HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 12th June 2017

Application HPK/2016/0691 No: Location Bridge Mills, New Road, Tintwistle Proposal Outline planning permission will all matters reserved (except for access) for up to 165 dwellings with associated works, public open space and vehicular and pedestrian access off New Road. Applicant BXB Tintwistle Ltd Agent Nexus Planning Parish/ward Tintwistle Date registered 22/12/2016 If you have a question about this report please contact: Rachael Simpkin, [email protected] 01298 28400 extension 4122

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve, subject to conditions and s106 legal agreement as recommended.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The 4.01ha application site was formerly occupied by a textile mill, which was destroyed by fire. It comprises predominantly of previously developed land, originally Bridge Mills, which lies immediately to the north of the River Etherow taking access off New Road within the Parish of Tintwistle. Hadfield town centre is approximately half a mile to the southeast of the site.

2.2 The site is predominantly flat and due to previous land filling is raised up by approximately 6.0m from the River Etherow. There are a number of areas of existing hard standing on the site and the site is generally open.

2.3 An unmade track intersects the site running from east to west from the sites access on New Road to an existing waste water transfer works which adjoins the site’s western boundary. The site is at a much higher level than the treatment works and is separated and screened from it by significant existing landscaping and trees.

2.4 The northern boundary of the site rises in height and is also well landscaped with existing trees/vegetation. An existing Public Right of Way, (TINT 2) runs along this boundary connecting New Road to Woodlands Close and also the residential properties, which are situated to the north of the site.

2.5 New Road bounds the site’s eastern site boundary, separated from it by a substantial stone wall. New Road connects Hadfield to the A628 (T) Woodhead Road, which runs through Tintwistle connecting Manchester to Sheffield.

2.6 The site itself lies within mixed surrounds with residential development to the north and the industrial development of Rossington Park and Waterside to the south of the site. It further lies in the Longdendale Valley which supports recreation to the west within Etherow Park and Bottoms Reservoir to the west. The Trans Pennine Trail runs through the valley and its route falls adjacent to the river within the site.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application has been submitted in an outline form, including details of access with all other matters including appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future determination.

3.2 An indicative layout submitted with the application seeks to demonstrate that up to 165 dwellings can be accommodated on the site – expressed as houses, 3-storey townhouses and 3-storey apartment blocks.

3.3 The key aspects of the development are set out as follows:

. Up to 165 dwellings . Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site off New Road . Provision of a section of the Trans Pennine Trail to be implemented adjacent to the River Etherow and land gifted to Derbyshire County Council . Potential new pedestrian links to the existing footpath to the north of the site . Retention and enhancement of an ecological corridor adjacent to the River Etherow . Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) onsite, with a detention basin in the south-west corner of the site

3.4 The parameters plan, for which the applicant seeks approval for sets out the following zones:

. Zone 1 (3.3ha) Residential C3 (minimum 153 (46dph) to 165 (50dph) dwellings up to 3-storeys) . Zone 2 (0.18ha) Ecological Buffer (clear zone, set 8.0m from river edge) . Zone 3 (0.24ha) Trans Pennine Trail . Zone 4 (0.12ha) Public Open Space . Zone 5 (0.15ha) Landscape Buffer

3.5 The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:- . Planning Statement (including Statement of Community Involvement, Draft Heads of Terms, Heritage Statement and Sustainability Statement) . Design and Access Statement . Parameters Plan (sought for approval) . Indicative Layout . Indicative Site Sections . Proposed Site Access – General Arrangement (For Approval) (Appendix F of Transport Statement) . Landscape Strategy . Marketing Summary Report . Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Surface and Foul Water) Finished Floor Levels . Preliminary Ecological Appraisal . Reptile Survey . Bat Activity Survey . Botanical Survey . River Corridor Survey . Land Contamination Assessment and Remediation Strategy; . Tree Survey and Constraints Plan . Transport Statement . Framework Travel Plan (Appendix C of Transport Statement) . Utilities Plan . Site Waste Management Plan . Topographical Survey

3.6 The application and details attached to it - including the plans, supporting documents, representations made by residents and the responses from consultees - can be found on the Council’s website at:-

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The site was subject to a licensed landfill operation which has been implemented and has previously been used as a haulage depot. Planning consent was refused and upheld on appeal for vehicle storage in 1991.

HPK/2003/0860 - Industrial units together with 54no residential dwellings. Refused.

April 2007 – Enforcement Notices served relating to the unauthorised erection of palisade fence and gates and the unauthorised change of use of the land from land previously used as landfill and haulage yard to open storage - Refused.

HPK/2007/0257 – Proposed industrial units and open storage. Withdrawn. HPK/2007/0805 (Resubmission of HPK/2007/0805) Erection of 2 industrial units (B2) with ancillary open storage and alterations to vehicular access. Approved with s106 Agreement.

This consent has been implemented through completion of the agreed access improvements and thus remains extant. The consent was subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring works to provide part of the Trans Pennine Trail.

HPK/2011/0493 - Outline application for mixed use redevelopment comprising 1,394 sq m of new business floorspace and up to 81 dwellings with all associated engineering operations, vehicle parking and landscaping. Approved with s106 Agreement.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016

Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy Policy S3 Strategic Housing Development Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy Policy EQ1 Climate Change Policy EQ2 Landscape Character Policy EQ5 Biodiversity Policy EQ6 Design and Place Making Policy EQ7 Built and Historic Environment Policy EQ8 Green Infrastructure Policy EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and hedgerows Policy EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Policy EQ11 Flood Risk Management Policy E4 Change of Use of Existing Business Land and Premises Policy H1 Location of Housing Development Policy H3 New Housing Development Policy H4 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF6 Accessibility and Transport Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy

Supplementary Planning Guidance

 Residential Design  Landscape Character  Housing Needs Survey  Planning Obligations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6. CONSULTATIONS

Site notice Expiry date for comments: Expired. Press notice Expiry date for comments: 16th February 2017 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 2nd February 2017

Neighbours

A total of 8 representations have been received, details of which can be read on the public file. The following is a summary of the objections and issues raised:-

. Support housing on brownfield land thereby preventing any additional housing on Green Belt areas of the village; . Proper consideration has been taken of maintaining the flora and fauna of the designated area and the continued access to the Trans Pennine Trail; . There is already considerable pressure on the infrastructures of the village; . The development will not add any facilities in Tintwistle, which only has a small shop and hairdressers and therefore future occupiers of the development will need to travel out of the village for other facilities; . There are not enough local amenities - shops, public transport etc. . Local schools are limited and already over subscribed - health care / surgeries are also limited and oversubscribed; . Concerned about the numbers of houses proposed and a 100 limit should be set; . High volume of traffic on the A628; . Highway safety concerns in respect of pedestrians walking to the school, shops and other facilities; . The junction to New Road to the A628 is hazardous and is currently being reviewed by CREST at the request of the Tintwistle Road Users Group; . New Road is like a race track for cars or at grid lock; . The large amount of HGVs, shake your house as race up and down; . Further housing can only add to congestion, air pollution and ease of access, thus adding to the deterioration of quality of life in Tintwistle; . There should be no more building until the problems of the A628 have been addressed; . The proposed Tameside Link round Woolley Bridge will merely escalate the problem for Hollingworth and Tintwistle and so will any more houses with their associated cars; . The application site is a boggy mess; . The planned housing is for "low income" - which is not at all wanted and is likely to reduce the appeal of the area and increase the very low crime rate; . Tintwistle is a very old village that lies at the head of the Longendale Valley, a much visited beauty spot, and, . It is hoped that the developers and builders respect this and take every care in adding to the attractiveness and distinctiveness of this much loved part of the country.

Consultees

Consultee Comment Officer response Tintwistle Tintwistle Parish Council has a number of concerns Parish regarding the proposed development of the former Council Bridge Mills site. The Parish Council would like the following comments to be taken into serious consideration:

1. Having looked at and considered the development plans the Parish Council is of the opinion that the entrance to the development at New Road and the bridge at Tintwistle would need to be widened. This area is already heavily congested with traffic.

2. The Parish Council is very concerned at the proposed number of houses to be built. Stating, 165 is too many and should be restricted to approximately 100 homes. As this is adding extra pressure on the already stretched infrastructure of Tintwistle village and traffic congestion. Also, according to the initial proposals the original number of houses was 82.

3. The Parish Council requests that the proposed buildings are built using a stone that is in keeping with the appearance of Tintwistle village.

4. The Parish Council feels the 106 contribution should go to the Community Hall. It is felt it would be more beneficial to Tintwistle village in general.

5. The Parish Council would like it to be noted it is not keen on flats being built and feels the development should be restricted to two storey buildings. There is concern also regarding houses being built near the sewage area and this may cause a number of problems.

6. The Parish Council would like to propose that the area along the riverside is screened by trees. Creating a type of block/cover as Bessons works is very nearby. Highways Awaited. Agency Environment No objections in principle subject to planning Agency conditions concerning contamination, biodiversity and the retention of the buffer strip alongside the River Etherow. The Environment Agency’s Biodiversity Team have asked that the 8.0m river corridor buffer be left natural and undisturbed. Natural No objections. England United Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works Utilities The site is immediately adjacent to Tintwistle Waste Water Treatment Works. Notwithstanding the outline nature of the application for planning permission, an indicative layout has been submitted which shows residential properties immediately adjacent to the boundary of the wastewater treatment works. United Utilities has strong concerns with the location of new sensitive receptors close to an operational wastewater treatment works. Aside from odour, there is a risk from flies and noise. We confirm we have met with the applicant and confirmed our concern with the proximity of the proposed houses to the wastewater treatment works on the indicative layout. For confirmation, United Utilities have received no complaints from existing residents on Bramah Edge Court and Woodlands Close, however, it should be noted that these properties are further away compared with the properties shown on the indicative layout included as part of the application submission. Given the above concerns, we strongly recommend that you discuss the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the treatment works with the Council’s Environmental Health colleagues. United Utilities recommends consideration is given to the inclusion of a buffer between the wastewater treatment works and the proposed houses.

Drainage With respect to drainage, if planning permission is granted for this proposed development, United Utilities recommends the surface water drainage and foul water scheme conditions to be attached to any approval.

Public Sewers Passing through Site A public sewer crosses this site and we will not permit building over it. We will require an access strip width of six metres, three metres either side of the centre line of the sewer which is in accordance with the minimum distances specified in the current issue of "Sewers for Adoption", for maintenance or replacement. Therefore a modification of the site layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewer at the applicant's expense, may be necessary. DCC Policy & A financial contribution of £182,384 for 16 primary Monitoring places at Tintwistle CE Primary School via Project A: Classroom Extension is sought. DCC Flood No objections subject to a recommended condition for Risk a drainage scheme to be approved. Management Team The supplied Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) proposes a surface water disposal rate of 24.1 l/s and to achieve this through the use of an attenuation basin, oversized pipes and a flow control device.

The proposed discharge rate is acceptable however, it should be noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the Environment Agency would not consider the use of below ground attenuation as sustainable drainage due to the increased benefits provided by above ground storage (amenity, water quality and biodiversity).

To secure an appropriate sustainable drainage system the LLFA would recommend the condition as set out below. DCC It is noted that all matters with the exception of access Highways have been reserved.

The submitted details propose a development of 165no. dwellings all served via a modified existing junction with New Road.

Discussion has been ongoing with the developers’ highway consultant with respect to the layout and form of junction with New Road. Generally, the Highway Authority would not choose to signalise a junction arm serving a residential cul-de-sac and unless there are any over-riding reasons not to, it is recommended that the junction is relocated to a point where emerging traffic would be to the north of the existing signal stop line on New Road. However, should there be reasons preventing this, the Highway Authority is satisfied that the existing signals may be modified to accommodate access to a development of the scale and nature suggested although this will involve securing of a Commuted Sum for future maintenance of the additional signal apparatus. The Transport Statement predicts that the current proposals will be likely to generate less traffic than those previously consented for the site. Consideration has been given to the traffic and transport information submitted in respect of the proposals and it should be understood that, as a generality, the Highway Authority does not “agree” the content of a Transport Statement or, inevitably, concur with every detail contained therein. However, providing it is considered that the conclusion is sound then it is not regarded as reasonable or warranted to require the applicant to devote resources to amending detail which would not vary the conclusion. In this case the Highway Authority does not consider that there is an evidence base to suggest that the conclusion that the development would not have a significant adverse effect on capacity or safety of the local road network is incorrect. Certainly, there is no data that would support a reason for refusal of planning permission on the basis that the development would result in severe harm on the highway network, with reference to Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework

Details of traffic flows and 85%ile vehicle approach speeds have been included within the Transport Statement. Whilst the use of Automatic Traffic Counter data is acceptable for the former, exit visibility sightlines to existing highways should be determined by the results of a specific speed survey of free flow traffic as the data as submitted may be skewed by factors such as severe inclement weather, convoys of traffic behind slow moving vehicles, parked vehicles/ obstructions in the carriageway and, in this case, vehicles slowing when approaching a red light on the traffic signals.

As layout is a reserved Matter, detailed comment will not be made with respect to the indicative site plan as submitted. However, the layout should generally comply with the recommendations contained within the 6C’s Design Guide with a maximum design speed of 20mph and suitability for use by a Large Refuse Vehicle being demonstrated by means of swept path analysis. Visibility sightlines at all junctions, driveways, parking spaces, etc. should be demonstrated and secured to be maintained clear of obstruction as appropriate. Off-street parking should be provided on the basis of 2no. or 3no. spaces per 2/3 or 4/4+ bedroom unit respectively, each space being of 2.4m x 5.5m minimum dimension (larger where located in front of garage doors or adjacent to a physical barrier e.g. wall, hedge, fence, etc.). Areas should be identified clear of the highway for standing of waste bins on refuse collection days and the views of the local refuse collection serve sought in this respect. It is noted that previous applications were subject to a planning obligation securing the alignment of the Trans Pennine Trail through the site and it is assumed a similar obligation will form a part of any Consent of the current proposals. Pedestrian links with the existing Public Right of Way adjacent to the northern site boundary should also be provided.

A Framework Travel Plan has been included within the Transport Statement, specific comments on which have been appended to this response. It’s recommended that a sum of £5,000 is secured for monitoring of the Travel Plan over a five year period i.e. £1,000 per annum. DCC Awaited. Footpaths DCC The proposal will impact a site on the Derbyshire Archaeologist Historic Environment Record (HER 14239), relating to the site of Bridge Mill, an early 19th century cotton mill on the River Etherow.

Following demolition of the mill buildings, probably during the 1980s, the site appears to have been used for landfill and this has resulted in a considerable raising of ground level across the site, with between 6 and 8 metres of made ground reported in boreholes from the area of the former mill buildings. Of course, some of this material is likely to represent ground level raising in preparation for, and during the lifetime of, the mill complex. However, the majority of the made ground appears to result from use of the site for landfill in the modern period.

Any surviving archaeological remains of the mill complex are therefore likely to be buried at considerable depth below the present ground surface, and are unlikely to be impacted on by the current proposals. It is therefore recommended that there is no need to place an archaeological requirement on the applicant. Derbyshire There are no objections in principle to the Police development of this site for residential use. The illustrative layout and supporting information are noted, but at this stage the two proposed pedestrian links to the north and south of the site are highlighted. In general, to support the aim of sustainable and safe residential development from the Police’s perspective, footpaths should be located only to provide for necessary and convenient circulation and where they do exist, they should be overlooked, ideally be shared with other forms of movement, have a wide and open aspect, with a reasonable buffer and definition at the edge of non-public space. Where routes are secluded and move between significantly different areas, they too often become the seat of nuisance, damage and consequently an amenity problem for residents and generators of service calls to the Police.

Taking the existing footpath link on the northern edge of the application site from New Road to Bramah Edge Court, there is evidence of nuisance gatherings, drug taking and damage to residential boundaries at both ends of the link, which would in the Police’s view have a detrimental effect on its viability as an extended safe route. Added to this, the route’s aspect both in respect of gradient and enclosure are not favourable. It is accepted that as an aid to movement between New Road and some of Tintwistle’s services, the route probably provides a benefit. However, the extended routes around the south of houses on Bramah Edge Court and again to the side and rear of houses to the north and playing fields are remote and the Police would not wish to see repeated within the new development. Subsequently the question of whether or not the suggested link from the proposed site onto this link would be a benefit or problem to residents of new housing is open to debate. If it is seen as necessary, then the Police would wish to see the link moved further from the proposed apartments and all of the above features included with all new and existing parts of the link brought up to adoptable standards.

In respect of the other proposed link to the south of the site, connecting to the High Peak trail - as a speculative undertaking and given the factors already mentioned, plus the fact that there would be an entrance to the trail off new road available to residents, the Police’s recommendation would be to remove this link from any future plans. With existing gradients and future landscaping, the trail itself should not present a problem to proposed new housing without the suggested link.

The indicative layout includes some larger housing blocks with no clear rear garden access. This should be provided through plot, or gated from an area which is open to wider view. Derbyshire From consideration of the Magic.gov.uk website the Wildlife Trust site falls within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone and meets one of the categories requiring consultation with Natural England with regard to the likely risks of the proposal.

The Derbyshire Wildlife Trust previously commented on an application for mixed use development of the site under the reference HPK/2011/0493 which was subsequently granted outline consent. A range of ecology surveys were carried out by Kingdom Ecology in support of the previous application and to satisfy the requirements of condition 16 of the outline consent. These comprehensive surveys were carried out during the optimal survey period identified the site to support 3.5ha of Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL) priority habitat and a breeding pair of Lapwing, a species of principal importance.

The current application is supported by a range of up to date ecology survey reports prepared by Enzygo Ltd including: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated 8th December 2016; Bat Activity report dated 8th December 2016; Botanical Survey report dated 13th December 2016; River Corridor Survey report dated 15th December 2016 and Reptile Survey report dated 1st December 2016. The updated reports also consider the findings of the previous ecology surveys, which is welcomed.

The Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) presents the results of an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey undertaken on 4th August 2016 which identified the majority of the site to comprise ephemeral/short perennial vegetation with areas of tall ruderal, scattered scrub, semi-improved grassland and broad-leaved woodland.

The PEA rightly recommends the undertaking of a range of further surveys including a NVC survey, river corridor survey including otter and water vole surveys, badger survey, breeding bird survey, reptile survey and bat survey of trees. In addition to recognition of the presence of Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land UK BAP priority habitat on the site in 2012 by Kingdom Ecology, the 2016 PEA identified a matrix of habitats across the previous industrial site, which could meet criteria to warrant classification as “Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land” UK BAP Priority Habitat. A NVC survey was undertaken on 31st October 2016. We would consider this to be too late in the season to obtain a comprehensive overview of the botanical interest associated with the site, particularly in regard to any rarely occurring or early flowering species. The late timing of the survey visit is acknowledged as a limitation in the report. Despite the limitation, the majority of the site (3ha) was identified to meet the recognised criteria for Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land UK BAP priority habitat. While section 3.2.5 of the report states that the site will essentially become grassland and scrub and the OMHPDL habitats would be lost to natural succession, the same could be said to be true for any habitat that does not receive some form of management intervention. The identification of OMHPDL on the site means that the site meets the selection guidelines Mh3 for designation as a Local Wildlife Site and, as such, should be recognised as being of County level of nature conservation importance.

The proposed mitigation for impacts on the OMHPDL priority habitat involves the retention/re-creation of a matrix of habitats amounting to an area of 0.5ha although it must be borne in mind that not all of this 0.5ha will comprise OMHPDL priority habitat.

The proposed development as shown on the indicative layout will therefore result in the loss of at least 2.5-3ha of OMHPDL priority habitat (i.e. between 83 – 85% of the priority habitat will be lost) and the report has concluded that there will be unavoidable loss of OMHPDL UK BAP priority habitat as a result of the proposed development. We consider the proposed mitigation to be insufficient as it would result in an unacceptable net loss of priority habitat contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ5 of the High Peak Local Plan adopted April 2016.

It is understood that the proposed works will require clearance and re-profiling of the site, including removal of most trees along the northern and western boundaries. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal concluded that mature trees along the northern and western site boundaries may contain potential roosting features. The only bat survey work undertaken appears to be a Bat Activity Survey conducted on 25th October 2016 which recorded a diverse bat assemblage at the site of at least six species. However, the survey was undertaken late in the season and at a northern location which may have resulted in lower levels of bat activity across the site than that which may have been encountered during the peak season. We would advise that a bat survey of the trees proposed for removal is required with the results presented for consideration as part of the determination process. If tree removal is required as part of the development it is essential that sufficient information is submitted to demonstrate the presence or otherwise of bats and the extent that they may be affected by the proposal prior to the determination of the application in order to enable the local planning authority to discharge its duties under the requirements of the Habitats Regulations in reaching a planning decision.

The River Corridor survey identified Otter spraints at three locations on boulders on the south-east side of the river channel in the central section of the survey reach. It was considered likely that this stretch of the River Etherow forms the territory of at least one otter. Otter is a European Protected Species and is also fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. To avoid disturbance to otter a condition to secure the following should be attached to any consent: “The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in section 5.2 of the River Corridor Survey report prepared by Enzygo dated December 2016.”

A Reptile Survey was carried out during October 2016 during which no reptiles were recorded on the site. However, we are of the view that the survey was carried out too late in the season and over too short a period to provide robust results. We are aware of the results of a previous reptile survey at the site during a more suitable survey period which recorded no reptiles and given the lack of reptile records for the area we are satisfied that reptiles are unlikely to be present at the site.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal recommended the undertaking of a badger and a breeding bird survey. The reports containing the results of these further surveys do not appear to be available. This information is lacking and needs to be provided prior to the determination of the application.

In summary, the application as submitted will result in the loss of at least 2.5-3ha of OMHPDL UK BAP priority habitat (i.e. between 83 – 85% of the priority habitat will be lost) which represents a significant net loss of biodiversity conservation interest. The level of mitigation put forward for the loss of this priority habitat is insufficient and, as such, the development is contrary to the aims of the environmental dimension of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ5 Biodiversity of the High Peak Local Plan adopted April 2016.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) aspires to “net gain” of biodiversity from development and expects “no net loss” at a minimum. Any net loss could therefore fail the NPPF’s Sustainable Development principles and could constitute significant harm. We would therefore advise that the application as currently submitted is contrary to the objectives of both national and local planning policies in respect of biodiversity as follows:

Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last result, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.”

Policy EQ5 Biodiversity of the High Peak Local Plan adopted April 2016 states: “The biodiversity and geological resources of the Plan Area and its surroundings will be conserved and where possible enhanced by ensuring that development proposals will not result in significant harm to biodiversity or geodiversity interests. This will be achieved by: Conserving and enhancing regionally and locally designated sites. On these sites the Council will not permit any development proposal which would directly or indirectly result in significant harm to geological and biodiversity conservation interests, unless it can be demonstrated that: appropriate conservation and mitigation measures are provided, such mitigation measures should ensure as a minimum no net loss and wherever possible net gain for biodiversity”.

At present, this scheme, as submitted, conflicts with the environmental dimension of sustainable development in that it will result in a net loss of biodiversity.

To resolve this issue we would advise that Defra Accounting Metrics should be used to consider the value of the habitats on site, calculate biodiversity impacts and demonstrate and deliver no net loss of biodiversity.

In addition, insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the potential for trees intended for removal to support roosting bats. In the absence of adequate information on European Protected Species, the Local Planning Authority is unable to discharge its duties in respect of regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations and make an informed decision.

Updated Comments:

Further to our earlier comments on the above planning application we confirm that the information provided in the letter from Helen Hartley of Nexus Planning dated 30th March 2017 addresses the issues raised in our consultation response dated 1st March 2017 in respect of bats and badger.

In our response of 20th April 2017 we indicated that the removal of areas of dense scrub under the supervision of an Ecological Clerk of Works is a suitable precautionary approach in respect of badger.

We also stated that:

“It is understood that prior to the removal of trees along the northern and western boundaries, the trees were reviewed for the potential presence of roosting bats and given that the trees have now been removed as part of the Japanese Knotweed eradication, we would advise that no further bat surveys are required.”

It is understood that a breeding bird survey is being undertaken at present. Our comments were based upon the previously recorded presence of the ground- nesting priority bird species lapwing on the site. The presence of this species is associated with the areas of open mosaic habitat and the compensatory habitat provision will ensure there is no overall net loss of suitable habitat for this species. To ensure there is no harm to breeding birds we would advise that a condition to secure the following is attached to any consent:

“No removal of vegetation or site clearance work shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of the site for active birds’ nests immediately before the site is cleared and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the local planning authority.”

The only outstanding issue is with regard to the lack of suitable mitigation and compensation for the loss of priority habitats as a result of the proposed development. We are of the view that the biodiversity metrics calculation provided in the letter from Derek Allan of Enzygo dated 22nd May 2017 has wrongly calculated the level of biodiversity loss and the delivery of an appropriate offset site will cost significantly more than the suggested £15,000. HPBC The application is outline and as such the detail of an Housing affordable housing contribution (including type, tenure, location etc) will need to be confirmed at the reserved matters stage.

In line with Local Plan policy H4, a 30% affordable housing contribution on sites of 25 units or more would be required. The application for up to 165 dwellings would be equivalent to up to 49 affordable dwellings, with 80% rented and 20% shared ownership/ intermediate tenure split. However, in respect of Section 106 contributions (including affordable housing), the application makes reference to a ‘Residential Viability Appraisal’. Any such submission would need to be independently assessed in order to establish the viability of an affordable housing contribution.

The mix of affordable dwellings is not for determination at this stage and will be a matter for determination at a later date. However it is noted the applicant proposes an indicative mix including a proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings and apartment type dwellings. Going forward 2b4p house, 3b5p house and possibly 1b2p bungalow types would be considered alongside any 1b2p/ 2b4p apartments, with affordable housing being positioned across the site to ensure a sustainable community.

In line with the Council’s aspirations to deliver residential development to address the housing needs of local people under policy H3 the applicant would be required to support dwellings designed to provide flexible accommodation which is capable of future adaptation by seeking to achieve adequate internal space for the intended number of occupants in accordance with the Nationally Described Space Standards and delivered to meet accessibility standards set out in the Optional Requirement M4(2) of part M of the Building Regulations. In terms of the dwellings sizes of the affordable housing units this would require a 1 bed 2-person dwelling to be built to 50sqm, a 2 bed 4-person dwelling to 79sqm and a 3 bed 5-person dwelling to 93 sqm. HPBC There are no arboricultural objections to the proposals Arboricultural as they stand, however, the landscape details Officer submitted with any future full application will be important. HPBC No objection to the proposed development subject to Environmental the conditions set out below being applied to any Health permission granted, including principally contamination, noise insulation and a construction management plan. The site has been subject to extensive ground investigation and assessment for land contamination, which has identified the need for remediation to protect the health of future site occupants and the wider environment. Whilst the overarching remediation principles have been submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, the remediation strategy cannot be agreed until reserved matters are decided.

The construction/demolition stage of the development could lead to an increase of noise and dust experienced at sensitive premises and subsequent loss of amenity. A condition is therefore recommended to protect the amenity of residents with regard to noise from nearby industry. HPBC Project The Council would request that open space Officer contributions are to be targeted off site, as the (Operational proposed development is very close to existing Services) facilities in the village, namely Conduit Street Play Area, Conduit Street Allotments and West Drive playing pitches.

The High Peak & Derbyshire Dales Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy states that we need to improve the quality of existing provision in High Peak, rather then the quantity. The play area on Conduit Street is very limited, with the majority of the equipment in poor condition and it provides little provision for the existing community. Potential new residents from the proposed development will undoubtedly use this play area as it is the only one in Tintwistle. Similarly, the allotments in Tintwistle on Conduit Street are adjacent to the proposed development and are in need of investment, particularly if new residents were to take up plots at this site which is run and managed by Tintwistle Allotment Gardeners Association.

The nearest playing pitches in Tintwistle are based at West Drive. These again are well within walking distance of the proposed new development. Tintwistle Athletic Football Club leases the two playing pitches from the Council and the quality of the pitches needs improving and the changing facilities need upgrading. There is potential increase in usage of these pitches by new residents and contributions would support much needed investment here.

Policy CF4 of the new adopted Local Plan allows the Council to request developer contributions for different typologies of open space which includes equipped children’s play, outdoor sports facilities and allotments. With regard to this application, the Council would be seeking to secure off site contributions for all three typologies as discussed above. Based on 165 dwellings, the contributions would be as follows:-

. Equipped children’s play – £31,680 . Outdoor sports facilities - £80,751 . Allotments - £12,696.75 . Total = £125,127.75

Regarding the Police comments, it is considered that the link at the north of the site is necessary and it is understood how people would want to use the link. If it is not provided at all, then people may create an unauthorised way through, which in turn could create more issues and nuisance. It is considered that the link should be provided, however, it should follow the recommendations suggested by the Police i.e. be overlooked, have a wide and open aspect with a reasonable buffer and definition at the edge of the non-public space. The link shown is very close to the proposed houses and it is suggested that it is moved further away.

It is also agreed that the link at the south of the site onto the Trans Pennine Trail could be removed due to the concerns raised by the Police, as there is already access from New Road. But this also relates to my previous comments about the houses backing onto the TPT which still has the potential for nuisance. A better layout would be for the properties to face onto the TPT with a buffer which would allow for it to be overlooked and have a wide open aspect.

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

(A) Planning policies

7.1 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.

7.2 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 High Peak Local Plan 2016.

7.3 The policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as supplemented by the NPPG are also a material consideration in the determination of this application. 7.4 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This is reflected in Adopted Local Plan Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Principles) and S1a (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development).

7.5 For decision-taking this means:-

 approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and,  where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless:-

- 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; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.6 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development as economic, social and environmental.

Principle of development

7.7 The site lies within the built up boundary area of Glossopdale in the newly adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016.

7.8 Whilst the site is not allocated for employment, its previous use was for industry. Furthermore, the site has an extant mixed-use consent, including employment uses. As such, it is necessary for the applicant to comply with Policy E4 ‘Change of use of Existing Land and Premises’ of the Adopted Local Plan. Although the applicant queries whether Policy E4 is applicable, they still address this issue directly in their correspondence dated 12th April 2017. They conclude that the site is no longer suitable or viable for employment uses, even as part of a mixed-use scheme. The applicant also makes the case that the proposed uses (housing) is compatible with neighbouring uses.

7.9 The suitability of the site for employment is questioned by the applicant on the basis that it would conflict with the neighbouring employment uses. Given the previous mixed-use consent and examples of mixed-use schemes elsewhere in the Borough, this conclusion is not supported. Employment can sit alongside housing, subject to suitable design, conditions relating to the operation of the business and the type of business operation. Test 1, however, of policy E4 states that a change of use will be permitted where the site is no longer suitable or commercially viable. In this regard, it is understood that the Council’s own viability consultants concur with the majority of the applicants own appraisal i.e. the site is constrained to the extent that compromises may be necessary in relation to developer contributions in relation to abnormal costs relating to contamination remediation. Furthermore, the site has been marketed for employment, albeit intermittently, for a number of years without a positive outcome. On a balance, whilst their conclusions regarding the suitability of the site are contested, it is considered that policy E4 has been addressed in terms of viability.

Planning Obligations

7.10 Local Plan Policy H4 (Affordable Housing) requires all new residential development to meet the requirements of local people by seeking to achieve 20% of affordable housing provision on sites between 5-24 units that are 0.16ha or larger. The affordable housing provision should seek to achieve a target of 80% rented accommodation with the balance being provided as intermediate housing. Affordable housing provision should normally be provided within the development site itself and in perpetuity. In exceptional cases, the Council may allow provision off-site or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value. Policy H4 states that where the provision of affordable houses proposed is below the requirement as set out above, the Council will require the applicants to provide evidence by way of a financial appraisal to justify a reduced provision. The application for up to 165 dwellings would be equivalent to up to 49 affordable dwellings, with 80% rented and 20% shared ownership / intermediate tenure split.

7.11 Policy CF7 (Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy) requires development proposals to provide, or meet the reasonable costs of providing the on-site and off-site infrastructure, facilities and/or mitigation necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms through the appropriate use of planning obligations and/or conditions. The County Council require an off-site financial contribution of £182,384 for 16 primary places at Tintwistle CE Primary School via Project A: Classroom Extension.

7.12 Policy CF4 (Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities) of the Local Plan allows the Council to request developer contributions for different typologies of open space which includes equipped children’s play, outdoor sports facilities and allotments. With regard to this application, the Council would be seeking to secure off site contributions for all three typologies as follows: an off-site financial contribution of £31,680 for equipped children’s play, £80,751 for outdoor sports facilities and £12,696.75 for allotments totalling £125,127.75 would be required for a development of this size. These monies would be targeted towards investment at the playing pitches at West Drive and the play area and allotments on Conduit Street.

7.13 The County Highways Officer has noted that previous applications were subject to a planning obligation securing the alignment of the Trans Pennine Trail through the site and it is assumed a similar obligation would form a part of any consent of the current proposals. This matter will be discussed within the viability section below. For the purposes of site viability, this has been estimated at £100,000. The principle of the existing signals being modified to accommodate access to a development of the scale proposed requires the securing of a commuted sum, including maintenance of the additional signal apparatus, which has been estimated at £60,000 within the viability appraisal. Additionally, a sum of £5,000 should be secured for monitoring of the Travel Plan over a five year period of £1,000 per annum.

7.14 Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 109 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ5 (Biodiversity) echoes this advice, advising that biodiversity and ecological resources should be conserved.

7.15 To address the issues raised by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) concerning the lack of suitable mitigation and compensation for the loss of priority habitats as a result of the proposed development, further discussions have been undertaken with the Environment Bank. The Environment Bank is a private company working to broker biodiversity compensation agreements (offsets) for developers and landowners. They calculate the environmental impact of development proposals using approved Government metrics. Their ecological experts then match a developer’s compensation requirement with sites put forward by landowners and conservationists who have conservation credits available to sell. Credits are sold in exchange for the creation or enhancement of habitats, generating biodiversity gain.

7.16 A £260,000 estimate has been provided by the Environment Bank, which is based on an 8.0ha offset, as well as precautionary capital costs. This estimate has considered financed delivery, management and monitoring over a 20 year period to comply with biodiversity offsetting standards in these respects.

7.17 Potential Council owned sites include: Paradise Quarry, Hadfield, the woodland adjacent to the Etherow to the southwest corner of the football fields off West Drive and the woodland within Bankswood Park as well as Gamsley Sidings, which is owned by the County Council. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has commented that the identification of more than one potential compensation site would be considered to deliver the appropriate level of compensation required and anticipate that this level of detail could be agreed post determination, following the imposition of a condition requiring a Biodiversity Impact Compensation Strategy provided that a financial cap is agreed as part of the S106 based upon the calculations provided by the Environment Bank. It is therefore proposed that the Council would secure a biodiversity compensation strategy via a condition / s106 legal agreement for the minimum required credits, which should be reassessed at a reserved matters stage. The payment cap for this has been set within the Financial Viability Assessment, as is discussed in further detail below.

7.18 In these respects, it is considered that “in principle”, the proposed mitigation in the form of an off-site financial sum would be considered to be sufficient to mitigate against a net loss of priority habitat to accord with the aims of the NPPF and policy EQ5 of the High Peak Local Plan adopted April 2016. Site Viability

7.19 Paragraph 50 of the NPPF seeks to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. Local Plan Policy H3 (New Housing Development) requires new residential development to provide a range of market and affordable housing types and sizes that can reasonably meet the requirements and future needs of a wide range of household types. The scheme, for the purposes of the Financial Viability Assessment has proposed proposed a mix of semi-detached (78 x 3-bed), terrace (42 x 3- bedroom), apartment (42 x 3-bed) and bungalow (3 x 2-bed) dwellings. Broadly speaking, it is considered that the terms of the policy are generally met, in that the proposed mix would contribute positively to the promotion of a sustainable and inclusive community taking into account the characteristics of the existing higher density housing stock in the surrounding locality reasonably located to existing services and facilities within Hadfield. Design and layout issues will be discussed within the relevant section below.

7.20 In implementing Policy CF7, the Council will have regard to economic viability considerations, consistent with meeting the Local Plan objectives.

7.21 Paragraph 173 of the NPPF in ‘ensuring viability and deliverability’ states:

‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable’.

7.22 Paragraph 176 of the NPPF states:

Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation), the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements.

7.23 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) provides guidance on ‘Viability and decision taking’ as follows:

Decision-taking on individual applications does not normally require consideration of viability. However, where the deliverability of the development may be compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. Assessing the viability of a particular site requires more detailed analysis than at plan level.

A site is viable if the value generated by its development exceeds the costs of developing it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to be undertaken.

In making decisions, the Local Planning Authority will need to understand the impact of planning obligations on the proposal. Where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations.

This is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions which are often the largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability. The financial viability of the individual scheme should be carefully considered in line with the principles in this guidance.

7.24 The Council’s Independent Consultant has undertaken a comprehensive review of the applicant’s submitted Economic Viability Assessment to see whether the scheme can support the required s106 contributions. In particular, they have considered whether the assumptions that are made in the financial appraisal are reasonable and based on this the extent to which the application could support the policy position at 30% affordable housing provision together with the other planning contributions that are required. The appraisal has been prepared so that the developers profit is a fixed input into the appraisal so that the residual sum that is produced in this case is the residual land value. The review has supported the developer’s conclusions that the scheme is not able to support all of the required Section 106 contributions identified above.

7.25 In relation to the prioritisation of developer contributions where viability is constrained, the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2005) states the following:

“Whilst each case needs to be assessed on its own merits as a general rule the priority order will be as follows:

1. Site infrastructure works, on and off-site needed to achieve the development of the site (e.g highway and drainage works) 2. Obligations needed to protect important features on the site (e.g nature conservation management, etc.) 3. Affordable housing 4. Open space/sustainable transport provision directly serving the site 5. Provision / improvement of community facilities”. 7.26 As a consequence, the financial viability appraisal has included the sum of £260,000 as the ecology offset and the contribution to education. Any contributions towards public open space and the Trans Pennine Trail are not included. The construction costs that have been adopted by the appraisal include highway signal works and maintenance requirements and are thus already accounted for. On this basis, the scheme could viably achieve 20 (12.15%) onsite affordable units based on a scheme of 165 dwellings. The applicant has confirmed their acceptance of £260,000 for Environmental Compensation and a 12% contribution to affordable housing. In addition, they are willing to accept that the land shown as being designated as the route of the TPT will be gifted to Derbyshire County Council.

7.27 Finally, as recommended in the Council’s viability report, the scope for claw back at the reserved matters stage should be sought to ensure that future developer contributions fully reflect any subsequent uplift in the financial viability of the development.

7.28 The overall conclusion based on the current independent assessment is that the level of profit generated through the sale of the houses is not considered to be sufficient for the developer to proceed with the scheme should the full suite of s106 contributions be requested including 30% affordable housing provision. In these circumstances, therefore, it is considered necessary to secure a re-appraisal of the viability via a s106 agreement as the scheme is built out and a clawback provision is therefore recommended in these circumstances to be secured via a legal agreement. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to accord with paragraph 173 of the NPPF and Adopted Local Plan Policies, in particular: S1, H3, H4 and CF7 to overcome the previous objections to the scheme.

Layout

7.29 Section 11 ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ of the NPPF, confirms that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valuable landscapes. Further, the NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness.

7.30 Adopted Local Plan Policies S1 ‘Sustainable Development Principles’ and EQ6 ‘Design and Place Making’ seek to secure high quality design in all developments that responds positively to its environment and contributes to local distinctiveness and sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Design (2005) also provides guidance on the approach to new residential development and the factors which contribute toward local distinctiveness. 7.31 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ6 also stipulates that development should achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and should not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity.

7.32 Overall, the indicative layout and design of the scheme road would not be considered to accord with Policies S1 and EQ6 of the Adopted Local Plan along with guidance contained in Paragraph 17 and the Design Chapter of the Framework, all of which seek to ensure that the overall scale, density, massing, landscaping and layout are in character with the area and that new development integrates into the natural, built and historic environment.

7.33 Importantly at this outline stage, however, the scheme shows the potential to accommodate a higher density development, which should be reflective of its mill heritage and appropriately address the river frontage and pedestrian routes. A high quality development is a matter which would be sought at the reserved matters stage, including designing out crime. Therefore, the concerns which have been raised by the Police regarding the overlooking of the proposed footpaths can be addressed at that stage.

7.34 Further, it is considered that there would be sufficient space to accommodate the proposed development within the site. As such, the scheme accords with Policy EQ6 of the Adopted Local Plan and paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

Environmental Matters

7.35 Section 11 of the NPPF seeks to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land stability to ensure new development is appropriate for its location. Similarly, Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ10 ‘Pollution Control and Unstable Land’ seeks to protect people and the environment from unsafe and polluted environments, requiring mitigation if necessary.

7.36 The Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the development of the site for residential use would be acceptable with appropriate site investigation (and remediation). The Officer is satisfied that the protection from noise and disturbance of future incumbents of the scheme can be dealt with by condition securing a scheme of noise insulation for the proposed dwellings. These matters can be addressed by appropriate conditions to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring residents and proposed occupiers.

7.37 As a consequence, the proposed development is considered to comply with Policy EQ10 of the Adopted Local Plan and Chapter 11 of the NPPF.

Access & Highway matters 7.38 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that local planning authorities should seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel.

7.39 Adopted Local Plan Policy CF6 ‘Accessibility and Transport’ seeks to ensure that new development can be accessed safely, provides access to a range of transport modes and minimises the need to travel by unsustainable modes. The site is included within the built-up boundary area of Tintwistle. It is considered to be in a sustainable location within easy access of public transport, walking and cycling routes and key services and facilities. No objections are raised by the County Highways Authority in respect of the proposed access arrangement subject to provision of signals and maintenance.

7.40 The route of the Trans Pennine Trail runs along the southern site boundary adjacent to the River Etherow. A new equestrian and cycle crossing has been installed at the bridge on New Road as part of the implemented access improvements to the site. The extant consent for industrial units on this site also required the construction of the section of the Trail along the site boundary, however the development has not been realised and this section of the Trail remains unconstructed. The current application includes the provision for this section of land to be reserved as part of the proposed 106 Agreement.

7.41 In light of the above comments, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the local road network, the scheme would provide for adequate access, turning and parking and incumbent residents would have access to public transport, cycle and pedestrian routes. As such the proposals comply with Adopted Local Plan Policy CF6 and Chapter 4 of the NPPF.

Other material matters

7.42 The County Archaeologist concludes that the archaeological potential of the site is low and does not request development groundworks to be monitored in these circumstances. Accordingly, there are no conflicts with Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ7 ‘Built and Historic Environment’ and Chapter 12 of the NPPF.

7.43 The County Flood Risk Management Team have considered the information submitted to assess the impact of the proposal in respect of flooding and drainage and raise no objection to the scheme. In these circumstances, conditions are recommended securing the detailed design and associated management and maintenance plans of surface water drainage for the site, which should accord with national SuDs standards. Furthermore, United Utilities raise no objections subject to a drainage condition for foul and surface water. In these respects, the proposal accords with Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ11 ‘Flood Risk Management’ and Chapter 10 of the NPPF. (B) Conclusion & Planning balance

7.44 The National Planning Policy Framework provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainability includes economic, social and environmental roles. The ‘presumption’ in favour of sustainable development entails approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay.

7.45 This brownfield site lies within the built-up boundary area of Tintwistle and is designated in the Adopted Local Plan for residential development. The site is adjacent to public transport links and within a suitable distance to local services and facilities. The scheme would clearly deliver significant social benefits as 165 dwellings would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of the Borough, including affordable housing provision. The scheme would also provide some economic benefits through the creation new jobs during the construction phase and contributions to the local economy from future residents and potential New Homes Bonus. In terms of environmental issues, the offsite financial environmental compensation is considered to be acceptable. Overall, highways and environmental matters are satisfactory subject to conditions.

7.46 Reduced provision of affordable housing on site and omission of other s106 obligations as discussed above is owing to a demonstration of scheme viability and the need to compensate for environmental loss and provide infrastructure improvements.

7.47 Overall, the proposal complies with the requirements of the newly adopted Local Plan and the NPPF and in the absence of any other material considerations, and subject to the above matters being resolved, it benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 It is recommended that planning permission be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions and completion of a s106:

Condition Brief description Comment No TL04 Outline Commencement – 3 years.

TL05 3 year submission of reserved matters from date of this permission or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last reserved matter. TL06 Prior to commencement: Outline Details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. Highways Non STD Prior to commencement: A detailed design for the proposed modification works to the junction with New Road, together with a programme for the implementation and completion of the works to be agreed. Non STD Prior to commencement: Space shall be provided within the site for storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading, unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles, parking and manoeuvring of employees and visitors vehicles, laid out and constructed to be agreed. Non STD A subsequent reserved matters or full REM Matter application shall include design of the internal layout of the site in accordance with the guidance contained in the 6C’s Design Guide. Non STD Prior to commencement: REM Matter Construction details of the residential estate road(s) and footway(s) (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage). Non STD Prior to occupation: REM Matter Carriageways, footways and footpaths construction completion. Non STD Prior to occupation: REM Matter Space has been provided within the site curtilage for the parking/ loading and unloading/ manoeuvring of residents/ visitors/ service and delivery vehicles, located, designed, laid out and constructed to be agreed. Non STD The garage/car parking spaces hereby REM Matter permitted shall be retained as such and shall not be used for any purpose other than the garaging/parking of private motor vehicles associated with the residential occupation of the property. Non STD There shall be no gates or other barriers REM Matter within 6.0m of the nearside highway boundary and any gates shall open inwards only. Non STD Prior to commencement: REM Matter Means to prevent the discharge of water from the development onto the highway to be agreed. Non STD Prior to commencement: Surface water drainage works to include an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in Annex F of PPS25 (or any subsequent version) and management plan to be agreed. Non STD Prior to occupation: Travel Plan comprising immediate, continuing and long-term measures to promote and encourage alternatives to single-occupancy car use has been agreed. Non STD Prior to commencement: S38 Details of the proposed arrangements for Legislation future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been agreed. Environmental

Non STD Prior to commencement: a) Submission of Build Phase Remediation Scheme. b) Implementation of Approved Build Phase Remediation Scheme. c) Verification Report. Non STD Reporting of Unexpected Contamination Non STD Construction Management Plan (CMP), including hours of operation and dust control measures. Non STD No piling shall take place until the method statement has been approved. Non STD Prior to commencement: Noise insulation scheme to protect the amenity of future resident of the development to be agreed. Derbyshire County Council Flood Risk Authority Prior to commencement: Detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of surface water drainage for the site, in accordance with DEFRA Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (March 2015) has been agreed. Non STD Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems and by gravity in accordance with section 6.3.2 of the submitted flood risk assessment dated 14 December 2016 ref 216-232. Nature Conservation

Non STD Details submitted under reserved matters shall include a layout scheme that provides a minimum 8m wide buffer adjoining the bank top of the River Etherow and management plan. The buffer strip shall be free of gardens, buildings and any other structures that would affect vehicular/machine access. Non STD No removal of vegetation or site clearance work shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. Non STD Precautionary Construction Approach: Badgers Prior to commencement: Environmental Compensation Agreement for the minimum required credits, which should be reassessed at a reserved matters stage. Informative(s)

Highways

The Highway Authority recommends that the first 6m of the proposed access driveways should not be surfaced with a loose material (i.e. unbound chippings or gravel etc.). In the event that loose material is transferred to the highway and is regarded as a hazard or nuisance to highway users the Authority reserves the right to take any necessary action against the landowner. Pursuant to Section 163 of the Highways Act 1980, where the site curtilage slopes down towards the public highway/ new estate street measures shall be taken to ensure that surface water run-off from within the site is not permitted to discharge across the footway margin. Pursuant to Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, no works may commence within the limits of the public highway without the formal written Agreement of the County Council as Highway Authority. Pursuant to Section 38 and the Advance Payments Code of the Highways Act 1980, the proposed new estate roads should be laid out and constructed to adoptable standards and financially secured. Pursuant to Sections 149 and 151 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant must take all necessary steps to ensure that mud or other extraneous material is not carried out of the site and deposited on the public highway. The application site is adjacent to a Public Right of Way (Footpath number 2 Tintwistle on the Derbyshire Definitive Map). The route must remain unobstructed on its legal alignment at all times and the safety of the public using it must not be prejudiced either during or after development works take place. Under the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004, all works that involve breaking up, resurfacing and / or reducing the width of the carriageway require a notice to be submitted to Derbyshire County Council for Highway, Developer and Street Works. The applicant is advised that to discharge Condition above for details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets that the Local Planning Authority requires a copy of a completed Agreement between the applicant and the Local Highway Authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or the constitution and details of a Private Management and Maintenance Company confirming funding, management and maintenance regimes. Environment Agency

This development may require a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 from the Environment Agency for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within eight metres of the top of the bank of the River Etherow which is designated a ‘main river’. United Utilities

The applicant should note that the site includes a formal right of access to United Utilities for the existing wastewater treatment works which is additional to the current access used by United Utilities. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities' assets and the proposed development. United Utilities offers a fully supported mapping service and we recommend the applicant contact our Property Searches Team at [email protected] to obtain maps of the site. Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further. DCC County Flood Risk

The County Council do not adopt any private SuDS schemes. As such, it should be confirmed prior to commencement of works which organisation will be responsible for SuDS maintenance once the development is completed. Any works in or nearby an ordinary watercourse require may consent under the Land Drainage Act (1991) from the County Council The applicant should demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, the appropriate level of treatment stages from the resultant surface water in line with Table 3.3 of the CIRIA SuDS Manual C697.

The County Council would prefer the applicant to utilise existing landform to manage surface water in mini/sub- catchments. The applicant is advised to contact the County Council’s Flood Risk Management team should any guidance on the drainage strategy for the proposed development be required.

8.2 The recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraphs 186 and 187 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.

8.3 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 Operations Manager – 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.

Location Plan

Indicative Layout Plan