METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 2nd October 2012

Application 11/03071/OUT Application 29th December 2011 Number: Expiry Date:

Application Outline Application Type:

Proposal Outline application for the erection of 2 detached bungalows on approx Description: 0.09ha of land (All matters reserved)

At: Land Between 67 Stone Cross Drive And 1 Roe Croft Close Doncaster

For: J R Beastall,P Wareham,G Bentall

Third Party Reps: 3 Parish: Sprotbrough And Parish Council Ward: Sprotbrough

Author of Report Elizabeth Maw

MAIN RECOMMENDATION: GRANT SUBJECT TO SEC106 LEGAL AGREEMENT 1.0 Reason for Report

1.1 The application is being presented to committee due to the significant public interest shown in the application.

2.0 Proposal and Background

2.1 The proposal seeks outline planning consent for two detached bungalows. All matters are reserved. The application is similar to an application for a detached bungalow in 1995 that was refused and dismissed at appeal.

2.2 The application site is on the junction of Stone Cross Drive and Roe Croft Close, Sprotbrough. The site is between two detached bungalows, on a residential estate and grassed over.

2.3 The land forms part of a site that was granted consent for 37 bungalows in 1976. This site was purposely left undeveloped and allocated on the approved plans as a recreation/play area. The land is within private ownership.

3.0 Relevant Planning History

3.1 Planning history relevant to the consideration of the application includes:

76/323: Erection of 37 bungalows with garages on approx 5.5 acres of land. Granted

95/0583: Outline application for erection of one detached bungalow on approx 0.08 ha of land. Refused for the following reason:

The proposal if granted would result in the unacceptable loss of an area of open space within an area which is presently deficient in public open space to the detriment of the amenity of local residents and contrary to Policy SRL1 and RL4 of the Deposit Draft of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan and Appendix 3 of the adopted Adwick, Bentley Sprotbrough Local Plan.

The refusal was appealed and the inspector dismissed the appeal stating that the small area of open space makes a significant contribution to both the visual quality of the area and to the provision of open space in an area of deficiency.

4.0 Representations

4.1 The application has been publicised by sending letters to adjoining neighbours. A total of three letters were received and an 11 signature petition.

4.2 One letter does not object providing the houses will be bungalows with shallow pitched roofs (similar to existing properties).

4.3 Two letters and an 11 signature petition object to the development. The primary concerns of the objectors are:

The development would deny local children a play area. The alternative play area is over ½ a mile away and accessed via a busy road. The proposal would harm highway safety as no parking is indicated. The proposal is contrary to UDP policies PH 11b, ENV 52 in that two detached dwellings would be incongruous and over dominant. The proposal would harm the green buffer created by this land. There has been no change in circumstances since the appeal decision in 1996.

4.4 Having looked at the objections, these are localised and from residents that immediately surround the site. Occupants of properties 1,3,4,6,2,5 and 8 signed the petition. No other concerns are registered from residents further afield on the remainder of the estate.

5.0 Parish Council

5.1 Sprotbrough and Cusworth Parish Council objected to the development on the grounds that it is the only green wedge in that part of the Parish and it would be an over intensive development.

6.0 Relevant Consultations

6.1 Neighbourhood Manager: They are under the impression that the land in question is currently a DMBC open green space and would have been provided as green space when the site was developed instead of 106 funding.

6.2 Natural Environment Team (Public Open Space): If the ‘open space’ is not protected either through a covenant or legal agreement, it has little value as a children’s play space, but does provide a green space to improve the visual amenity of the area. It is also important to consider who ultimately owns the land and is responsible for the management and maintenance.

A final question to consider is does the land have any public value to the local community? This can be assessed through community consultation and evidenced within the proposal.

6.3 Water: No objections, subject to conditions.

6.4 Pollution Control: No objections, subject to conditions.

7.0 Relevant Policy and Strategic Context

National Planning Policy Framework

Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring good design

Doncaster Council’s Core Strategy:

CS1: Quality of Life CS2: Growth and Regeneration Strategy CS14: Design and Sustainable Construction CS17: Providing Green Infrastructure

Saved Doncaster Unitary Development Plan:

PH11: Residential Uses and Residential Policy Areas RL2: Protection of Non Designated Open Space

8.0 Planning Issues and Discussion

Principle of Development

8.1 In 1976, permission was granted for 37 houses which now form two roads called Roe Croft Close and Stone Cross Drive. The 1976 approved site plan shows the application site to be labelled as ‘recreation/play area’.

8.2 When checking the 1976 application file, the notes seem to indicate that it was the policy of the Local Planning Authority to only grant large housing sites that included an area of Public Open Space. This was the reason for keeping this site undeveloped and labelled as a recreation/play area.

8.3 The land is in private ownership and has been maintained by the owners by periodically cutting the grass.

8.4. The land allocation of the site is residential policy area and therefore acceptable in principle. However, the site was originally allocated as a recreation/ play area so is protected by policy RL2 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan 1998. This policy seeks to protect non designated open space and states “the development…of open space not designated as an open space will not be permitted if it would have an adverse impact on the use of the open space for any of the following: a) As a facility for casual play b) As a buffer between incompatible uses c) As a visual/ environmental amenity

8.5 Officers would not normally support development of non designated open spaces due to the conflict with saved policy RL2. However, the retention of the site as an open space raises several issues:

* When the site was granted planning permission in 1976, there were no conditions imposed to secure the long term retention of the open space. Therefore, if the application is refused there is a risk that the owner will fence off the land and leave it to become overgrown. This however has not been the case since the 1996 planning appeal was dismissed.

* The site is too small to be used for leisure, sport, recreation or children’s play. The only infrastructure it could accommodate is a small children’s play area but this would be inappropriate because it is so close to dwellings and the council could not control this given its private land.

* The land stands on the junction of two estate roads and between residential properties so it is poorly located.

* If the original housing development was being considered under present planning policy the authority would not allow this area of open space. Instead, we would be asking for a monetary contribution because the land is inappropriately located as Public Open Space and it is too small. It is also uneconomic for the Council to adopt and maintain small areas of greenery around the borough. 8.5 Given the historic allocation of the site, some local residents feel aggrieved that it is now under threat for development. The objection letters also state the site has a positive aesthetic value acting as a green buffer on the estate. They also state that the land is used extensively by children on the estate and it is the only local play area. The nearest other play area is across a busy main road.

8.6 To support the application, the agent has not necessarily disagreed with the objectors but raised additional points that require consideration. The agent’s case is that the land is too small for a children’s play area and it is unsuitably located between two dwellings. Furthermore, the land is privately owned and has only been maintained due to the goodwill of the owner. The agent also points out that the land is in private ownership and in the absence of any conditions on the 1976 consent to secure the long term retention of the open space; anyone using the land is actually trespassing. The applicant is also willing to make a monetary contribution equalling to 10% of the site value and this money would be spent on the enhancement of other public open space in the area as a way to off set the loss.

8.7 The final consideration in terms of the principle is a refusal of planning permission in 1995 and subsequent dismissal at appeal. The planning inspector who dismissed this appeal considered the amenity value of the site in terms of it creating a pleasant open aspect at the junction between the two roads, whilst affording views of the open countryside beyond. Little has changed in this respect. Also in policy terms the designation of the land is still the same and the area is still deficient in Public Open Space.

8.8 Therefore, the key consideration is to assess if this site is still used in the same way it was back in the 1990’s and whether the prospect of an off-site contribution is sufficient to tip the balance in favour of supporting the scheme. Officers consider that despite the 1996 inspectors officers decision, combined with the fall back position of the applicant i.e. being able to fence it off, the site may benefit from being developed and a contribution being made to improve facilities in the vicinity of the site.

The Public Open Space Contribution

8.9 When considering new small residential schemes of more than 10 dwellings it is normal practice for the developer to contribute towards the provision of public open space within the vicinity of the site via a financial contribution. This is normally determined if the area is deficient or not. In this case the area is deficient and therefore 10% would be used. Given that this proposal plans on removing an area of open space, the applicant is willing to make a contribution of 10% of the sites value so that an area of open space could be improved locally. A financial contribution was considered in the 1996 as the inspector states ‘ I am also mindful of your clients’ offer of a financial contribution to the upkeep of the Parish Council’s playing fields’, however no details of this amount is available and the upkeep of playing fields would not result in any direct improvement of Public Open Space locally. The proposed contribution in this case would be funds which could be spent within a reasonable time period and result in new equipment for instance at New Lane recreation ground. It is on this basis that members must consider the proposal to reach a view whether this contribution would offset any harm to the visual character of the area and loss of open space to this part of the estate.

Character and Appearance

8.10 Both national and local planning policy aim to create homes that are well designed and in keeping with the local area.

8.11 The proposal is an infill development so any dwellings would need to ensure they fit with the existing street scene. The agent has asked that all matters are reserved so the design, footprint and siting would be assessed at a later date. However, officers are confident that two dwellings could be designed to fit in with the street scene and the description states that the granting of the application would be for bungalows only.

8.12 Objectors and the Parish Council feel that the site should be retained as it is because it is the only wedge of greenery in the area. This view was also supported by the inspector who considered the site provides a pleasant contrast to the built-up nature of its surroundings. Whilst this greenery and pleasant view would be lost as a result of this proposal, its contribution to the over setting of the estate is limited and an appropriately designed pair of bungalows would have no detrimental long term impact to the estate.

Impact to Residential Amenity and Highway Safety

8.13 Although the application is in outline form only, the likelihood is that two bungalows will be positioned alongside each other and their main elevations face north and south. This means that there will be no significant impact to residential amenity by way of overlooking and overshadowing. The neighbours either side will notice a change in their living conditions because houses will be on both sides. However, this situation would not significantly harm their residential amenity.

8.14 In terms of highway safety, the access roads are estate roads and unclassified. The planning conditions suggested will ensure that access and parking achieves approved standards.

9.0 Summary and Conclusion

9.1 The site can suitably accommodate 2 well designed detached bungalows, without causing harm to the character of the area, highway safety or residential amenity.

9.2 A financial contribution secured by a section 106 legal agreement will ensure that a public open space within the vicinity of the site is upgraded to offset the loss caused by the removal of this proposal site. The key consideration for members is to assess whether a monetary contribution and the other risks involved with the refusal of the application, primarily the applicants right to fence off the land and stop it being used as open space or a green buffer. It is on this basis that an ‘on balance’ recommendation of approval is made.

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT outline planning permission subject to a S106 and the following conditions.

01. STAT2 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:- i) The expiration of three years from the date of this permission or ii) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or in the case of different dates the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. REASON Condition required to be imposed by Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. STAT3 In the case of the reserved matters, application for approval must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. REASON Condition required to be imposed by Section 92(as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03. STAT4 Approval of the details of the access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the site (hereinafter referred to as reserved matters) shall be obtained from the local planning authority before the commencement of any works. REASON To enable the local planning authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

04. MAT1 Before the development commences, samples of the proposed external materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials. REASON To ensure that the materials are appropriate to the area in accordance with policy CS14 of the Doncaster Core Strategy.

05. U32116 The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. REASON In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage

06. U32117 No piped discharge of surface water from the application site shall take place until works to provide a satisfactory outfall for surface water have been completed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before development commences. REASON To ensure that the site is properly drained and surface water is not discharged to the foul sewerage system which will prevent overloading.

07. HIGH1 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be surfaced, drained and where necessary marked out in a manner to be approved in writing by the local planning authority. REASON To ensure adequate provision for the disposal of surface water and ensure that the use of the land will not give rise to mud hazards at entrance/exit points in the interests of public safety. 08. HIGH11 The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until a crossing over the footpath/verge has been constructed in accordance with a scheme previously approved in writing by the local planning authority. REASON To avoid damage to the verge.

09. MAT4 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials, height, and type of boundary treatment to be erected on site, including any gates. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, the details as approved shall be completed before the occupation of any buildings on site. REASON To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

Reasons(s) for Granting Planning Permission:

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PERMISSION

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

Having regard to the policies and Doncaster Council's Core Strategy 2011-2028 and the saved Doncaster Unitary Development Plan 1998 policies set out below, and all relevant material planning considerations:

National Planning Policy Framework

Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring good design

Doncaster Council’s Core Strategy:

CS1: Quality of Life CS2: Growth and Regeneration Strategy CS14: Design and Sustainable Construction CS17: Providing Green Infrastructure

Saved Doncaster Unitary Development Plan:

PH11: Residential Uses and Residential Policy Areas RL2: Protection of Non Designated Open Space

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 proposed residential development is acceptable. In particular, the Local Planning Authority is of the view that its accordance with the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, Doncaster Council's Core Strategy and the saved policies of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan.

The site can suitably accommodate 2 well designed detached bungalows, without causing harm to the character of the area, highway safety or residential amenity. A financial contribution secured by a section 106 legal agreement will ensure that a public open space within the vicinity of the site is upgrade to offset the loss caused by the removal of this proposal site.

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 viewed on the Council's Website www.doncaster.gov.uk/planningapplicationsonline.

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: Indicative Site Plan

Appendix 2: Site Photo’s and google street view images

Appendix 3: Google Earth image