METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 20th July 2010

Schedule No. 2.

Application 08/02506/RET Application 13th October 2008 Number: Expiry Date:

Application Retention of Development (Section 73A) Type:

Proposal Retention of an ornamental lake and restoration of pre-subsidence land Description: levels (Being amendment to application granted under Ref 03/5243/P on 10.01.2007)

At: Willow Farm Doncaster Road Branton Doncaster

For: Mr J Turner

Third Party Reps: 5 Parish: Cantley With Branton Parish Council Ward:

Author of Report Gareth Stent

MAIN RECOMMENDATION: Planning Permission GRANTED 1.0 Reason for Report

1.1 This application is being presented to committee due to the significant public interest shown in the application and the significant impact the proposal has on the natural environment. In addition the related planning application 03/5243/P was determined by planning committee.

2.0 Proposal and Background

2.1 This application is a retention application seeking to retain an ornamental lake and restore land levels to pre subsidence levels. The application is the resubmission of application 03/5243/P that was granted by the planning committee on the 10th January 2007.

2.2 The application is necessary as the 2007 permission included several planning conditions, namely condition 1 which stated:

Within 6 months of the date of this consent, ground levels shall be restored to those shown on drawing 50663-1 Issue A attached to this grant of planning consent, to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the removal of material from the site, the location for the re-deposit of material shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. No material shall be deposited within a floodplain unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To restore the flood storage capacity and flood flow conveyance of the floodplain.

2.3 The applicant due to a variety of circumstances, which will be explained later in the report, was unable to comply with this condition. As a result the Local Planning Authority served the applicant with an enforcement notice requiring compliance.

2.4 This current application was submitted with a Flood Risk model prepared by Weetwood Engineering Consultants in an attempt to convince the Environment Agency that the importation of material onto the site would not cause unnecessary flooding of the surrounding land. This is because the site was part of an active flood plain and the raising of land levels back to pre subsidence levels would take the land out of the flood plain and displace its flood water storage capacity. The initial model prepared by Weetwood failed to convince the Environment Agency that this flooding of surrounding properties would not occur and therefore the Environment Agency maintained their objection. This has led to several months of delay as the applicant instructed an alternative company i.e. Thomas Mackay to prepare a new model. This has been accepted by the Environment Agency who has since withdrawn their objection. The application is now ready for determination on this basis.

3.0 Relevant History

3.1 A detached stables/garage/store was granted under reference 01/21/0836/P, in addition to a replacement dwelling granted under reference 01/05/2731/P on the 27 December 2001. A further permission for a stables/garage/store under reference 02/21/5125/P was granted 4th February 2003.

3.2 This application to consider the initial lake was made in 2003 under reference 03/5243/P- Retention of an ornamental lake, alterations to vehicular access, temporary siting of storage containers and associated landscaping. This was granted 10.01.2007. An application for a hotel complex on the site under reference 05/02653/OUTM- was refused on the 04.11.2005.

4.0 Representations

4.1 There have been multiple representations from neighbours and local councillor regarding this site. Many have reiterated previous concerns expressed on the 03/5243/P application and several residents including the Parish councils have kept track of the progression of the application.

4.2 The concerns that have been raised include,

* This land is a Functional Flood Plain and the raising of the land will cause flood risk to adjoining properties.

* Concerns over the applicants future intentions for the site, i.e. a new road way and commercial storage, running a business from home.

* Concerns over the length of time this matter is taking to resolve.

* Concerns over the hours of work, soil being delivered at unsociable hours, the constant noise and disturbance the residents have had to endure.

* The works have destroyed the SSI and associated habitat.

5.0 Auckley and Branton Parish Council

5.1 Both Parish councils have made several representations on this application and have consistently observed the application’s progress. The concerns are very similar to the views expressed by the adjoining residents, concerning flooding, ecological implications of the applicant’s works, the length of time taken to resolve this matter. These responses are not directly quoted due to their length and number received.

6.0 Relevant Consultations

6.1 Highways: No objections but suggested the applicant should provide adequate on site wheel wash facilities at the point of access in order to avoid the deposition of mud/dust on the public highway. This was for the large part observed, as the applicant laid a hard surface at the entrance to the site and hosed down lorries leaving the site after complaints of dust and mud were received. This is no longer needed as the majority of the earth working movements have now ceased.

6.2 Finningley IDB: Outside the boundary of the , therefore no observations to make.

6.3 Environment Agency: The initial Environment Agency response, dated 29th October 2009, detailed a number of inadequacies in the flood risk investigative work undertaken to inform this planning application. Since then, Thomas Mackay Associates have reviewed the work in light of the Environment Agency’s previous comments in an attempt to remedy the existing inadequacies. On the basis of this revised work, the Environment Agency are now able to withdraw their objection on flood risk grounds. The Flood Risk Assessment is now proportionate to the nature and scale of the development proposed and, in the Environment Agency’s view, forms a suitable basis on which to consider the application.

6.4 Fire & Rescue: No observations.

6.5 Trees: No objections.

6.6 South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service. Information was provided as to the subsidence issues however no objections to the scheme were raised.

6.7 Doncaster Naturalists: Object to the application based on the fact that no environmental information is submitted with the application. Presence of water voles and Great Crested newts on the site is likely. The site is part of the River Torne Valley SSI and as yet no mitigation for loss of habitat and associated wildlife has occurred. Also concerns over the validity of some of the subsidence claims. In addition they were surprised that Peel Holdings has not raised issue of the risk of bird strike with such a stretch of open water so close to the airport. Finally the naturalist society question whether the disruption, cost and disturbance to the landscape of this scheme is worth it. The creation of wetland habitats of ecological value along the Torne would be a better aim, which would be in keeping with Doncaster’s Biodiversity targets.

6.8 Environmental Planning Group: The site lies within a mineral safeguarding area UDP policy M4. Non- minerals development is not normally allowed in a mineral safeguarding area as non-minerals development could sterilise a deposit of a mineral of limited occurrence such as sharp sand and gravel. Normally non- minerals development would only be permitted if the mineral was extracted prior to development taking place (in accordance with policy M5). However, in this particular instance, as the proposal covers such a small area, it is unlikely that extracting the minerals would be viable. It may be that mineral was extracted from the site to form the pond anyway so has not been sterilised.

6.9 Yorkshire Water: The proposed site overlies the Sherwood Sandstone aquifer from which YWS abstract groundwater for public water supply. The site falls within groundwater Source Protection Zone II (outer catchment zone), as defined by the Environment Agency (EA), of the Nutwell groundwater source. YWS therefore have concerns with regard to groundwater protection and potential pollution risks arising from the proposed activities. The development activities at the site may pose potential pollution risks to groundwater. The main period of risk is the construction phase, during periods of ground disturbance and increased risk of hydrocarbon pollution from plant vehicles on site. Post-construction, pollution risks from such a site arise mainly from drainage issues including car park run-off, the risk of hydrocarbon spillage and foul drainage. Our records indicate an abandoned water main crosses the site.

6.10 Ecology: A Mitigation scheme required, in the form of new habitat areas to include wildlife ponds, marshy areas and scrub, to be created to redress to some degree the damage done to SSI Torne Valley 4.48. Impacts on the SSI have been significant due to the development already undertaken. However the SSI still exists and ENV41 requires that the intrinsic nature if the site is protected by developments such as this. Given that damage has already been done to the SSI, ENV42 requires compensatory measures to redress to some degree the damage that has been done.

6.11 An ecological assessment of the site was undertaken by the current owner following the approval in 2007 and a mitigation scheme agreed. This was never carried out due to the outstanding subsidence issues and the site being flooded in 2007, therefore the council's ecologist agrees that a new mitigation condition will need imposing and through this condition will determine the most appropriate method of enhancing the biodiversity of the site.

7.0 Relevant Policy and Strategic Context

7.1 The site falls within the Countryside Policy Area of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan. The site is a designated SSI.

7.2 National Planning Policy relevant to the consideration of this application includes:

PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

Local Planning Policy relevant to the consideration of this application includes:

ENV 4 - Development within the Countryside Policy Area. ENV 41 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation. ENV 42 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation. ENV17 - Areas of Special Landscape Value. ENV18 - Landscape Conservation. ENV 39 - Sites of International Nature Conservation. ENV 40 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

8.0 Planning Issues and Discussion

8.1 This matter has now been ongoing since 2003 and it is important to understand why this has occurred. The original application was submitted in August 2003 for the erection of office/store, car park in connection with proposed market garden and construction of a fishing lake. The applicant at that time then proceeded to dig the lakes without waiting formal planning approval and the application was underdetermined because of the applicant's inability to satisfy the Environment Agency with regard to Flood Risk.

8.2 The site then changed ownership to the current owner (Mr J Turner) who reconfigured the land and lakes in 2006 onwards. This activity generated new interest in the outstanding application and enabled it to be progressed to a decision in January 2007. The application was approved by planning committee and several conditions were attached prevent the applicant running a business from the site, controlling the stay of the containers on the land, the provision of a ecological mitigation scheme and finally a condition requiring the applicant revert the land levels back to those shown on a land levels survey that accompanied an application for a hotel on this site. The intention was that the Environment Agency would allow the lake, providing that the land levels reverted back to those shown on the land levels survey. The applicant was given six months in which to carry this activity out. The reason why the condition was imposed was to restore the flood storage capacity to the flood plain.

8.3 Work then continued into 2007, however the banks of the River Torne burst in June 2007 in the summer floods, leaving the whole site damaged and the waters came up to the applicants residential property on the site. This coincided with the Local Planning Authority serving Mr Turner with an enforcement notice and stop notice that prevented material being brought onto the site, due to none compliance with condition 1 of the 2003 permission. The Local Planning Authority then attempted to enforce the land levels survey plan as conditioned, however this proved difficult. The Local Planning Authority agreed with the applicant that a new planning application would be necessary to address the issue of land levels, hence this application. 8.4 It is important to reaffirm that the lake already has permission and the matters which are outstanding are concerning the finished land levels within the site. The applicant also agreed an ecological a management plan following the approval in 2007, however work has never been completed on the site and this has yet to be implemented.

8.5 Finally since the 2007 floods the applicant has raised the land levels in accordance with the schemed being applied for, however over recent months work has stopped, following the production of several detailed flooding reports.

8.6 Therefore the main issues for consideration are the impact of the works on the flood plain, the visual impact of the rise in land levels on the character of the rural landscape and finally the ecological impact the works have had to the SSI.

Flood Risk

8.7 This issue is the most complicated part of the proposal, however simplistically the site lies within a Flood Plain. The flood plain is the storage capacity of the land around the River Torne, which under normal circumstances absorbs additional waters in the event of floods. By heightening the level of the land, this removes its capacity to take flood waters, thereby increasing the potential for other land to be flooded. The applicant has now successfully proven via the flooding model that taking this land out of the floodplain will not significantly exacerbate flooding elsewhere as shown in appendix 2. PPS 25 suggests that all new development should not increase flood risk, however in this instance the increase risk to people and property is low and any additional flooding caused by this development will only affect agricultural land in the most extreme of circumstances.

8.8 To assess the impact of flooding, the applicant has employed two flooding and drainage consultants, who have produced comprehensive flood modelling assessments. The environment agency has assessed this information particularly the original report and its deficiencies then more latterly the report by Thomas Mackay Associates and were able to withdraw their objection on flood risk grounds. The Flood Risk Assessment is now proportionate to the nature and scale of the development proposed and, in their view, forms a suitable basis on which to consider the application.

8.9 The Environment Agency pointed out that flooding model summaries the predicted impacts of the proposed development when compared against the baseline post- subsidence, pre-works scenario. The River Torne Flood Modelling Study, shows that in all of the flooding events the proposed development is likely to increase predicted flooding in a number of locations as a result of the proposed development.

8.10 The predicted increases relate to previously undeveloped areas and are low lying agricultural land, therefore not placing any buildings at greater risk. The FRA also describes how flood depths will increase as a result of the development, particularly upstream. The largest predicted depth increase is 9.8 cm, directly upstream of Willow Farm. Therefore whilst it is confirmed that the development will increase flood risk, this will not be at the expense of people or property. The agency has suggested that the Local Planning Authority contact the land owners to advise them of this potential increase. This is something that has been undertaken, and the majority of the land affected is owned by the Yorkshire Wildlife Park who has confirmed they have no objections to the application. Any views obtained from land owners or any new representations will be reported to committee as pre committee amendments. Appendix 2 shows the extent of the flood waters if Willow Farm is taken out of the floodplain. Subsidence:

8.11 The issue of subsidence is the main reason why the land has become a flood plain as it was historical farmed. The site and adjoining land has subsided over recent years and the applicant and Local Planning Authority have tried to establish why this has occurred and to what extent. Inference is made that the removal of water from the underground aquifers may have caused them the collapse, leading to subsidence. The authority has been in contact with the mining service to understand if the coal seems that run under the site may have caused subsidence. The Local Authority and applicant have records of the road, bridge and weir subsiding, all of which support the argument that the land is in retreat. Therefore the issue of subsidence is no longer disputed; however the question has always remained as to what extent. In addition, just because land subsides, this does not necessarily mean that it is the land owner’s right to reinstate the land. In this case, the applicant having nearly been flooded in 2007, has concentrated his efforts in raising the land to create a flood barrier between himself and the River Torne.

Visual Implications:

8.12 Part of the site that runs along the River Torne bank is designated as an Area of Special landscape Value. ENV 17 suggests that development will only be permitted where it would not detract from the visual character of the area.

8.13 The raising of the land level has had a visual impact on the character of the surrounding landscape. The creation of earth bunds are not natural features within the pastoral landscape and are to be avoided. The up to date photographs contained within appendix 5, show the extent of the land increase and its visual impact. This is an important consideration, however regard must be had as to the finished appearance of the land. The site over recent years has looked very unsightly due to the sheer amount of earth works, however the site is now nearing completion, with large parts of the new earth forms being grassed and landscaped. The lake has been lined with reeds (as shown in photo 2 of appendix 5) and only small parts of the site are unfinished. Due to the time of year the river bank is heavily vegetated, however the difference in land levels to the site and surrounding land is not as contrasting as originally feared. It is therefore considered that the over visual impact of the scheme is acceptable and no significant conflict with ENV 17 exists.

Ecological implications:

8.14 Part of the site is a designated SSI. The designation splits the land and follows the River Torne. Policies ENV41 and ENV 42 suggests that where new development would have an adverse affect on the SSI, Local Planning Authorities must carefully assess the reasons for granting permissions with a view to safeguarding the intrinsic conservation value of the site. The granting of the 03/5243/P application included the following condition to address the loss to parts of the SSI i.e.

Within 3 months of the approval, an Ecological Impact Assessment (following the guidelines of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management) shall be carried out and the outcome along with full mitigation and compensation measures shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The compensatory measures shall be implemented within 6 months of the date of the approval unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To mitigate for the already significant loss of habitat to the SSI. 8.15 An ecological assessment of the site was undertaken following the approval, however was never implemented due to the site being flooded and earth works that continued up until this present day. The lake and landscape once finished will attract new sources of local wildlife, however the ecologist still feels that additional mitigation is required. It is on this basis that a mitigation condition will be attached to the permission requiring additional work were necessary. This will be a matter for the applicant and ecologist to agree a suitable strategy. This will also go some way to overcoming the concerns expressed by the Doncaster Naturalists Society.

Other matters:

8.16 The previous permission included the provision for the siting of two steel containers on the site. These were necessary to store plant and equipment on the land during the earth moving works. These were conditioned for removal 6 months after the decision to approve the application was taken, however these still remain on site and have increased to 3. The containers currently store equipment used in connection with the earth working movements and due to their limited visual impact can remain on site until works are complete. This falls in line with Part 4 Class A ‘temporary moveable structures’ of the GPDO. As soon as the containers are no longer necessary or the earth works are complete, then the applicant will be contacted requiring their removal.

8.17 The applicant has also constructed a road way through the site, which has primarily been necessary so that the HGV vehicles delivering the materials can access the rear part of the site. Also a hard surfaced area was necessary so that mud wasn’t deposited onto the carriageway, however this did occur in the heavy weather when lots of material was being brought onto the site. Nevertheless the condition on the 2003 permission prohibited any new road ways being created and as such the road is unauthorised. Photo 5 of appendix 5 shows the road.

8.18 In the consultation response from the Naturalists society, reference was made to the possible need to consult Robin Hood airport, due to the large expanse of water within the site and the likelihood that it will attract large birds to the area and n turn cause flight safety issues. This issue was very apparent at the Walkers nursery site, however the Walkers Nursery site was much closes to the runway and flight paths of the airport. Nevertheless the airport has been consulted and any response from RHADS will be presented as a pre committee item. Finally on this point it is important to clarify once again that the lake has permission under the 2003 application and the impact of the lake and its attraction for large birds was not considered in the granting of the original application in 2007, however given the increased popularity of the adjacent airport, the authority considered it only right to consult them.

Conditions:

8.19 The Environment agency wished to impose a condition requiring completion of the works within a specific time frame i.e. 12 weeks following the decision, however conditioning completion will not pass the test of circular on planning conditions. The applicant can under his own time complete the works as with any planning approval once a start has been made. Finally a landscape condition was added to the previous approval, however this condition does not need imposing as the site has already been grassed and planted. 9.0 Summary and Conclusion

9.1 Following the approval of the lake in 2007, the flooding model prepared by the applicant has successfully proven that the risk to people and property as a result of raising the land levels within the site will be low. The Environment Agency has since withdrawn its longstanding objection to the proposal. The act of raising the land has had a visual impact on the character of the surrounding landscape, however this has not significantly detracted form the wider countryside setting. Finally the works within the site have changed the ecological value of the site and mitigation to address the loss of SSI habitat is recommended. The application is therefore compliant with the aims of PPS 25 (Flooding), ENV 17 Landscape Protection and ENV 41-42 (Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance).

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT Full Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:-

01. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings by Weetwood Environmental Engineering:- Reference 981/MCL - ‘Propose (sic) Ground Levels (mAOD): Cross- sections’, dated 18/07/08; Reference 981/JMH/proposed_large – ‘Proposed Ground Levels (mAOD)’ dated 15/07/08; Reference 981/JMH_shading_large - ‘Proposed Ground Levels (mAOD)’, dated 25/07/08. REASON: To ensure flood risk is not increased unacceptably elsewhere.

02. The lake hereby approved shall have no pump or other water feature installed within it unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON In the interests of visual amenity.

03. Within 6 months of the approval, an ecological mitigation scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The compensatory measures shall be implemented within 6 months of the date of the approval unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To mitigate for the already significant loss of habitat to the SSI.

04. No trade or business shall be carried out from the site. The lake hereby approved shall be used solely as an ornamental balancing pond and for no other purpose. No fishing shall take place within the lake unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON In the interests of preserving the character and SSI and in the interests of protecting the landscape. Reasons(s) for Granting Planning Permission:

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PERMISSION

The Local Planning Authority has decided to grant planning permission:-

1. Having regard to the policies and proposals in the adopted Doncaster Unitary Development Plan set out below, and all relevant material planning considerations:

ENV 4 - Development within the Countryside Policy Area. ENV 41 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation. ENV 42 - Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation ENV17 - Areas of Special Landscape Value ENV 18 - Landscape Conservation ENV 39 - Sites of International Nature Conservation ENV 40 - Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation.

PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

2. For the following reasons:

Having taken into account all the planning considerations raised in the consultations and representations, against the policy background referred to above, it has been concluded that the retention of the land levels in accordance with pre subsidence levels is acceptable. In particular, the Local Planning Authority is of the view that its accordance with the relevant policies of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan, taken together with advice in the relevant national planning policy guidance, justifies the proposal.

Following the approval of the lake in 2007, the flooding model prepared by the applicant has successfully proven that the risk to people and property as a result of raising the land levels within the site will be low. The Environment Agency has since withdrawn its longstanding objection to the proposal. The act of raising the land has had a visual impact on the character of the surrounding landscape, however this has not significantly detracted form the wider countryside setting. Finally the works within the site have changed the ecological value of the site and mitigation to address the loss of SSI habitat is recommended. The application is therefore compliant with the aims of PPS 25 (Flooding), ENV 17 Landscape Protection and ENV 41-42 (Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance).

N.B. The foregoing Statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to grant permission. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer's Report and the application case file and associated documents, which may be inspected, by appointment, at the offices of the Development and Planning Service (for address see Decision Notice).

The above objections, considerations and resulting recommendation have had regard to Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention for Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation will not interfere with the applicant’s and/or objector’s right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Appendix 1: Site Plan showing maximum flood zones. Appendix 2: shows the maximum flooding occurring with Willow Farm excluded from the flood zone.

The site

Appendix 3: Shows the proposed contours of the site. Appendix 4: Shows the site cross section. Appendix 5: Site Photographs.

Photograph 1.0

Above shows the dwelling on the land and the new grassed area.

Photograph 2.0

Above shows the lake and its new planting. Photograph 3.0

Above is taken from the southern tip of the site. Showing the raised land graded into the lake.

Photograph 4.0

Above shows the proposal looking north east towards the properties on Riverside Gardens and the River Torne.

Photograph 5.0 Above shows the road way leading from the gate.

Photograph 6.0

Above is taken from the southern tip, looking across the lake and grassed verges.

Photograph 7.0 Above shows the River Torne and the River Bank.

Above shows a Google earth image taken September 2008.