30.04.19

The potential exists for this development tucked away on the outskirts of Leek to be a very secure one for its residents as long as suitable boundary treatments will be in place to deter intrusion and offending. However, it is somewhat unclear whether these will be in place. On a positive note, the site should generally be an extremely quiet one being very much out of the way with plenty of natural surveillance from the properties over the access road and central portion of the site. Parking will either be garaged or in-curtilage, which is ideal.

Although the site is tucked away, the presence of the currently informal (but to be formalised?) pedestrian link down the side of the site to Kiln Lane could provide offenders with the ready means to target the rear of the properties here, hence the need for suitable boundary treatments. A timber close boarded fence and retaining brick wall is proposed for the side boundary of plot 3 bordering the footpath, which seems appropriate. The height of these will need to offer a good barrier to intrusion as well as providing privacy for the householder. However, on the Site Plan, the rear garden boundaries of plots 3-9 are indicated as only comprising a post and rail fence. These rear garden boundaries would appear to be easily approachable from near the top of the footpath link from Kiln Lane, which could make them potentially more vulnerable. Consideration should be given to improving the intruder resistance of these rear garden boundaries to address this potential vulnerability. This could be done by opting for a combination of alternative fencing, adding a trellis topping and/or incorporating some defensive hedge planting.

In addition to ensuring rear and side garden boundaries are sufficiently intruder resistant, it will be important to ensure that unauthorised access to the private rear gardens from the front of the properties is prevented with well-positioned lockable gating installed. Alas, no side gates (1800mm high recommended) are shown on the Site Plan although reference is made to such within the text on the Site Plan. Such gates would be important not only for security, but also in terms of child safety and preventing pets from wandering. Gates should be positioned as close to the front of the building line as possible with potential external climbing aids avoided.

Page 47 The proposals to enhance the northern hedgerow boundary is noted and welcomed to protect plots 1 and 11.

From the viewpoint of Staffordshire Police and undoubtedly for the long-term benefit of the future residents of the development, it would be highly desirable for the properties to meet the minimum physical security standards contained within the Secured by Design Homes 2019 document available online. This includes external doorsets, ground floor/accessible windows and garage doorsets which have been tested and importantly, have third party certification to recognised minimum manual attack-resistant standards. Incidentally, installing appropriately certified products would satisfy Building Regulation Approved Document Q (Security). Furthermore, the applicant/developer can find a raft of other useful guidance within the aforementioned document.

7. OFFICER COMMENT AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy

7.1 The determination of a planning application should be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations.” The Development Plan currently consists of the Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy 2014.

7.2 The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) as revised was issued in February 2019 and has subsequently been updated. The NPPF is a mandatory material consideration in decision making. The applicable contents of the NPPF will be referenced within the relevant sections of the officer report as detailed below.

7.3 As before achieving sustainable development sits at the heart of the NPPF as referred to within paragraphs 10 and 11. This requires the consideration of three overarching and mutually dependant objectives being: economic, social and environmental matters where they are to be applied to local circumstances of character, need and opportunity as follows:

a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of the present and future generations; and by fostering a well designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open

Page 48 spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well being; and,

c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making the effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

7.4 CS (Core Strategy) Policy S1a establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within NPPF. Paragraph 11 requires decision makers to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan they should be approved without delay or where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless:-

i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

7.5 It is acknowledged that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land and as at 31st March 2018 the figure was 1.8 years. Case law has established that the application of the test in NPPF paragraph 11 is a ‘tilted balance’ which is predisposed in favour of granting planning permission unless NPPF policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal (11di) or adverse scheme impacts are outweighed by scheme benefits (11ii).

7.6 The policies contained in the NPPF are supplemented by the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), which is also a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. A list of key policies, guidance and other material considerations is provided in Section 5 above.

Principle of Development

7.7 The principle of 11 dwellings at the application site was accepted under the outline approval ref. SMD/2013/1201, which was granted planning permission on the 14th December 2016 whereby the need for additional housing in the district was considered to be acceptable at the outline stage. The approved outline scheme established a proposed development of 11 houses within the red edged application site and also secured matters of access including the internal road arrangement. Whilst the southern and western periphery of the site formed the ‘blue land’ reserved for landscape enhancement / management as was secured by the outline consent.

7.8 The proposed NMA (Non-Material Amendment) ref. NMA/2019/0015 ‘Amendment to the red edged location plan’ ref. SMD/2013/1201’ is currently pending. It seeks to amend the application red edged site to include an additional

Page 49 area of land at the south-west corner (previously part of associated blue-edged land) in order to accommodate the revised layout now proposed whilst increasing the blue edged land provision to the south of the site to result in a revised red edged site area of 0.47ha to preserve the quantum of buffer planting previously achieved.

7.9 The site occupies a more elevated position and houses on it would be seen from some vantage points in the town of Leek. At the outline stage, it was acknowledged that the site would be viewed from a distance. However, this would be seen in the context of the overall built environment on the edge of Leek with the main views of the site being gained on the approach to Leek via A523 Macclesfield Road. In addition, the site would be further screened by the existing developments to the fore, namely Leek Town Football Club, Bridge End Garden Centre, the White Lion Public House and by the bank of trees to the north of the site. In these circumstances, it was concluded that townscape character would not be adversely affected by inappropriate built development. The reservation of the peripheral ‘blue’ land via a planning condition would allow the provision of sensitive landscape planting to further soften this visual impact.

7.10 The proposed amendments to the site edged red are found to be acceptable with particular regard to the comments of the Council’s Aboricultural Officer as set out above. In these circumstances it is concluded that the changes to the site edged red would be non-material in nature for this matter to be granted approval under section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Other than the changes referred to here any other conditions attached to approval ref. HPK/2013/01201 would continue to apply as detailed in Appendix 1 of the report and would include a planning obligation providing for the payment of contributions towards the provision of education facilities.

7.11 The detailed application scheme for 11 dwelling units seeks consent for all reserved matters (excepting access) and comprises details of: layout, scale, appearance and landscaping as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in the context of the outline planning permission. As property mix and type were not specified at the outline stage such matters therefore cannot be subsequently secured at the reserved matters stage. At this more detailed stage of the process, the Council can however exercise further control to ensure that a high quality of design, including a high standard of amenity for existing and future users would be achieved to be consistent with CS (Core Strategy) Policies H1 and DC1 in particular and with the objectives of the NPPF. These matters will be judged under each reserved matters heading as follows.

Layout

“Layout” means the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces outside the development.

7.12 The indicative layout at the outline stage showed how the site could accommodate the number of dwellings sought. Noting the access point, road layout and pedestrian footway were scheme aspects which were agreed at this initial stage

Page 50 and have been carried through into the detailed design. In broad accordance with the outline illustrative plan, the dwelling plots would be arranged around a cul-de-sac type road. In respect of the revisions, these are principally orientated to the south of the internal spine road to result in a linear row of four pairs of semi-detached dwellings separated by driveways. This is a positive aspect of the scheme, which has introduced a sense of spaciousness into the site. Parking has been placed to the sides of dwellings where possible and where frontage parking is unavoidable, it has been broken up with reasonable areas of landscaping to avoid car dominated frontages. A further detached dwelling would punctuate the vista to the northwest of the turning point. Frontage development consisting of a staggered semi-detached pair would frame the scheme and provide for a suitable built gateway into the site. Generally active frontage and natural surveillance are maintained throughout the sites which are further positive aspects of the scheme. In these respects, the proposed layout would achieve compliance with CS Policies H1 and DC1 in particular and with the objectives of the NPPF.

7.13 Neighbour concern has been raised principally in relation to scheme plots 3 and 4 in respect of both property positioning and orientation. At its closest point there would be a distance of 13.5 metres between the rear of no.4 Orchard Court and the east gable of plot 3 to broadly accord with Core Strategy Appendix 3 ‘Space about Dwellings’ amenity guidelines. This stipulates a 14.0m interfacing distance between the principal window on the rear elevation of a dwelling and a flank wall of a neighbouring dwelling where the flank wall has no principal windows. In these circumstances, the standard of amenity for existing and future users would be achieved to be consistent with CS Policies H1 and DC1 and the NPPF.

7.14 The Local Highways Officer confirms that access matters were considered at the outline stage under ref. SMD/2013/1201 and the access road would remain private i.e. not adopted by SCC. He notes that dwelling plots 4 and 6 have only two car parking spaces whereby 3 spaces could be required given the potential of these dwellings to provide a 4th bedroom. In consideration of this, given that the other plots have achieved adequate parking no highway safety objections are raised by SCC. Furthermore, the application site is a considerable distance from the public highway. With no objection raised from the Highways Officer in these regards, the scheme is considered to comply with CS Policy T1 and the relevant sections of the NPPF.

Scale

“Scale” except in the term ‘identified scale’, means height, width and length of each building proposed within the development in relation to its surroundings.

7.15 The applicant has now submitted a limited range of two-storey pitched roof house types that would be incorporated into the development with ridge heights varying between 8.9m – 10.0m owing to the provision of bedroom accommodation within the attic. Whilst there are some reservations concerning their overall height, such units would still portray a traditional building form. On balance, such matters are acceptable from both a scale and massing perspective to accord with CS Policies H1 and DC1 and the NPPF.

Appearance

Page 51 “Appearance” means the aspect of a building or place within the development which determines the visual impression the building or place makes, including the external built form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture”.

7.16 The house type designs are broadly traditional in appearance, with pitched roof forms, arched window openings and chimneys, which would be appropriate in the context of this peripheral site and would assimilate with the wider traditional development of Leek. In terms of materials, the pallet would comprise of a red brick beneath a grey concrete roof tile. A more appropriate and traditional roof tile, however, should be provided as the application site occupies a more elevated position and houses on it would be seen from some vantage points in the town of Leek. High quality facing materials, including hard surfaces, window details and chimneys could all be appropriately be secured by conditions. In these regards, the scheme would achieve compliance with CS Policies H1 and DC1 in particular and with the objectives of the NPPF concerning appearance matters.

Landscaping

“Landscaping” in relation to a site or any part of a site for which outline planning permission has been granted or, as the case may be, in respect of an application for such permission has been made, means the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is situated and includes- a) screening by fences, walls or other means; b) the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs or grass; c) the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks; d) the layout out or provision of garden, courts, squares, water features or public art; and e) the provision of other amenity features.

7.17 The applicant has been requested to provide a detailed landscaping scheme as per the comments of the Council’s Aboricultural Officer whilst considering those comments made by Staffordshire Police in relation to appropriate boundary treatments and is expected shortly. These matters, however, are not insurmountable and an update will be provided on the Late Representations Report. The scheme would be obligated to provide for an appropriate landscape/habitat enhancement scheme for the ‘blue land’ area as a condition precedent matter.

8.0 CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE

8.1 The scheme for a total of 11 dwellings would clearly contribute to housing delivery with associated economic and social benefits as was recognised by the Planning Inspector at the outline planning application stage.

8.2 Previous concerns regarding the scheme’s layout and design within the context of its edge of settlement location have been overcome to be considered as sustainable development within the context of the NPPF.

Page 52 8.3 Accordingly, the scheme would comply with the development plan as a whole and also demonstrates compliance with the NPPF. Accordingly Members are recommended to approve the scheme without further delay and subject to recommended conditions as is detailed below.

8. RECOMMENDATION

A. APPROVE subject to planning conditions as follows:

Approved Plans

1. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: to be specified. Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Materials

2. No development shall commence until the facing materials to be used in the construction of external walls and roofs of the dwellings and garages has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity.

Appearance Details

3. No development shall commence until details, including finish of all eaves, verges, windows (including head and sill details), doors (including garage) and hard surfacing within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity

4. All external doors (including garage) and windows shall be set back from the face of the building by a minimum of 70mm (new build). Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity.

5. No development shall commence until a scheme of the boundary treatments has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which they relate and shall be maintained for those purposes at all times thereafter. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity

Removal of Permitted Development

Page 53 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification):- a) No development as specified in Part 1 Class(es) A, B, C, D and E other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be carried out on any plot without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. b) No development as specified in Part 1 Class F other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be carried out on any plot without the express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority, and, c) No development as specified in Part 2 Class A other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be carried out on any plot without the express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity and Green Belt planning policy.

Highways

7. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access to the site has been completed. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, parking, servicing and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking, turning and servicing areas shall thereafter be retained unobstructed as parking, turning and servicing areas for the life of the development. Reason:- In the interests of highway safety.

Informative(s)

1. The Council has sought (negotiated) a sustainable form of development which complies with the provisions of the NPPF.

Page 54 Location Plan (as revised)

Page 55 Proposed Scheme ref. SMD/2019/0213: Site Layout Plan

Refused Scheme ref. SMD/2018/0706: Site Layout Plan

Page 56 APPENDIX 1

Outline Scheme (ref. SMD/2013/1201 Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3. The approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be obtained in writing with respect to the plans and particulars of the following reserved matters (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") before any development is commenced. a) The layout of the building(s) b) The scale of the building(s) c) The external appearance of the building(s) d) The landscaping of the site.

4. The access hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted amended plans and specifications as follows:- a) Location Plan 2011-1806-23 b) Scheme 4 Site Layout Plan 2011-1806-Sp4 – Access matters only To ensure that the access is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.

5. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage using sustainable drainage methods (SUDS) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is brought into first use.

6. The development shall not be commenced until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating all road construction, street lighting, drainage including longitudinal sections and a satisfactory means of draining roads to an acceptable outfall to SUDS principles which shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings.

7. Any garages shall be retained for the parking of motor vehicles and cycles. They shall at no time be converted to living accommodation without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

8. Before the proposed development is brought into use, but after substantial completion of the works, the concrete dished channel across the access on the channel of A523 Macclesfield Road shall be replaced in accordance with the details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved.

Page 57 9. The pedestrian link from the east of the site linking the vehicular access with Kiln Lane shall be retained and shall form part of the reserved matters application.

10. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) produced by JMP Consultants document reference MID3265 R001 final issue No.2 dated 10 August 2012 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: a) Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the site to an appropriate safe haven. b) The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwelling houses 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. c) All finished floor levels of the proposed houses shall be 150mm above adjacent external ground levels and 600mm above the 1 in 100 year +20% flood level.

11. Details pursuant to reserved matters condition 3 (landscaping) above shall include:- a) a plan showing the location of, and allocating a reference number to, each existing tree on the site which has a stem with a diameter, measured over the bark at a point 1.5 metres above ground level exceeding 75mm, showing which trees are to be retained and the crown spread of each retained tree; b) details of the species, diameter (measured in accordance with paragraph (a) above), and the approximate height, and an assessment of the general state of health and stability, of each retained tree and of each tree which is on land adjacent to the site and to which paragraphs (c) and (d) below apply; c) details of any proposed topping or lopping of any retained tree, or of any tree on land adjacent to the site; d) details of any proposed alterations in existing ground levels, and of the position of any proposed excavation within the crown spread of any retained tree or of any tree on land adjacent to the site; e) details of the specification and position of fencing [and of any other measures to be taken] for the protection of any retained tree from damage before or during the course of development. In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the plan referred to in paragraph (a) above.

12. No development hereby permitted shall take place until a Construction and Environmental Method Statement for that phase of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which shall include the following details:- I. The method and duration of any pile driving operations (expected starting date and completion date); II. The hours of work, which shall not exceed the following: Construction and associated deliveries to the site shall not take place outside 07:00 to 19:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, and 08:00 to 16:00 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holiday;

Page 58 III. Pile driving shall not take place outside 09:00 to 16:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, nor at any time on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays; IV. The arrangements for prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties; V. The responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint; VI. A scheme to minimise dust emissions arising from construction activities on the site. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development. The approved dust suppression measures shall be maintained in a fully functional condition for the duration of the construction phase; VII. Details of wheel washing facilities. All construction vehicles shall have their wheels cleaned before leaving the site; VIII. A scheme for recycling/disposal of waste resulting from the construction works; IX. The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; X. The loading and unloading of plant and materials; XI. The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; XII. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; XIII. Installation and maintenance of wheel washing facilities, and, XIV. Details of measures to protect the public footpaths and amenity of users of the pubic footpaths crossing the site during the construction works. XV. All works within a phase of development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

13. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the existing and proposed levels across the site and relative to adjoining land, together with the finished floor levels of the proposed building(s), have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. There shall be no variation in these levels without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

14. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a Landscape Management Plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities, maintenance schedules for the land edged blue as shown on the Location Plan ref. 2011-1806-23 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved management plan shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling development of the first phase and land to which the plan relates shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

15. Any scrub vegetation cutting or clearance, shrub or tree pruning or clearance required at the site shall take place only in the calendar period 1st September to 1st March or outside these dates only if it is established by a qualified ecologist immediately prior to the work that no protected bird nesting is taking place. If bird nesting is found a works exclusion area shall be set up to prevent development work from disturbing the nesting and this shall be maintained until the nest is no longer in use.

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

17th October 2019

Application SMD/2019/0005 No: Location Land off Black Lane, to the east of Nos 4 and 5 The Plain, Whiston Proposal Erection of 4 dwellings Applicant Mr Peter Bull Agent Mr Jim Malkin JMI Planning Parish/ward Kingsley Date registered 8th Jan 2019 / Churnet If you have a question about this report please contact: Arne Swithenbank tel: 01538 395578 or e-mail [email protected]

REFERRAL

The application is a Full Minor and is referred to Committee at the request of former Cllr Ivor Lucas (who was a serving Councillor at the time) in order for committee to consider in particular the impact on the character and appearance of the area and drainage and flooding.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve with conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 This is a c.0.14ha site to the NE corner of the smaller village of Whiston. It comprises recently disturbed ground which has subsequently re- vegetated with generally ruderal species, brambles and shrubs. It appears in the recent past to have been cultivated as garden land or allotments associated with nos. 4 and 5 The Plain. These are two storey vernacular stone built cottages forming a terrace which stands in a dip beyond the NW corner of the site. The applicant regards the land as “unused domestic curtilage”.

2.2 The northern edge of the site is bounded by a high embanked section of one of the former Caldon Tramways dating from the late 18th / early 19th C. The site is also slightly embanked along its eastern boundary where there is a track way and beyond which is a modest sized pond (both track and pond being outside the site). A single-track lane borders the southern boundary of the site and alongside this is the high stone wall of buildings associated with Whiston Hall. There is an overall slope trend rising from west to east and the site is very uneven in parts.

Page 61 2.3 Access to the site is via the track on the southern side which links to Black Lane a short distance (c.75m) to the east.

2.4 In terms of the wider landscape and setting the site is largely cut off from views in or out. The site is though intimately related to the immediate surrounding features as described above. The former tramway on the north edge of the site is recorded in the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record as: “The third of four successive tramways between Caldon Canal and the Cauldon Low Quarry. Work began on its construction 1802 and was completed in 1804”.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The proposed development would comprise a row of four traditionally styled terraced dwellings of three bedrooms each. They would be aligned to face westerly in parallel with numbers 4 and 5 The Plain with some c.23m separating the front elevations from the rear elevations of nos. 4 and 5 The Plain. Access would be via a single width private track which serves 4 and 5 The Plain and also land / property beyond (east) of the application site.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 SMD/2018/0309 – outline application for the erection of 2 dwellings including provision of car parking for 4 vehicles – approved.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1 The development plan comprises the adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (26th March 2014) and supporting evidence documents.

Core Strategy Development Plan (Adopted 26th March 2014), S01 Spatial Objectives SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6b Smaller Villages Area Strategy SS6c Other Rural Areas Area Strategy DC1 Design Considerations DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting R2 Rural Housing NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance (SPD/G):  Space About Dwellings SPG  Design Principles SPG

Core Strategy Supporting Evidence Documents:

Page 62  Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008)

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) July 2018 Paragraphs 1 – 14 Section 4 Decision making Section 12 Achieving well designed places Section 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Local Plan Submission Version (February 2018) SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS9 Smaller Villages Area Strategy SS10 Other Rural Areas Area Strategy DC1 Design Considerations DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting H1 Rural Housing NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

5.3 In June 2018, the Council subsequently agreed to submit the Local Plan Submission Version to the Secretary of State for examination. An examination in public was held in November 2018 to determine whether the Local Plan is sound and legally compliant. Subject to the findings of the appointed inspector, the Local Plan is expected to be adopted later in 2019. At that point, it will supersede the adopted Core Strategy and become part of the statutory development plan for the District.

Page 63 - The degree of consistency of policies with the NPPF: given that the Council has submitted a Local Plan that it considers to be sound, all policies are deemed to be consistent with the NPPF.

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Public 6.1 Neighbour consultations x 1 for response by 31st January 2019. Site notice posted for responses by 8th February 2019. – none

Parish Council 6.2 Kingsley Parish Council – recommends refusal: the application is not sustainable as there is no bus route, no school and there are potential drainage issues.

SMDC Conservation Officer 6.3 Considers a maximum terrace length of three dwellings of this size more appropriate in relation to nos 4 and 5 The Plain; materials should be stone reflecting the stone of all adjacent buildings; each unit should have a chimney rather than just the two as shown centrally positioned.

6.4 The site is an area of heritage significance due to its location adjacent to a line of the Cauldon Tramways. At this point the tramway is marked by the Whiston incline and the Brakesmens’ cottages on this site were built to house the brakesmen and their families. The 1804 line had cottages for brakesmen at the top of each of the three main inclines. The site also lies within the setting of Whiston Hall and has an historic fishpond to the east. The significance of the site is explained in the recent Historic England/Staffs County Council document ‘Caldon Low Early Railways’ by Marion Barter. There may be other structures on the site of heritage significance associated with the tramways. No objection in principle to development on this site but the siting, form and appearance needs to be informed by the surrounding historic character with a vernacular form of development using stone and clay tile.

SMDC Ecology 6.5 The application is accompanied by ecology survey reports and a proposed Ecology Construction Management plan. There are no overriding considerations subject to conditions to adhere to the proposed management plan.

Severn Trent Water 6.6 Advise that the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system and therefore there are no objections to the proposals and no requirement for a drainage condition to be applied.

6.7 Severn Trent Water advise that there may be a public sewer located within the application site. Although their statutory sewer records do not show any public sewers within the area specified, they say there may be sewers that have been

Page 64 recently adopted under the Transfer of Sewer Regulations 2011. Public sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent and contact must be made with Severn Trent Water to discuss the proposals. Severn Trent will seek to assist in obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building – cover by informative.

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS / PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context 7.1 In its general approach, in accordance with policies SS1 and SS1a, the Council expects the development and use of land to contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvement of the Staffordshire Moorlands. When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. This means that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Core Strategy shall be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.2 Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether: (a) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or (b) specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

7.3 The Development Plan for the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council consists of the Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (March 2014) with regard also being given to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance documents: ‘Space About Dwellings’ and ‘Design Principles’ and the Council’s Core Strategy Supporting Evidence Document: Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008). Development boundary mapping remains for the present time as approved under the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (September 1998).

Principle of Development and Main Issues 7.4 Policy SS6b lists Whiston as a Smaller Village. The policy provides “only for appropriate development which enhances community vitality or meets a local social or economic need of the settlement and its hinterland.” It will do this, inter alia, by: • Enabling new housing development which meets a local need, including affordable housing (in accordance with policy H2); • Allowing for rural exceptions housing in appropriate locations on the edge of settlements (in accordance with policy H2). This will be additional to the housing provision for the rural areas.

Page 65 7.5 The SS6b Smaller Villages supporting text at paragraph 8.1.66 states that: “These settlements will continue to be subject to Green Belt or countryside policies but in addition some limited infilling and re-development is considered acceptable. In order to guide development an Infill Development Boundary will be defined around these settlements within which appropriate development will be allowed. These boundaries will be more tightly drawn than Development boundaries to accommodate infilling or re-development but to restrict peripheral expansion.”

7.6 In other words the aim of the infill boundary under Policy SS6b would be to define locations of acceptable infill but avoid outward spread. Whiston is one of only a few of the smaller villages for which an infill boundary was adopted as part of the Core Strategy (2014) – a carry forward from the 1998 Local Plan. In the Local Plan submission version (2018) the proposal for infill boundary lines has been dropped in favour of a more flexible criteria-based infill policy. This approach continues to be carried forward in the Council’s adopted main modifications (September 2019). As this remains out for further consultation and as there have previously been objections still only limited weight can be given to this approach.

7.7 Being outside of the in-fill boundary the current CS Policy SS6c (rural areas) applies to this site. This restricts new build housing to that “essential to local needs”, and that “supports the rural diversification and sustainability of the rural areas” in accordance with H2, H3 and R2. However, as noted the in-fill boundary for Whiston is considered out-of-date and the policy has not yet been finalised to take full account of the level of housing development required by the Core Strategy. Those sections of CS policies that relate to the supply of housing are also considered to be out of date as per NPPF requirements. In these circumstances, this significantly reduces the weight that can be afforded to the scheme’s conflict with CS policies SS6b, SS6c, H1 and R2, which seek to restrict development in the rural areas outside of defined boundaries.

7.8 The Local Plan submission version Policy SS9 area strategy for smaller villages is to allow an appropriate level of sensitive development which enhances community vitality. Development on a large scale would be unsustainable in these villages, as it will generate a disproportionate number of additional journeys outside the villages and may undermine the spatial strategy. Development will be strictly controlled in order to ensure that the character and life of the settlement is not undermined.

7.9 Emerging Local Plan Policy H1 refers to development in smaller villages being acceptable where it is well related to the existing pattern of development; where it will not create or expand ribbon development or lead to a sporadic pattern of development; and where the development will not lead to a prominent intrusion into the countryside or have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.

7.10 However, as noted, only limited weight can be attached to these Local Plan submission version policies at this stage. Furthermore, at present the Council

Page 66 cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. In these circumstances, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the Core Strategy and Paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF applies and permission should be granted unless either protective policies of the NPPF provide a clear reason for refusing the development; or, there would be significant and demonstrable harm to outweigh the benefits of the proposed housing provision, which is set against a backdrop of significant housing shortfall within the district. The site is not constrained by any of the restrictive policies referred to in the footnote to paragraph 11 and therefore the application falls to be determined under the second provision and should be granted permission unless there would be significant and demonstrable harm to outweigh the benefits (the so-called ‘tilted balance’).

7.11 Policy R1 expects a balanced consideration of the extent to which a proposal protects and benefits rural qualities and supports rural economic and community needs stating that, “appropriate development should not harm the rural character and environmental quality of the area”.

7.12 In summary CS policy SS6b would not originally have supported the development but due to being out of date and due to the Council’s weak housing supply the weight attributable to SS6b is reduced; limited weight can be given to the emerging Local Plan which adopts a more flexible criterion based approach. Accordingly, in the absence of a 5 year supply of housing, the application should be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are no restrictive policies in the NPPF which apply and indicate that development should be refused and therefore the application should be approved unless there would be significant and demonstrable harm to outweigh the benefits (the so-called ‘tilted balance’). It is in this context that outline consent has been granted for the two dwellings under SMD /2018/0309 establishing partial acceptability in principle – but noting the scheme now comprises four dwellings.

Design 7.13 In design the proposal adopts traditional approaches. This is important in this setting with 4 and 5 The Plain and the stone walled building of the Whiston Hall estate all adjacent. The application proposes brick with stone quoins and cills etc. Stone would be more appropriate – as advised by the Conservation Officer – rather than brick and could be required by condition. Again as advised by the Conservation Officer a condition to require a chimney stack per dwelling would also be important.

Visual Impact 7.14 Giving consideration to the impact of a residential development at this location on the character, setting, and appearance of the area, the development would be contained by existing buildings on two sides and by the embankment to the former tramway on the north. There are few if any public views of the site from its surroundings and it would not create a prominent intrusion on the countryside nor, subject to design details as discussed, would the development have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. The scheme is judged consistent with emerging policy H1.

Page 67 Amenity 7.15 A separation of at least 22m is shown from the rear elevation of No. 5 The Plain which accords with the adopted Space About Dwellings requirements. An east – west orientation avoids the Whiston Hall building to the south having any overbearing impact on the principal outlooks of the two proposed dwellings. Sufficient space is available to provide adequate garden and parking including for 4 The Plain.

Ecology 7.16 The site has characteristics of having been former garden or allotment land that has been allowed to develop un-managed in recent years and this is borne out by the 2006 air photo which shows a gardened site of mown lawns and cultivated beds with trees and shrubs to the east and north. On this basis ground vegetation survey has not been required but the applicant has submitted site survey information in respect of badgers and Great Crested Newts. A Construction Ecology Management Plan has been submitted which provides a basis for development to proceed with appropriate safeguards in place for protected species.

Sustainability of Location 7.17 CS Policy T1 states that the Council will promote and support development which reduces the reliance on the private car for travel journeys, reduces the need to travel generally and helps deliver the priorities of the Staffordshire Local Transport Plan, where this is consistent with other policies.

7.18 Whiston has a limited range of facilities/services, including a village hall, a playground, football pitch and a church. In the dismissed appeal ref. APP/B3438/A/14/2222450 for a single dwelling at Whiston Eaves Lane dated 15th October 2014, the Inspector considered the further social role of sustainability, stating that it encompassed: “accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well- being. Whilst there is no dispute that there are bus services that serve the village, these are limited. The new dwelling is family sized and there is a high probability that school aged children would be resident of it. There is no school bus service from Cheadle High School to Whiston. On this basis, it is highly likely that there would be a high dependency on the private car to access schools within the area. Once in the car, it is likely that parents would travel further afield to access their place of work, shops and services in nearby towns, rather than use public transport. Furthermore, there are no evening bus services to or from the village which would allow residents to travel by public transport and participate in cultural activities in nearby towns”. The Inspector here also found that “A new dwelling on the site would significantly change the character of this open, undeveloped field into an extension of ribbon development along the lane. This would be harmful to the approach into the village along the lane, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of this rural area.”

7.19 Appeal ref. APP/B3438/W/17/3187025, which was against the Refusal for a single dwelling at Land between Brook Cottage and Sneyd Arms, Ashbourne

Page 68 Road, Whiston was allowed in a decision dated 14th February 2018. The Inspector recognised that: “Whiston is a designated smaller village where limited infill development could take place in accordance with Policy SS6 and SS6b of the Core Strategy. Whilst I can only place limited weight upon the proposed settlement boundary within the emerging Site Allocations DPD, the appeal site does relate well functionally to the core of the village and has the village bus stop right outside of it”. Furthermore, “The proposed development would not lead to a peripheral expansion of the village which would be, according to the Core Strategy, a factor in the setting of appropriate settlement boundaries for the smaller villages. Furthermore, the proposed development would not be isolated development in the countryside, and would be consistent with paragraph 55 of the Framework which seeks to locate rural housing where it will maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities, for example where development in one village may support the services in a village nearby”.

7.20 The 2018 appeal decision found that the scheme for a single dwelling represented infill development and related well functionally to the village of Whiston. It should be noted that recent cuts to rural bus services in Staffordshire mean that Whiston is no longer served by a public bus route. The nearest stop is in Froghall a walking distance of some 2km along a busy main road with extended steep inclines in parts and lacking pavement.

Other Matters / Heritage 7.21 Paid for pre-application advice was sought in respect of a draft scheme prior to the current scheme being submitted and the advice has in the main been incorporated. It remains the officer view that chimneys to each dwelling or at least three of the four should be incorporated as befits the rural vernacular of the location and stone should be used rather than brick and stone.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

7.22 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking, it sets out that, in circumstances such as this, where the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply, with the consequence that policies relating to the supply of housing are not up- to-date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, or where specific NPPF policies indicate otherwise.

7.23 In principle some small scale residential development is accepted as appropriate in policy terms in a smaller village provided it fits in without undue harm to the character and rural qualities of the location. Broadly this is the case both under the current CS and under the submission LP. Given the current undersupply of housing in the District any adverse impacts identified would need to “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” (NPPF 11. d. ii). Despite the site not being included in the in-fill boundary it is well framed to two sides by existing development and also by topography which screens and contains the location strongly to the undeveloped sides.

Page 69 7.24 The present in-fill boundary is dated being long in place without review. Given that in the submission LP there is a move to not have any defined infill boundary for smaller villages and, giving this the limited weight which acknowledges this may yet change, an uncompromising adherence to the CS in-fill boundary may be considered too strict if the site, as is the case here, appears to have connection with the layout of the village and not result in harmful peripheral or ribbon extensions to it.

7.25 Subject to conditions the proposal is found acceptable, in terms of setting and rural landscape, heritage, neighbour amenity, ecology and highways.

7.26 Whether the location is a sustainable one for new residential development is an important and ultimately determinative consideration as, notwithstanding the lack of housing supply, NPPF 11.d.i would lead to a recommendation for refusal if questions of sustainability amounted to a clear reason to do so.

7.27 It is noted that the dismissed appeal (cited above) which found sustainability concerns also raised wider concerns about the impacts on location and setting. The allowed appeal in contrast found the location acceptable in terms of sustainability and also made the compelling point that the Council’s adopted Policy establishes that some limited developments can be accepted in principle – ie. the CS has not ruled out at least some development. The present proposal being found acceptable on all other counts it is considered appropriate to recommend for approval as it is limited to just two dwellings and therefore clearly small scale and proportionate to a smaller village and thus consistent with the policy provision. On that basis it is not considered that the adverse impacts in terms of sustainability alone are sufficiently substantial and demonstrable as to tip the “tilted balance” in favour of granting consent towards refusal. Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval.

8 RECOMMENDATION

A. Approve subject to the following conditions:

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details as submitted in the application form and submitted specifications and as shown in drawings: Location Plan A3496 rev A Plan of proposed scheme 1118/1; 1118/2; 1118/3 Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details and approved plans, in the interests of good planning, for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.

3. Notwithstanding the submitted details and condition 2 above the external facing materials shall be natural stone and the roofing materials

Page 70 shall be Staffordshire blue clay tiles and there shall be no variation without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the works are in keeping with adjacent development.

4. Notwithstanding the submitted details and condition 2 above revised details shall be submitted to show the inclusion of a chimney stack for each dwelling to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed in accordance with the design details as subsequently approved in writing and thereafter be retained for the life of the development. Reason: To ensure that the works are in keeping with adjacent development.

5. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the levels details as submitted in drawings S190606150 70 and S190606150 71 read in conjunction with levels survey 32660_T_REV1. There shall be no variation in these levels without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development and its appropriate relationship to the site and adjoining land.

6. The development shall be carried out at all times in accordance with the submitted construction ecological management plan May 2019 and in accordance with the recommendations contained at section 6 of the Great Crested Newt Method Statement Report April 2019. Reason: in the interests of biodiversity and protected species

7. All pointing shall be of a strength and style appropriate to the type of walling materials used (see SMDC leaflet on pointing) and shall not include 'tuck', 'strap' or 'recessed' pointing. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory and appropriate to the building and the character of the rural area.

8. All eaves and verges shall be formed from pointed stone work up to the intersection with the roof slopes to match the existing structure without recourse to box work or barge boards. Reason: To protect and enhance the visual integrity and vernacular appearance of the building as a non- designated heritage asset.

9. All rainwater goods shall be of metal or wood to a profile suited to the building’s heritage character. Reason: To protect and enhance the visual integrity and vernacular appearance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset.

10.No tree within the site shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any tree be topped or lopped, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard [3998 (Tree Work)].

Page 71 Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the amenities of the area.

11. Within three months of the commencement of development details of all boundary treatments and hard landscaping, vehicular access, surfacing, parking and turning areas and bin storage shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval and prior to the first occupation of the development shall be completed in accordance with the design details as subsequently approved in writing and thereafter be retained for the life of the development. Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the amenities of the area; to comply with NPPF Paragraph 108; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy Policy DC1; in the interests of highway safety.

12.Notwithstanding the submitted details and condition 2 above the landscaping layout of the development shall be amended to eliminate the section of driveway which extends generally northerly beyond the pull-in parking spaces proposed to serve 4 The Plain Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the amenities of the area.

13.The development shall take place incorporating a minimum of two purpose-made bat roost boxes on or integral to the building walls and positioned in accordance with the guidance specific to the product. The bat boxes shall be installed prior to the first coming into use of the development. Reason: in the interests of maintaining biodiversity and to safeguard the population of European Protected Species.

14.At any time during and following the completion of the development all exterior lighting installations shall be erected only in accordance with the protocols contained in the Institute of Lighting Engineers document “Guidance for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting” (2005) and the Bat Conservation Trust’s “Artificial Lighting and Wildlife Interim Guidance: Recommendations to Help Minimise the Impact of Artificial Lighting” (2014). Reason: to minimise disturbance by artificial light to protected species including bats and minimise sky-glow across the site and in the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the amenities of the area.

15.In the event that contamination, including surface coal measures, is found at any time when carrying out the approved development it shall be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development shall not continue further until an investigation and risk assessment has been completed in accordance with a scheme which shall have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. If the initial site risk assessment indicates that potential risks exist to any identified receptors, development shall not continue further until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a

Page 72 condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property, and the natural and historical environment has been prepared, and has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All remediation measures identified in the agreed and approved remediation scheme shall be implemented prior to bringing the development into first use, and a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall have been produced, and shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the development.

16.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that order with or without modification), no development as specified in Part 1 Classes A; B; C; D; E; F and G and Part 2 Classes A and B other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be carried out without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, to ensure that adequate private or shared amenity space is retained within the curtilage of the building and to protect the Green Belt.

Informatives

1. Coal informative

2. All wild birds including their nests and eggs are protected by law. It is an offence, with certain exceptions, to kill, injure or take wild birds or to take, damage, or destroy their nests or take or destroy their eggs. Site clearance, building alterations and/or demolition cannot therefore take place where there are birds nesting. Typically this will be in the period mid February to mid August. As this development involves vegetation clearance and/or demolition and/or other activities which would be damaging to any nesting birds present the work should avoid the bird nesting season so far as possible. If such work is to take place in the nesting season an ecologist experienced in bird nesting habits should first be engaged to advise on and ensure that the intended work can legally take place.

3. The application has been determined in accordance with Policies: SS1; SS1a; SS2; SS4; SS6c; SD1; SD4; H1; DC1; DC3; C1; R1; R2; NE1 and T1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan and the NPPF.

Page 73 4. This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

10. APPENDICES TO THE REPORT

10.1 The link below to the Council’s website is where the detail of this application can be viewed. http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchS ervlet?PKID=127128

Page 74 4 The Plain, Black Lane, Whiston – location plan

Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

17th October 2019

Application SMD/2019/0465 No: Location 71 Woodhouse Lane, Biddulph

Proposal Removal of prefabricated single garage, construction of a double garage with off white render finish, render finish to existing bungalow Applicant Mr R Beech Agent DBD Architectural Consultancy Ltd Parish/ward Biddulph Date registered 31stJuly 2019 / Biddulph North If you have a question about this report please contact: Arne Swithenbank tel: 01538 395578 or e-mail [email protected]

REFERRAL

The application is a full householder referred to Committee by the Head of Development Services in the interests of openness and transparency due to the application property being adjacent to the home of Cllr Jim Davies, a member of the planning applications committee.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve subject to conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site is a detached 20thC brick and tile gable ended bungalow facing north on to Woodhouse Lane elevated from the road on rising ground. To the west side at a lower level to the dwelling by c.2m is a detached pre-fabricated single garage with tarmac driveway to the fore.

2.2 Next adjacent to the west is a small plot of c.6m width which contains an electricity substation. No. 69 Woodhouse Lane next again to the west is a detached dwelling at a somewhat lower level as Woodhouse Lane falls to the west.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

Page 77 3.1 The proposal in the place of the single pre-fab is for a detached double garage with dual pitched roof orientated gable to the road. The building would be c.2.2m to the eaves and 4.8m at the roof ridge. There would be two roof lights in the east roof slope which faces the application dwelling. The proposal involves some digging out closer to the dwelling (to within c.1.5m) in order to achieve the footings space. The westerly edge would be in the same alignment as the west edge of the existing garage.

3.2 The proposed external construction finish is off-white render stated as being to match the bungalow as it is also proposed as part of the application to render the bungalow.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 10/01088/FUL – two storey side and front extension – refused

4.2 11/00204/FUL – two storey side extension – approved – not implemented

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1The development plan comprises the adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (26th March 2014) and supporting evidence documents.

Core Strategy Development Plan (Adopted 26th March 2014), S01 Spatial Objectives SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS5b Biddulph Area Strategy DC1 Design Considerations T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents/Guidance (SPD/G):  Space About Dwellings SPG  Design Principles SPG

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) July 2018 Paragraphs 1 – 14 Section 4 Decision making Section 12 Achieving well designed places

Local Plan Submission Version (February 2018) SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6 Biddulph Area Strategy DC1 Design Considerations

Page 78 T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Public 6.1 Neighbour consultations x 2 for response by 23rd August 2019. Site notice posted for responses by 17th September 2019 – no representations received.

Town Council 6.2 Biddulph Town Council – no comments received.

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS / PLANNING BALANCE

Page 79 Policy Context 7.1 The Local Planning Authority is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless there are material circumstances which indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan for the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council consists of the Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (March 2014) with regard also being given to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance documents: ‘Space About Dwellings’ and ‘Design Principles’ and the Council’s Core Strategy Supporting Evidence Document: Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment (2008). Development boundary mapping remains for the present time as approved under the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (September 1998).

7.2 In its general approach in accordance with policies SS1 and SS1a, the Council expects the development and use of land to contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvement of the Staffordshire Moorlands. When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. This means that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Core Strategy shall be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Principle of development

7.4 Being within the Biddulph town development boundary, development is acceptable in principle but is subject to consideration of all material matters including in particular design and any implications for neighbours or street scene.

Design

7.5 Although tall at the ridge the garage is acceptably proportioned and the site levels allow its scale to be absorbed. It helps in this case to contain the size that it is gable end on to the road – there are other examples in the street scene with which this is consistent despite the host dwelling being orientated ridge parallel to the road.

Page 80 7.6 The limited use of render for the garage is considered acceptable as there are other elements of neighbouring properties in this street scene which are part rendered. The proposal to wholly render the host dwelling however is considered out of keeping with the predominate use of brick in this street scene.

Neighbour Amenity

7.8 Due to land levels which set the garage down and due to available separation distances to neighbours, no adverse impacts for neighbour amenity are identified. The site of the garage is separated from the neighbouring dwelling by the electricity substation.

Other matters

7.9 County Highways have not been consulted. The scheme does not reduce the scope to manoeuvre within the site and indeed increases the available off-street parking. With no loss or reduction to existing off-street parking the scheme is acceptable.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

7.10 Subject to a condition to not render the dwelling the scheme is recommended for approval as being acceptable in terms of design with no adverse amenity or highways impacts.

7 RECOMMENDATION

A. Approve subject to the following conditions:

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details as submitted in the application form and submitted specifications and as shown in drawings: PL 01A PL 03F save that there shall be no render to the dwelling house which shall be retained as existing in brick. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details and approved plans, in the interests of good planning, for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.

3. The external facing materials of the garage shall be render as detailed in the application and the roofing materials shall match in colour, form and texture those of the existing site dwelling.

Page 81 Notwithstanding the proposed application of render to the dwelling house this shall be retained in brick as existing. Reason: To ensure that the works harmonise with the existing and surrounding developments.

5. All noisy activities shall be restricted to the following times of operations: . 08:00 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); . 08:00 - 13:00 hours (Saturday) . No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. In this instance a noisy activity is defined as any activity (for instance, but not restricted to, building construction/demolition operations, refurbishing and landscaping) which generates noise that is audible at the site boundary. Reason: To avoid the risk of disturbance to neighbouring dwellings from noise during anti social hours.

Informatives

10. APPENDICES TO THE REPORT

10.1 The link below to the Council’s website is where the detail of this application can be viewed.

Page 82 http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationS earchServlet?PKID=130318

Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Planning Applications Committee

17th October 2019

TITLE: Section 106 Agreement at Churnet View Road.

CONTACT: Ben Haywood – Head of Development Services

WARDS INVOLVED: ALL

Appendices Attached - None

1. REASON FOR THE REPORT:

1.1 To seek the approval of the committee to enter into a Deed of Revocation in respect of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission SMD/2015/0161 and SMD/2017/0713

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the committee to resolve to enter into the Deed of Revocation.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

3.1 The application site previously had residential properties sited upon it and historical maps dated 1938 and 1970 submitted with the proposal identify their location. These properties have long since been demolished, but remnants of their existence are still present in the form of utilities etc. Despite this, the site is considered to be greenfield in nature and lies within the Oakamoor Development Boundary. To the north of the site is woodland; to the south is the River Churnet and open country side is located to the north, south and west. To the east is the access to Churnet View Road and the neighbouring residential properties. Since the original planning approval (February 2015), the application site, together with trees along its northern, southern and western edges have been included within the recently designated Oakamoor Conservation Area boundary.

Page1 85 4. BACKGROUND

4.1 Application ref. SMD/2015/0161 – Outline Planning Permission with some matters reserved (except access and layout) was approved in February 2016 for a housing development of 5 detached dwellings and 2 semi-detached dwellings (affordable provision).

4.2 The consent was subsequently modified under a Section 73 application (SMD/2017/0713 refers). Generally, the overall approved layout remained unaffected. However, an amendment was made to the footprints. Reserved matters approval was then subsequently granted in 2018 under reference SMD/2018/0195 for the external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site

4.3 The outline planning permission SMD/2015/0161 was subject to a Section 106 Agreement which secured the affordable housing provision. A deed of variation was also submitted to accompany the s.73 application. This ensured that the obligations of the original outline planning permission securing affordable housing provision were carried through to the amended permission.

4.4 The provision of 2 affordable housing units was in accordance with Policy H2 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy which states: The provision of affordable housing will be delivered through the following measures: 1. In the towns, residential developments of 15 dwellings (0.5 hectares) or more shall provide a target of 33% affordable housing on-site from all sources. The actual level of provision will be determined through negotiation taking into account development viability and other contributions 2. Elsewhere, residential developments of 5 dwellings (0.16 hectares) or more shall provide a target of 33% affordable housing on-site from all sources, unless there are exceptional circumstances which dictate otherwise. Exceptionally this may be provided through a commuted sum payment in lieu. The actual level of provision will be determined through negotiation taking into account development viability and other contributions.

4.5 The Core Strategy was adopted in 2014. However, the National Planning Policy Framework adopted in 2019 states:

Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.

4.6 This is reiterated in the Planning Practice Guidance which states:

Page2 86 Are there any specific circumstances where contributions through planning obligations should not be sought from developers? Planning obligations for affordable housing should only be sought for residential developments that are major developments. Once set, the Community Infrastructure Levy can be collected from any size of development across the area. Therefore, the levy is the most appropriate mechanism for capturing developer contributions from small developments. For residential development, major development is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework as development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. For non-residential development it means additional floorspace of 1,000 square metres or more, or a site of 1 hectare or more, or as otherwise provided in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

4.7 Policy H3 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan submission version places a requirement for sites of more than 5 dwellings in the rural areas to provide affordable housing. However, under the proposed Main Modifications, which are currently being consulted upon, this policy has been updated to reflect the more recent National Planning Guidance and states:

Residential developments of 10 dwellings (or 0.5ha) or more shall provide 33% affordable housing. Where justified, the Council will consider a lower level of provision taking into account the Local Plan and Site Allocations Viability Study, other up-to-date viability evidence and other contributions. Affordable housing should normally be provided on-site. Provision through a commuted sum payment in lieu will only be considered where it will be of broadly equivalent value to on-site provision and it can be robustly justified in delivering affordable homes through mixed and balanced communities.

4.8 In the light of the more recent national guidance and the emerging policy the Applicant is seeking to remove the affordable housing requirement from this scheme and has requested that the Council enter into a Deed of Revocation in respect of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission SMD/2015/0161 and SMD/2017/0713.

4.9 The Council’s solicitor has been consulted and has commented that the agreement attached to the original 2016 consent provides for 2 affordable units with no other obligations and the deed of variation attached to the 2017 permission simply carried the 106 obligations forward to a new consent issued under s73. As a result the applicant has drafted a Deed Of Revocation for the Council to sign. This is a pure Deed Of Revocation which the committee can authorise as an agreement relating to the regulation of development or use of land but it is not an agreement under s106 of the Planning Act (as drafted by the Applicant). However, this is a minor drafting issue which can be corrected prior to execution.

5. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE

Page3 87 5.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy.

5.3 As noted above Core Strategy policy indicates that this development should provide 33% affordable housing as it is a site of over 5 units in a rural area. However, National Planning Policy and guidance which is an important material consideration and afforded significant weight indicates that an affordable housing provision should no longer be sought in these circumstances. Furthermore, the emerging Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan also now seeks to remove this requirement, although, given that this modification is currently subject to public consultation, it can only be afforded limited weight at this time.

5.4 Nevertheless, this does not outweigh the weighty material consideration that is national planning policy and accordingly it is recommended that the Committee agree to remove the affordable housing requirement in respect of this site and resolve to enter into the Deed of Revocation requested.

Page4 88 Agenda Item 12

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Planning Applications Committee

17th October 2019

TITLE: PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS

CONTACT: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM

WARDS INVOLVED: ALL

Appendices Attached - None

1. Reason for the Report: To inform members of appeals lodged and decided since the last update to the Planning Applications Committee.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the report be noted.

3. APPEALS LODGED

None received

4. APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

Application No. SMD/2018/0466

Location: Land adjacent to Park Lodge Farm, Folly Lane, Cheddleton.

Proposal erection of up to two detached dwellings

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 19th October 2018

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Page 89 Appeal Decision and Date: dismissed 23rd July 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: Eleni Randle BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI

Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

The main issues to be considered are i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, ii) the impact of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt, iii) the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and iv) whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 the proposal would fail to represent infilling given the lack of relationship to existing development and lack of development adjacent to the appeal site boundaries. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful and which carries substantial weight.  Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. Impact is implicitly part of the concept of openness of the Green Belt. The absence of visual intrusion does not mean there is no impact on the Green Belt as a result. Whether any change would cause harm to the openness can depend on factors such as the scale of the development, the locational context and its spatial or visual implications.  The site would have notable visual impact due to its location and I find that the spatial effect of the proposal would have a negative impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. The dwellings would encroach into the Green Belt into a relatively open space, away from the bulk of existing built form. Furthermore, the creation of garden areas would then lead to a domesticated appearance which would have further harmful effect on openness as an encroachment into the countryside compared to what is currently a green, open, space with a rural appearance.  I do not find that it would be a logical extension of the existing residential development along this side of Folly Lane nor that it would be seen in the context of other development. The

Page 90 proposal would result in built form being introduced within this green, open, space which would be out of character for the area with the prevailing development pattern. The proposal would be notable in views for users of Folly Lane. It would appear as an intrusion into the countryside and I find this to negatively impact upon the appearance of the immediate surroundings as a result of it being detached from, and failing to relate to, the built-up part of the village.

Officer Comment:

Again this is another decision which supports the Council in taking a strong line against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is noteable that the Inspector emphasises the point that “the absence of visual intrusion does not mean there is no impact on the Green Belt as a result,” which is a concept which the Council has attached weight to in many of its Green Belt decisions.

Application No. SMD/2018/0038

Location: High Bent, The Hollands, Biddulph Moor, ST8 7LE. Proposal: conversion of timber stables to form a single dwelling

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 23rd October 2018

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 23rd July 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: Eleni Randle BSc (hons) MSc FRICS FAAV MRTPI

Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

The main issues to be considered are i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, ii) the effect of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt, iii) whether the proposal accords with the requirements of local policy relating to conversions and countryside development, iv) the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, v) whether the occupants of the proposed development would have reasonable access to shops and services and vi) whether the harm by reason of

Page 91 inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 I am not convinced, on the evidence before me, that the building is of permanent and substantial construction and it is highly likely the works required would go beyond that of a genuine conversion. The proposal would, therefore, fail to fall within the exception listed in paragraph 146 d) of the Framework which results in the proposal being inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  I do not find that the proposal would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and find it would encroach into the countryside.  no marketing exercise has been submitted to evidence that the building would be unsuitable for a commercial use. Given the building is an “off the peg” standard timber stable building it is not a building of particular merit to be safeguarded.  I do not find that the presence of what would be a timber clad bungalow to have such a significant impact upon the character of the area, in terms of the buildings appearance, to warrant refusal. It would not be out of keeping within the rural area, and would not appear as an incongruous feature within the landscape.  even with a consideration of conditions to control further structures and permitted development rights on the dwelling, the size of curtilage proposed will further carve up the landscape when considering the well-spaced nature of existing dwellings along The Hollands.  The scale of the proposed curtilage will be a notable encroachment into the countryside and will harm the character and appearance of the surroundings due to the presence of paraphernalia and cars parked. The impact would be greatest in longer views across the landscape to the West. The proposal would conflict with the development principles in CS Policy SS1 which seek to deliver development which maintains the distinctive character of the Staffordshire Moorlands.  Whilst the traffic movements for a proposed single residential dwelling of this size would be limited and the Framework does acknowledge, in paragraph 103, that opportunities to maximise sustainable solutions will vary between rural and urban areas; access to services for this site is very limited. To meet daily needs, leisure requirements etc. future occupants would need to go beyond the area, and this is unlikely to assist in maintaining the local community…………. It would not be sustainable in terms of location contrary to paragraph 78 of the Framework.

 Officer Comment:

Page 92 It is encouraging to see that the Inspector has supported the strong line which the Council has adopted in resisting the conversion of buildings which are not of permanent and substantial construction in Green Belt areas and unsustainable locations.

Application No. SMD/2019/0027

Location: 2 The Cottages, Smithy Lane, Mobberley, ST10 1TN. . Proposal extension

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 29th March 2019

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Allowed 29th July 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: R Cooper BSc (Hons) MCD MRPTI Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The proposal includes multiple single and two storey extensions to the side and rear of the host dwelling and raising part of the roof. These would constitute the further evolution of the property, and whilst they are significant in scale relative to the host dwelling, in the context of the site I find the resultant dwelling would be appropriate in terms of scale and design. Furthermore, as the host dwelling is sited within a substantially sized plot, the resultant property would fit comfortably within it, without appearing cramped or overbearing, and would integrate with its surroundings.

Officer Comment:

Page 93 Whilst it is disappointing that the Inspector did not concur with officers conclusions it is accepted that design issues will always be to some degree a subjective judgement on behalf of the decision maker.

Application No. SMD/2019/0045

Location: 56 Moss Park Avenue, Werrington, Staffordshire, ST9 0EP. Proposal proposed roof space bedrooms and front porch

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 27th March 2019

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 5th August 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: A Denby BA(hons) DipTP MRTPI Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The dormer window proposed will be a substantial addition to this roof slope extending across both the original and extended sections of the dwelling. It would be extremely prominent in the street scene and would become the overriding feature of the building  Whilst not on the principal or front elevation I do not consider that a dormer on the roof slope fronting Shirley Avenue would be wholly out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

Officer Comment:

It is pleasing that the Inspector has supported the Council in seeking to achieve high standards of design in all applications including minor householder development.

Application No. SMD/2019/0060

Page 94 Location: land adjacenet to 1 Badnall Close, Leek. Proposal detached garage

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 29th March 2019

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 6th September 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: RC Kirby BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage on the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 Although set back from the road the new garage would, as a result of its height, width and siting, forward of buildings on this side of the road, result in a building that would be visually prominent and dominant within the streetscene. It’s utilitarian appearance and flat roof design would be incongruous and out of keeping with the host dwelling, and its neighbours, causing harm to the character and appearance of the area. Whilst the existing trees would provide some screening of the appeal proposal from the west, they would not mitigate the harm when viewed from the south or east. In any event these trees are not in the control of the appellant and could be removed at any time, resulting in greater exposure of the garage from the west.  The appellant has drawn my attention to other flat roofed structures in the area, including one close to the appeal site. At my site visit I observed that the buildings are relatively old, and I have no evidence as to the circumstances under which they were constructed. Accordingly, I can only attach very limited weight to this matter in my consideration of this appeal. Each planning application and appeal is determined on its merits.

Officer Comment:

Page 95 This is another pleasing decision where the Inspector has supported the Council’s efforts in achieving a high standard of design within the street scene. The Inspector emphasises the need to determine each case on it’s own individual merits

Application No. DET/2018/0043

Location: Heath House Farm Cottage, Ostlers Lane, Cheddleton, ST13 7DQ. . Proposal change of use of an existing agricultural building into a single dwelling

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 28th January 2019

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 13th September 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: E Griffin LLB Hons Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

The main issues are (i) whether the proposal would constitute permitted development in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended)(the GDPO) and (ii) whether biodiversity is a relevant consideration within this appeal.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The appeal building is a steel framed structure with profile sheeting to the roof. The eastern elevation which would form the front of the dwelling has an opening to the middle and walls made of brick with wood panelling on top. The other three elevations have concrete panels with profile sheeting on top and there is a second gap in the southern elevation. I do not disagree with the appellant’s view that the building appears to be in good condition and it was in use for the storage of hay at the time of my site visit.  The proposed work includes installation of windows and doors and blockwork around the perimeter to create a cavity for insulation. On

Page 96 three sides of the building, the profile sheeting would be replaced with timber boards and the concrete boards with brickwork to match the existing front elevation. The corrugated sheeting to the existing roof would be replaced with grey profiled composite steel sheeting. With the exception of the concrete ground floor, the steel frame and brickwork and timber to the eastern elevation, the rest of the building would be stripped back and replaced.  The external changes would include reducing the current gaps in the south and east elevations and creating a new gap in the west elevation. Each new gap would have double doors and surrounding feature glazing. Four new windows would be added to the north elevation. The appellant indicates that removing the concrete panels and replacing them with brickwork and replacing the roof covering are intended to improve the external appearance of the building. Whilst, visual improvements may be desirable they are not reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house. The overall changes proposed are extensive and three sides of the existing building and the roof would effectively be replaced.  I am therefore not satisfied on the basis of the information before me that, considered cumulatively, such fundamental changes could reasonably be described as conversion as opposed to rebuilding.  Although the Council has put forward ecological concerns as a reason for refusal, ecology is not a determinative matter within the remit of this appeal. Even if I had been minded to allow the appeal, where permission is granted pursuant to a general development order, the safeguarding of protected species and their habitats would be dealt with under other legislation where set procedures apply before commencement of any development

Officer Comment:

This is a particularly helpful decision for the Council in assisting us with interpreting the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order in respect of conversion of agricultural buildings, particularly modern portal framed structures. In particular the level of works often required in order to make these buildings habitable are tantamount to rebuilding even where the building may be in itself structurally sound.

The view with regard to ecology is disappointing, as the Council is under an obligation to have regard to protected species legislation in any decision which it makes as a public authority.

Application No. SMD/2019/0110

Location: 6 Nevin Avenue, Knypersley, ST8 7BP. . Proposal proposed demolition of rear conservatory, replacement with single story extension and rising of roof to create first floor level

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 9th May 2019

Page 97 Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Allowed 18th September 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: R Morgan MCD MRTPI Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

 The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The roofs and front elevations of the bungalows in this area have generally not been significantly altered from their original design, so although windows and doors have been changed the houses have a relatively uniform feel. Having said that, there are examples in the area where dormers have been added and other alterations made.  I agree with the Council that in general, raising the height of the roofs of bungalows in this area could have an unacceptable effect on the character of the area, particularly where the buildings are set in more uniform rows along the streets. However, in this case the property is located at the head of a cul-de-sac, forming one of a group of bungalows set around the turning circle. The positioning of the houses relative to each other at the head of Nevin Avenue means that the common ridge height is not obvious when viewed from the road, such that it has a limited influence on the streetscene.  I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Officer Comment:

Whilst it is disappointing that the Inspector did not concur with officers conclusions it is accepted that design issues will always be to some degree a subjective judgement on behalf of the decision maker.

Application No. SMD/2019/0110

Location: 6 Nevin Avenue, Knypersley, ST8 7BP.

Page 98 . Proposal proposed demolition of rear conservatory, replacement with single story extension and rising of roof to create first floor level

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 9th May 2019

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Allowed 18th September 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: R Morgan MCD MRTPI Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

 The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

Officer Comment:

Page 99 Whilst it is disappointing that the Inspector did not concur with officers conclusions it is accepted that design issues will always be to some degree a subjective judgement on behalf of the decision maker.

Application No. SMD/2018/0174

Location: Land at Cheddleton Park Avenue, Cheddleton.. Proposal 8 dwellings

Level and Date of Decision: Committee. 22nd November 2018

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 19th September 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: Jillian Rann BA (hons) MSc MRTPI Costs awarded: No

Main Issues: the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the appeal site and its surroundings, including nearby listed buildings and conservation areas; and • biodiversity.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 I find that the development would cause harm to the setting of the listed buildings and curtilage structures which make up the farmstead at Grange Farm, as a result of the erosive effect it would have on the sense of separation between the farmstead and surrounding development, as experienced from other nearby vantage points further along the canalside, and more distant vantage points across the valley.  The agricultural fields to the east of the conservation area, including the appeal site, form part of the village’s rural surroundings, and provide visual separation between the historic village core and the more recent residential development that has grown up along the valley side towards it from the east. However, dense tree cover along the eastern edge of village means that there is very little inter- visibility between the site and the Cheddleton Conservation Area (the CCA), in either direction. The site is not adjacent to the CCA

Page 100 boundary and, in views from the canal and from more distant vantage points, the remaining open land to the west of the site would maintain a sense of separation between the CCA and that more modern development. Therefore, the development would not harm the character or appearance, or the significance, of the CCA.  I cannot be certain that a development of the scale and nature proposed could be carried out without significant harm to biodiversity, including with regard to protected species. Furthermore, given the level of uncertainty and the potentially significant harm which could arise to protected species in particular, I am not satisfied that such matters could be dealt with by condition in this case.

Officer Comment:

This is an excellent decision for both officers and Members and demonstrates that a robust recommendation for refusal, endorsed by Members, is sustainable at Appeal. It also demonstrates the significant weight which should be attached to any harm to heritage assets and their setting.

Application No. SMD/2019/0088

Location: Cheadle Equestrain Centre, Eaves Lane, Cheadle, ST10 1RB. Proposal erection of a rural dwelling house for the Equine Business

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated. 18th April 2019

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 18th September 2019

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: A Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

 The effect on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on Land stability  Whether the proposal would be an isolated dwelling in the countryside and, if so, whether there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate rural worker(s)

Page 101  Whether the adverse effects of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (the Framework)

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The design, scale, massing and position of the proposed dwelling, would make it a visually prominent feature that would be seen across several hundred metres of open countryside to the east of Cheadle. When seen with the existing equestrian buildings and Stable Cottage beyond, it would have an urbanising effect on the landscape that would detract from its character and appearance.  No Coal Mining Risk Assessment is contained in the evidence before me for this proposal. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the appeal site is or can be made safe and suitable for the proposed development.  I am not satisfied that there is a viable business operating on the appellant’s land for which there would be an essential need to provide a rural worker’s dwelling. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that shows that if there was such a business, it would not be practical with some investment, for Stable Cottage to be used as such a rural worker’s dwelling, without a significant risk of harm to any animals

Officer Comment:

This is an excellent decision for the Council and demonstrates that to make a case for a rural workers dwelling it is necessary to demonstrate that there is a genuine business requirement to be resident on the site.

Page 102