Public Document Pack

Simon W. Baker B.Ed MBA MISPAL Chief Executive

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Thursday, 12 April 2018, 2.00 pm The Council Chamber, Moorlands House, Leek

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

SITE VISITS: A coach for Committee Members will leave Moorlands House at 10.00 a.m. prompt on the day of the meeting. Appropriate footwear is recommended.

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 Also please note that speakers need to re-register if an application has been previously withdrawn from an agenda.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

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

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

Please be aware that meetings open to the public may be recorded by representatives of the media or by members of the public. A guidance document for the recording of public Council meetings is available on the Council’s website.

www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk Moorlands House, Stockwell Street, Leek, Staffordshire Moorlands, ST13 6HQ. Tel: 0345 605 3010 Planning Applications Committee - Thursday, 12 April 2018

A G E N D A (Continued)

1. Chair's announcements

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

2. Apologies for absence, if any.

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

(a) To approve as a correct record the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 15 March 2018.

(b) Reports on matters arising, if any.

4. Urgent items, if any.

5. Declarations of Interest

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

6. CAT/2018/0009 - Notification of proposed works to trees within a Conservation Area - Endon Bank, Church Lane, Endon (Pages 13 - 18)

7. SMD/2018/0168 - Land North East of Rivendell Lane, Leek (Pages 19 - 32)

8. SMD/2018/0092 - Former Railway Line, Barnfield Road, Leek (Pages 33 - 58)

9. SMD/2017/0838 - Former Stable Building at Spring Cottage, Greatgate Road, Winnothdale (Pages 59 - 68)

10. Appeals Report (Pages 69 - 74)

11. NOTE - A Late Representations Report will be circulated prior to the meeting i.e. any representations received since this agenda was published.

Published 4 April 2018

Membership of Planning Applications Committee Councillor S Ellis (Chair) Councillor P Roberts (Vice-Chair) Councillor J Davies Councillor M Gledhill Councillor K J Jackson Councillor P Jackson Councillor C R Jebb Councillor L D Lea Councillor G Lockett Councillor I J Lucas Councillor D Ogden Councillor C Pearce Councillor S Scalise Planning Applications Committee - Thursday, 12 April 2018

A G E N D A (Continued)

This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack Agenda Item 3

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING

Minutes

THURSDAY, 15 MARCH 2018

PRESENT: Councillor P J Roberts (Vice-Chair)

Councillors J Davies, M Gledhill, K J Jackson, P Jackson, C R Jebb, G Lockett, I J Lucas, D Ogden and S Scalise

IN ATTENDANCE: Mr. B. Haywood - Operations Manager, Development Services Ms. R. Simpkin - Senior Planning Officer Ms. L. Barrowclough – Planning Officer Mr. S. Massey - Trees & Woodlands Officer Ms. Z. Walker - Legal Advisor, Freeths LLP Mrs. S. Hampton - Democratic Services Officer Mr. P. Trafford - Democratic Services Officer

APOLOGIES: Councillors S Ellis, L D Lea and C Pearce

116 CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

a) The Chair confirmed that the meeting was being broadcast live to the internet and was capable of repeated viewing. The images and sound recording could be used for training purposes within the Council. The Chair had the discretion to terminate or suspend filming if it was his opinion that continuing to do so would prejudice the proceedings of the meeting. It was likely that recording cameras would capture the image of persons seated in the public gallery and that image would become part of the broadcast. Any views expressed by any speaker in the meeting were the speaker’s own and did not necessarily reflect the views of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. b) Members of the Committee and Officers present were introduced by the Chair. c) Agenda Item 11 (SMD/2017/0764 – Rock House Farm, Town End Road, Foxt) had been DEFERRED to the next meeting, to be held on Thursday 12 April 2018.

117 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

RESOLVED – That the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 15 February 2018 be APPROVED as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

118 URGENT ITEMS, IF ANY.

There were no urgent items.

119 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following declarations were madePage at this 5 point, unless stated otherwise:- 1

Planning Applications Committee - 15 March 2018

Member Declaring Agenda Item Nature of Interest Interest Agenda Item 7 – “Other” – Members of Cllrs. Jebb & Roberts SMD/2017/0648 – Conservation Liaison Panel Late Shop, 34 – 36 Picton Street, Leek Cllr. Lockett Lobbied – No response Agenda Item 12 – “Other” – Had assisted at Cllr. Ogden SMD/2018/0061 – Land events at the venue at Springs Cottage Farm, Thorneyedge Cllr. Lockett “Other” – Knows applicant Road, Bagnall Cllrs. Davies, Gledhill, Agenda Item 13 – K. Jackson, P. Jackson, SMD/2018/0041 – “Other” – Applicant is a Jebb, Lockett, Lucas, 348 New Street, fellow District Councillor Ogden, Roberts & Biddulph Moor Scalise Cllrs. Gledhill, K. Jackson, P. Jackson, “Other” – Applicant is a Agenda Item 14 – Jebb, Lockett, Lucas, fellow District Councillor SMD/2018/0048 – Ogden, Roberts & Community Garden, Scalise Station Road, Biddulph Disclosable Pecuniary Cllrs. Davies & Interest – Biddulph Town K. Jackson Councillors

120 APPLICATION TO POLLARD PROTECTED TREES AT 137 WILLOW DRIVE, CHEDDLETON

(Report recommended refusal)

CONSIDERED – A report on an application to pollard two Lime trees at 137 Willow Drive, Cheddleton, protected within Area A1 under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. SM.213. The proposed pollarding would be significantly detrimental to the amenity value currently provided by the application trees as contribution to the well wooded landscape structure of St Edward’s Park. There was nothing to suggest that the trees were likely to fail if the works were not undertaken. The reasons for the application were not considered to justify such work. Pollarding would therefore be in conflict with the Council’s adopted Tree Strategy.

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

(Proposed by Councillor Lockett and seconded by Councillor P. Jackson.)

121 SMD/2017/0648 - LATE SHOP, 34-36 PICTON STREET, LEEK.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER CO-OP SHOP INTO 9 No. APARTMENT UNITS FOR Mr. MARK LODGE. Page 6 2

Planning Applications Committee - 15 March 2018

(Councillors Jebb and Roberts had declared “other” interests. Councillor Lockett had declared a lobbying interest.)

RECEIVED – Representation from the undermentioned speaker:-

Against the application: Mr. Steven Goodwin - Objector

NOTED 1. No objection received from Highways authority.

2. Members agreed that there was a shortage of parking spaces in the area but this was an inconvenience to the public, not a highway safety issue so not deemed to be a reason for refusal.

3. Concerns were also raised regarding the amenity space available for the dwellings.

Councillor Lockett proposed REFUSAL. However, the motion was not seconded.

RESOLVED – That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions and informatives shown in the report.

(Proposed by Councillor P. Jackson and seconded by Councillor Roberts.)

Following the vote, concerns were expressed by the speaker – Mr. Steven Goodwin – and the Chair found it necessary to apologise to other members of the public present following the outburst.

122 SMD/2017/0460 - MILLWARD HALL YOUTH CENTRE, SALISBURY STREET, LEEK.

CONVERSION OF FORMER YOUTH CENTRE BUILDING INTO 16 No. APARTMENTS, EXTENSION TO BUILDING AND REPLACEMENT ROOF FOR CHARLES WAINWRIGHT DEVELOPMENTS LTD. RECEIVED – Representation from the undermentioned speaker:-

For the application: Mr. Carl Croft - Applicant’s Agent

NOTED 1. Late Representations Report (LRR) contained the Financial Viability Report confirming that an affordable housing provision was not viable.

2. Members requested additional conditions for:- a) no bleeper on the electric access gate, and b) detailed design of the bin storage area.

RESOLVED – That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions and informatives shown in the report and the additional conditions referred to above. Page 7 3

Planning Applications Committee - 15 March 2018

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

123 SMD/2017/0696 - LAND AT BRIDGE END, MACCLESFIELD ROAD, LEEK.

RESERVED MATTERS RELATING TO ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING AND SCALE RELATING TO SMD/2013/1099 FOR URBAN Nu LTD. RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application: Mr. Ross Ankers - Objector Miss Cheryl Stead - Objector Mr. Stephen Cartledge - Objector

For the application: Mr. Rob Duncan - Applicant’s Agent

NOTED 1. Late Representations Report (LRR) contained additional conditions regarding:- a) trees, b) badgers and hedgehogs, c) bats, d) breeding birds and e) ecological management plan.

2. The main thrust of objections related to the proposed access road, which was a private unadopted road. The legal advisor confirmed that the matter had previously been dealt with at appeal by the Planning Inspector and could not, therefore, be addressed further. Objectors were advised to contact the access road owners regarding the developers being allowed to use the road for access.

3. A condition was requested for the access to include retention of the historic surface.

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

(Proposed by Councillor Lockett and seconded by Councillor P. Jackson.)

124 SMD/2017/0659 - LAND OFF THE BIRCHES, CHEADLE.

ERECTION OF 39 DWELLINGS FOR MOORLANDS HOMES (CHEADLE) LTD. The following had registered to speak and attended, but agreed to occupy speaker places solely to answer any queries that may arise during consideration of the item:-

Against the application: Mr. Ian Forrester - Objector

For the application: Mrs. Teresa Critchlow - Applicant’s Agent

Page 8 4

Planning Applications Committee - 15 March 2018

NOTED 1. Late Representations Report (LRR) contained request for additional conditions for:- a) ecological design strategy and b) removal of permitted development rights from Plot 29.

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

(Proposed by Councillor Lockett and seconded by Councillor P. Jackson.)

125 SMD/2017/0764 - ROCK HOUSE FARM, TOWN END ROAD, FOXT.**APPLICATION DEFERRED**

REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3 OF PERMISSION SMD/2003/0415 TO ALLOW HOLIDAY LETS TO BE USED AS DWELLINGS FOR Mr. AND Mrs. LOCKWOOD. This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting – DEFERRED to the meeting scheduled for 12 April 2018.

126 SMD/2018/0061 - LAND AT SPRINGS COTTAGE FARM, THORNEYEDGE ROAD, BAGNALL.

ERECTION OF STABLE BLOCK AND MANEGE FOR Dr. LEE PEARSON. (Councillors Lockett and Ogden had declared “other” interests.)

Mr. Rob Duncan had registered to speak FOR the application but declined to do so in the absence of any speakers AGAINST.

NOTED 1. Late Representations Report (LRR) contained 1 further letter of representation.

2. Officer confirmed that this was a reduced, modest scheme from a previous application.

3. Additional condition requested regarding drainage arrangements as the site was flooded when visited that morning.

4. Additional condition requested to ensure that the existing access is blocked off after the new one is constructed and a replacement hedge planted.

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

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

127 SMD/2018/0041 - 348 NEW STREET, BIDDULPH MOOR.

FRONT FACING DORMER TO EXISTINGPage DWELLING 9 FOR Cllr. Mr. J. JONES. 5

Planning Applications Committee - 15 March 2018

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

NOTED - 1. The application was brought before the Committee as the applicant is a Member of the Council. The matter would otherwise have been dealt with under delegated powers.

RESOLVED – That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions shown in the report.

(Proposed by Councillor P. Jackson and seconded by Councillor Scalise.)

128 SMD/2018/0048 - COMMUNITY GARDEN, STATION ROAD, BIDDULPH.

IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA FOR BIDDULPH TOWN COUNCIL. (All Councillors had declared “other” interests. Councillors Davies and K. Jackson had declared disclosable pecuniary interests and left the room, taking no part in the discussion or vote.)

NOTED 1. Late Representations Report (LRR) contained 1 letter of representation.

2. Concerns were raised regarding the use of the fountains overnight and an informative was requested.

RESOLVED – That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions shown in the report and the informative referred to above.

(Proposed by Councillor Scalise and seconded by Councillor Lockett.)

129 APPEALS REPORT.

PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS.

One appeal decision was reported upon, concerning Land between Brook Cottage and Sneyd Arms, Ashbourne Road, Whiston for the erection of a detached dwelling.

The application was refused under delegated powers and the appeal was upheld via a ‘written representations’ appeal, with no costs awarded.

Ben Haywood expressed frustration at the perceived contradiction in opinions from differing Planning Inspectors.

RESOLVED – That the report be NOTED.

The meeting closed at 4.07 pm

Page 10 6

Planning Applications Committee - 15 March 2018

______Chairman ______Date

Page 11 7

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 Agenda Item 6

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Planning Applications Committee

12 April 2018

TITLE: CAT/2018/0009 - Notification of proposed works to trees within a Conservation Area – Endon Bank, Church Lane, Endon

PORTFOLIO: Planning, Development and Property

OFFICER: Steve Massey, Arboricultural Officer

WARD: Brown Edge and Endon

Appendices Attached –

Appendix A: Tree position plan.

1. Recommendation

1.1 Not to make a Tree Preservation Order; and

1.2 To grant consent for the proposed tree work.

Reason for recommendation: In order to allow appropriate work to be carried out which would not be significantly detrimental to public amenity nor to the character of the Conservation Area.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Notification has been received from the owner Mr H Jebb relating to proposed work to trees at his property Endon Bank, Church Lane, Endon which is situated within the Endon Conservation Area. The trees are not protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

2.2 Such notifications are normally dealt with under officers’ delegated powers, when either consent is granted if the proposals are considered acceptable or a TPO is made to provide specific long term protection if the proposed work is considered inappropriate. However, in this case the matter is reported to Planning Applications Committee in the interests of openness and transparency, in view of the position of Mr Jebb’s spouse Cllr Mrs C Jebb as a serving elected member of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.

Page 13 2.3 The notified work is detailed in Section 4 of this report, but in summary comprises a combination of some felling and some pruning of a number of overcrowded trees within an overgrown hedgeline. This is principally to address encroachment and over-bearing impact of these trees on the adjacent property Oak Gate, Church Lane.

2.4 It is considered that the trees proposed for felling are of poor quality and are not important to the character of the Conservation Area, and their loss would not be harmful to wider public amenity. It is considered that proposed pruning to other trees would not be detrimental to their amenity value. A substantial hedgeline including the better quality trees would still be retained along this boundary. These proposals are not considered to be in conflict with the Council’s adopted Tree Strategy.

2.5 As the proposed works are considered to be acceptable, it is recommended that it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to make a TPO, and appropriate to grant consent.

3. Implications

3.1 Community Safety - (Crime Nil. and Disorder Act 1998)

3.2 Employees Nil.

3.3 Equalities This report has been prepared in accordance with the Council's Equal Opportunities policy.

3.4 Financial Nil.

3.5 Legal Nil.

3.6 Sustainability Granting consent would have no significant adverse impact on local or national environmental protection objectives.

Keith Parker Head of Operational Services

Background Papers Location Contact Applicant’s notification Operational Services Steve Massey Ref: CAT/2018/0009 Fowlchurch Depot Tel: (01538) Leek 395788

Page 14 Decision:

Reason:

Interests Declared:

4. Background and Detail

4.1 The proposed work to trees is detailed as follows, with reference to the tree positions as shown on the plan attached at Appendix A. Officer comments follow in italics.

i. T1 (Ash) – remove only the south-easterly scaffold limb. The tree is significantly unbalanced, with 3 main scaffold limbs forming the crown, all leaning towards the neighbour’s house. The limb closest to and leaning furthest towards the house is to be removed, leaving a better balanced crown.

ii. T2, T3 and T4 (all Sycamores) and T4A (Ash) – fell to ground level. These 4 trees within the hedgeline are alongside the neighbour’s house and have all previously been topped. They have re-grown misshapen, unbalanced low crowns with branches directly encroaching onto the roof. Their removal would not be detrimental to amenity.

iii. T5 (Ash) and T6 (Holly) – fell to ground level. These trees are again alongside the house and encroaching; this would be acceptably addressed by removing them.

iv. H1 (group of younger Holly) and T7 (mature Holly) – reduce height. These Hollies would be better managed as a tall hedge to limit impact on the adjacent property.

v. T8 (Ash) – remove longer lateral branch growing over the corner of the garden of Oak Gate and towards the roof of 11 Parkside Crescent. This pruning would address the issue of the encroaching branch whilst retaining a better quality tree.

vi. T9 (Ash) – fell tree to ground level. An overcrowded tree struggling for space, and consequently grown notably one-sided over the garden of Oak Gate and towards the house at 11 Parkside Crescent. Its removal would benefit adjacent trees.

vii. T10 (Sycamore) – fell tree. Another tree which has previously been topped and re-grown a misshapen, unbalanced low crown, growing towards the roof of 11 Parkside Crescent. Its removal would also not be detrimental to amenity.

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Endon Bank, Church Lane, Endon - Tree Position Plan APPENDIX A ¯

54

C H Six Ashes U R C H L A T1 N E T2 T3 T4 T4A Endon Bank T5

11 T6 T7 T8 H1 T9 T10

Oak

Gate

1 1 Sunny

Bank

Thorn

Bank T 6 N 1 E C S E R C E ID S K 1 R A PT N E 2 C 1 ES R C

DE Key SI RK 8 PA Conservation Areas Page 17

0 5 Metres Date: 22nd March 2018 © Crown copyright and database rights 2018 Ordnance Survey 100018384. Scale: 1:500 @A4 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

12th April 2018

Application SMD/2018/0168 No:

Location Land on the North East side of Rivendell Lane, Leek.

Proposal Proposed Erection of 2 no. Detached, Two-storey Dwellings. Resubmission of SMD/2017/0038

Applicant Birchendel Holdings Ltd.

Agent Mr. R. Duncan

Parish/Ward Leek East Date registered 14/3/2018

If you have a question about this report please contact: Mrs L. Jackson [email protected]

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE

REFERRAL

The application is brought before Planning Committee due to residential development previously being a contentious matter in this area and the fact that the previous application (SMD/2017/0038) was determined by members of the Planning Committee.

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The application site is a vacant parcel of land roughly rectangular in shape and narrowing in width towards the North West of the plot. The land is sited adjacent to Rivendell Lane and has an approximate 82m wide roadside frontage. The site has recently been cleared of undergrowth and a boundary hedgerow has been planted. The land rises upwards and slopes away from the rear of the pavement, it rises in height towards the northern, narrowest part of the plot. Rivendell Road rises towards the west. Dwellings opposite the application site are on a lower level than the road behind their respective roadside boundaries. There is a single Post box just in front of the application site which would be retained and a sub-station towards the north-west of the site which would also remain in situ. The character of the area is that of spaciousness with detached dwellings of differing sizes and design within the surrounding area, all with private amenity spaces and off road parking.

Page 19 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

2.1 This is a Full planning application for the erection of two detached dwellings, both with private outdoor amenity space and off-road parking. Plot 1 is located to the south-east of the application site at the corner/junction of Rivendell Lane and Birchall Lane. The dwelling has a split level appearance; living accommodation would be spread over two floors consisting of kitchen, dining room, lounge, WC, four bedrooms (two with ensuite), separate bathroom and utility room. Storage would be provided within the roof space. An integral garage would be located at lower ground floor level. Vehicular access to Plot 1 would be directly off Birchall Lane with off-road parking facilities to the front of the house. External amenity space would mainly be located to the north-west and south-east of the dwelling and would consist of garden’s, patio’s and areas of planting.

2.2 The Plot 2 dwelling would offer kitchen, dining room, lounge, utility, WC and internal garage accommodation whilst on the first floor there would be three bedrooms (master with ensuite) and a separate bathroom. Similar to Plot 1, the dwelling would have a split-level appearance. Vehicular access to Plot 2 would be taken from Rivendell Lane at the north-western end of the plot; external amenity space (gardens/patios) would be located to each side of the proposed dwelling.

2.3 Proposed building materials are Staffordshire Blue tiles and a mix of facing brickwork and white/cream render, all of which could be controlled by condition.

2.4 The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement and a copy of an appeal decision which allowed an outline application (one detached dwelling) at Deepdale, Birchall Lane. Members are encouraged to read these documents prior to the meeting. The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, any comments made by residents and the responses of consultees can be found on the Council’s website at:- http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet? PKID=121740

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2551 (Leek Urban District): Outline application for Proposed Residential Development, Land off Birchall lane, Leek. Approved.

SMD/2017/0038 Proposed erection of 2 No. detached two-storey dwellings and new vehicular access. Refused.

Application reference 2551 (Leek Urban District) allowed Outline planning permission for 18 housing plots within the Birchall Lane and Rivendell Road area. Many of these plots have now been built upon and the land which is the subject of this application is identified as plot 16.

4. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

4.1 The Development Plan comprises:-

. Saved Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan Proposals Map/Settlement Boundaries (Adopted 1998)

Page 20 . The Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted 26th March 2014) . The Minerals Local Plan (Adopted December 1999) Saved Policies 2007 . Staffordshire & Stoke-in-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (Adopted March 2013)

Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Adopted March 2014)

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

. SS1 Development Principles . SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development . SS5a Leek Area Strategy . SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources . H1 New Housing Development . H2 Affordable and Local Needs Housing . DC1 Design Considerations . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

4.3 The following NPPF sections are relevant;

Paragraphs 1-17 Section 1: Delivering Sustainable Development Section 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 6: Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes Section 7: Requiring Good Design Section 11: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

National Planning Policy Guidance

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Space About Dwellings. Design Principles for Development in the Staffordshire Moorlands

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Press Notice (Leek Post & Times) Expiry date for comments: 25/04/2018

Site Notice Expiry date for comments: 12/04/2018

Neighbour Notification Expiry date for comments: 10/04/2018

Page 21 5.1 A Site notice has been displayed, neighbouring properties notified and the application publicised within the Leek Post and Times.

Consultee Comment

Leek Town Awaited. Council

Local Highways Awaited. Authority (SCC)

Severn Trent No objections to the application. As the proposal has minimal Water impact on the public sewerage system there are no objections to the proposals and no drainage condition needs to be applied.

Minerals (SCC) The County Council as the Mineral and Waste Planning Authority has no comments on this application as the site is not within or near to any permitted waste management facility and is exempt from the requirements of Policy 3 – Mineral Safeguarding in the Minerals Local Plan for Staffordshire 2015 – 2030.

Arboricultural No objections subject to conditions. Officer

Rambler’s The Right of Way next to the development site does not appear to Association be affected by the development. No further comments to make.

Ecology Awaited.

Environmental No objections subject to conditions and advisory notes. Health Officer

6. OFFICER COMMENT AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context and Principle of Development

6.1 The Local Planning Authority is required to determine applications in accordance with the Development Plan, unless there are material circumstances which indicate otherwise and in determining these applications, it shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, in so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations.

6.2 Policy SS1 of The Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy identifies that development should contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvement of the Staffordshire Moorlands. Core Strategy policy SS1a establishes a ‘Presumption in Favour of Development’ in line with National Planning Policy where (1) planning applications that accord with policies within the Core Strategy will be approved without delay and (2) where there are no relevant policies or they are out of date, the Council will grant planning permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise considering:-

Page 22

I. Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) taken as a whole, or, II. Specific policies in within the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.

6.3 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires council’s to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing land sites, including a 5% buffer to allow for choice and competition in the market (increased to a 20% buffer where there is a persistent under delivery in previous years). The Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land and as of March 2016, it was 1.87 years. In accordance with Paragraph 49 (NPPF) ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where the development plan is absent, silent or out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. Paragraph 49 requires all housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

6.4 Core Strategy policy SS5a relates specifically to the regeneration and development of Leek, confirming that this will be done by measures such as meeting housing needs, increasing the range of available and affordable housing and allocating housing sites within, and on the edge of, urban areas. The policy specifically states that sites within urban areas shall be in locations across the town which have good accessibility to services and facilities.

6.5 Core Strategy policies H1 ‘New Housing Development’ sets out the stance that new housing development should provide for a mix of housing sizes, types and tenure including a proportion of affordable housing as set out within Core Strategy policy H2. This application is for two dwellings and therefore the affordable housing/tenure requirement is not triggered. Density, character of the area and amenity standards for future and existing occupants of buildings should all be considered.

6.6 This is a vacant and recently cleared plot of land located within the Leek Town Development Boundary. The site is not within a Conservation Area, there are no protected trees and no surrounding Listed Buildings. Importantly is the existence of historic planning approval (reference 2551-Leek Urban District) which gave Outline planning consent for 18 housing plots off Rivendell Lane/Birchall Lane. The current application site was earmarked as Plot 16 in the 1971 outline consent. The principle of residential development on this plot has therefore historically been accepted. The application site is considered to be within a sustainable location, facilities and services can easily be accessed and public transport is easily accessible with the presence of bus stops along the A520 Cheddleton Road.

Design and Visual Impact (Character and Appearance)

6.7 Core Strategy policy SS1 ‘Development Principles’ states that the Council will expect the development and use of land to contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvements of the Staffordshire Moorlands and

Page 23 ‘development should be undertaken in such a way that protects and enhances the natural and historic environment of the District and its surroundings both now and for future generations.’

6.8 Core Strategy policy H1 ‘New Housing Development’ states that ‘all development will be assessed according to the extent to which it provides for high quality, sustainable housing’ and having regard to the location of the development and the characteristics of the site . All housing should be the most appropriate density compatible with the site and its location, with the character of the surrounding area ’.

6.9 Core Strategy policy DC1 requires that all developments shall be well designed and reinforce local distinctiveness by positively contributing to and complementing the character and heritage of an area. Development should be of a high quality, adding to the value of a local area, be designed to respect the site and its surroundings and promote a positive sense of place and identity through its scale, density, layout, siting, landscape, character and appearance.

6.10 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF advises that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area.

6.11 The Plot 1 dwelling causes concerns, in particular in terms of its impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Since refusal of SMD/2017/0038 the applicant has amended the design of the Plot 1 dwelling. The plans appear to show that the revised scheme is for a less bulky property, lower in height and having a mix of both pitched and hipped style roofs. The previously proposed shallow hipped roofs have now been removed in favour of those of a more steeply sloping arrangement and the window positions and their styles have been amended. The scheme would involve extensive engineering works to reduce the ground levels of the site, in particular the designated parking/turning area within Plot 1. Similar to the previous scheme the levels change would be particularly apparent when viewed from the proposed south-east elevation where the dwelling would have an overall ridge height of some 9.5m but, together with its width (approximately 13m), and the large off-road parking and turning area, it would appear as an incongruous and imposing built feature in an otherwise green and open area. It is noted that the Plot 1 plans are slightly misleading in that the South-East and South-West elevations show vegetation screening the property at the corner of Rivendell Lane and Birchall Lane. These trees are not currently in situ, although the site plan indicates planting at this point it would take a long time for the trees to reach a height sufficient to screen part of the dwelling.

6.12 The impact of the dwelling would be particularly imposing, out of keeping with the spaciousness of the area which would be very much apparent when travelling north eastwards along Birchall Lane, towards the application site and away from the main road. The wide road frontage of the application site together with its rising land levels means that any development here would be extremely visually prominent and would have a great impact upon the visual amenities of the area. The plans do show that there would be some landscaping along the Rivendell Lane boundary but this would not completely mitigate the visual and imposing appearance that the Plot 1 dwelling would have when viewed from the road.

6.13 It is noted that the agent has submitted information to justify the plot development ratio by comparing it to other properties in the area. However, this is not

Page 24 a reason to consider that the current proposal is acceptable; this is a different location and is more visually prominent. The agent refers to the recently allowed appeal at Deepdale (APP/B3438/W/17/3183984 – 16th January 2018 – Detached dwelling, Outline), identifying that the Inspector considered the character of the Birchall area in terms of plot sizes and that the appeal property would sit in a similarly sized plot. The council contends that in this instance the current application should not just consider character as a plot size/ratio calculation; consideration must also be given to other matters such as visual character/amenity. The application site (area of Plot 1) is different to the Deepdale case; it is a visually prominent and elevated corner site which forms an important part of the spacious character in this part of the Birchall estate.

6.14 Interestingly a further appeal decision was received by the council (dated 15th November 2017) for the erection of a detached dwelling within a garden plot. This was at a site called Heather Hills, immediately to the north-east of Plot 1 and fronting Birchall Lane. The appeal was dismissed and in reaching a decision the Inspector clearly stated that ‘the planting is such that from the viewpoint at the junction of Rivendell Lane with Birchall Lane looking towards the top of Birchall Lane, there is little evidence of the dwellings as they are screened by trees, mature vegetation and set back from the highway. The character of the area is therefore defined by a spacious pattern of development and this, combined with the mature trees and shrubs, gives the lane a pleasant sylvan quality.’ The presence of Plot 1 on this corner site would clearly disrupt the Inspector’s identified ‘spacious pattern’ to a significant extent and having a harmful impact upon the area.

6.15 It is maintained that a proposal for two dwellings on this site amounts to overdevelopment, having a harmful impact upon the visual amenities of the area. It is acknowledged that the Birchall area consists of dwellings of differing sizes and designs. The two proposed dwellings are vastly different in terms of their design; plot 1 being the largest dwelling characterised by hipped and gabled roofs and plot 2, a smaller property with gable ends and pitched roofs. The Plot 2 dwelling is considered to be of a more acceptable design. The staggered gable design is a feature present elsewhere within the Birchall area and the size of the dwelling is much more acceptable for this location. It is noted that the old Outline application (reference 2551) indicated that this site was intended as a single plot only. The Plot 2 dwelling is positioned further back from the pavement edge and is angled away from it thereby reducing its potential visual impact. The larger proposed area of planting would further reduce any visual impact. It is not a matter of just removing the Plot 1 dwelling to achieve an acceptable development, the positioning of any remaining dwelling would have to be carefully considered as well as land levels, planting, building size, parking areas and suitably designed private amenity space.

Residential Amenity

6.16 There are two aspects of residential amenity to consider, firstly that in connection with the proposed dwellings and the provision for intended future occupants and secondly the resultant impact upon existing, surrounding residents. Both dwellings would have their own off road parking area (sufficient from a highways point of view) and external amenity space in the form of gardens and patios. The amenity standards (detailed in the Space About Dwellings Supplementary Planning Guidance) concerning garden lengths and garden area are met in respect of both proposed dwellings however it is noted that these standards are the minima to be applied and are just one material planning consideration when determining an application.

Page 25

6.17 In respect of impact upon neighbouring dwellings the proposal is considered to be acceptable. There are no direct principal window overlooking issues, both properties would be sited a sufficient distance away from those across the road so as not to breach the Space About Dwellings amenity standards for window separation distance. The amenity relationship between Plot 1 and Plot 2 is considered to be acceptable. In the interest of neighbour amenity, if members were minded to approve the application it would be considered reasonable to add a condition restricting the times of day in which building work could be undertaken.

Highways / Access

6.18 The NPPF and Core Strategy policies DC1 and T1 require that all development proposals secure safe and suitable access to a site whilst making a contribution towards meeting parking requirements and ensuring that all new development can be satisfactorily accommodated within the highway network. Development should be located within areas that are accessible by sustainable travel modes. It is clear that the application site is located within a sustainable area due to its close proximity to Leek and the surrounding areas (where a range of services and facilities are available) and the public transport links which run along the main A520 Cheddleton Road are noted.

6.19 The application proposes two dwellings each with their own vehicular access and off road parking areas. Plot 1 would be accessed via Birchall Lane and there would be a private parking/turning area as well as an integral lower ground floor garage. Plot 2 would be linked to Rivendell Lane close to the electricity Sub-Station and have its own off-road parking/turning area and integral garage. Although the formal comments of the County Highways officer are still awaited it is recognised that the current scheme is no different to the previous proposal in terms of access locations, garage provision and off road parking/turning space. It is noted that only Rivendell Lane is adopted highway whereas Birchall Road is a private road and all required maintenance would be a private matter. It is considered that the application is acceptable in highways terms.

6.20 As well as providing access to a number of other properties, the northern section of Birchall Lane is a Public Right of Way (PROW) and is also designated as a Byway Open to All Traffic (B.O.A.T). The maintenance of Birchall Lane is a civil/legal matter due to the private ownership. The Birchall Lane BOAT/PROW is a fully tarmacked traffic carrying lane at the point of the application site. Whilst Plot 1’s vehicular access would lead directly off Birchall Lane, this is only the same as all of the other existing properties having vehicular access directly onto the lane. In the context of the existing properties (approximately 35) already having direct access it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of one more driveway would not have any significant adverse impact upon the right of way nor on its use by the public. The proposed development would not require the extinguishment, creation, temporary or permanent diversion, or temporary or permanent closure of any Public Right of Way. Members will be aware that if planning permission is granted, this would not override the developer’s (and indeed everyone’s) legal duty not to block or obstruct the PROW/BOAT or prevent its normal legitimate use by the public.

Environmental Health

6.21 The Environmental Health Officer has considered the application and has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions. Matters to consider are those of noise and contamination.

Page 26

Noise

6.22 The application site is surrounded by residential development and as such, if Members are minded to approve the application, there exists the potential for existing residents to be disturbed by noise during the construction phase. In order to address this, the Environmental Health Officer has recommended a condition to ensure that all noisy construction activities are restricted to certain times of the day and that no noisy construction activities should take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Contamination

6.23 Environmental Health officers have no objections in respect of this matter. Suitably worded conditions could deal with the finding of any unexpected contaminated material(s) and also ensure that no top soil would be brought onto the site until it had been tested for contamination.

Ecology/Biodiversity and Trees

6.24 Core Strategy policies DC1, DC3 and NE1 are relevant to this application in that they require the following;  Development to be resisted where it would harm/be detrimental to the character of the local and wider landscape;  Seek development which respects and enhances local landscape character;  Support opportunities to positively manage landscape;  Habitats and species of principal importance are protected and enhanced.  Development to be designed to respect the site and its surroundings and create a positive sense of place including through its landscaping;  Creation of attractive environments;  Protection of amenity including soft landscaping;  Ensuring that any unavoidable biodiversity impacts are appropriately mitigated for;

6.25 Formal and updated comments are still awaited from the Ecology officer. It is noted that no objections were logged in respect of the previous application when the Ecologist commented that the site was unlikely to hold a high degree of interest.

6.26 Some of the trees on the site have recently had some of their lower, overhanging branches pruned. Although the current application has introduced a new design for Plot 1, the proposed retaining wall to the rear follows the same alignment as the arrangement within the last application (SMD/2017/0038), being outside the Root Protection Area of the trees along the boundary. The young Oak is also still present near the road frontage of Plot 2, and the layout for this plot would again make suitable provision for this potential long term/significant tree to be retained. It is noted that a new Laurel hedge has been planted along the Rivendell Lane and Birchall Lane frontage boundaries, together with a few new sapling trees at the southern-most corner; all of which are considered to be appropriate to this location and to the proposed development. A condition could be added to secure further landscaping/planting details. The Arboricultural officer confirms that he does not have any objections to the application subject to conditions.

Page 27 Drainage

6.27 Severn Trent Water has advised it does not have any objections to the application. The consultation comments state that the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system and that a drainage condition is not required.

Section 106 Matters

6.28 The scheme for 2 dwellings does not trigger the requirement for any S106 contributions.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

6.29 The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental, which should not be undertaken in isolation. Whilst the application would make a small contribution towards meeting housing land requirements at a time when the council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, it is not considered that the proposal responds positively to the context of the area including its character and appearance. Accordingly, the proposal would not represent sustainable development as required by the Framework. Notwithstanding the lack of a 5 year supply of housing in the District, it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.

7. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

A. That Full Planning Permission is REFUSED for the following reason(s):

The positioning of two dwellings on the site results in an overdeveloped plot which is out of keeping with the identified spacious character and appearance of the surrounding area. By reason of the bulk (including height) and positioning of the dwelling within Plot 1 the application would result in a development which would fail to improve or enhance the visual amenities of the surrounding area. The proximity of the Plot 1 dwelling house to the highway, together with the wide road frontage and raised site land levels would result in the proposed development appearing as an incongruous and imposing built feature within an otherwise open and spacious area to the detriment of the street scene and character of the surrounding area. The application is therefore contrary to policies SS1a and DC1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (26th March 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework including chapter 7 ‘Requiring Good Design.’

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Executive Director (Place) 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.

Page 28

Page 29

Page 30

Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

12th April 2018

Application SMD/2018/0092 No: Location Former Railway Line, Barnfield Road, Leek Proposal Reinstatement of single line railway track and replacement footpath on former railway line between Cornhill Leek and boundary of existing operational railway land at Leekbrook Applicant Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Agent Ms Helen Pakpahan Parish/ward Leek South Date registered 08/02/2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood tel: 01538 395400 ex 4924 [email protected]

REFERRAL

The application is referred to committee because it is the Council’s own development.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

Approve with conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The former railway between North Rode and Uttoxetter and former Leek Station, which was located on the site now occupied by Morrisons was opened by North Staffordshire Railway in 1849. The branchline from Leekbrook junction, a short distance south of Leek, to Stoke on Trent was opened in 1864 and later a branch from Leekbrook junction to Cauldon Low was added in 1905.

2.2 The Leek station and railway line to Stoke on Trent was in use until 1956 with passenger services to Uttoxeter until 1965. The line was finally closed following the closure of the freight services in the 1970’s and the station and track between North Rode and Leekbrook dismantled shortly thereafter in 1973. A short siding was retained along the former trackbed to Leek to allow for shunting operations, although this is since been lifted and only the bufferstop remains. This marks the boundary between the operational railway land within the control of the Churnet Valley Railway and the trackbed to the north which passed to the ownership of the Council on dismantling.

2.3 The site is currently a disused track bed approximately 1km (¾ mile) from Cornhill / Barnfields Road, Leek to the Leek Brook railway junction adjacent to the

Page 33 sewage farm, Leek. The land has since been used by walkers and cyclists from the existing access point off Barnfields Road, Leek. The land is accessible on foot and cycles off Barnfields Road, Leek as well as crossing points along the length of the former track for pedestrian and vehicular purposes to service the sewage works. Severn Trent has sewage pipes laid beneath the track bed. This stretch of disused track bed has one tunnel known as Birchall Tunnel, see below illustration. The tunnel is owned by SMDC, known as Bridge 51. The track bed and surrounding land has been left allowing the land to become overgrown with vegetation, scrub and low quality trees since its closure.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The proposal is to reinstate single track railway over the former track bed at Cornhill / Barnfields Road, Leek to the current operational CVR rail-head at Leek Brook. The reinstatement of the track at Leek to the current rail terminal at Leek Brook will connect to the CVR heritage railway. The reinstatement of the Leek to Leek Brook railway will be used as an extension to the Churnet Valley Heritage railway line. The purpose of the reinstatement is to reconnect Leek to Churnet Valley as in accordance with the adopted Churnet Valley Masterplan, supplementary document 2014. This will provide for a rail connection to support Leek / Churnet Valley and the surrounding areas and to encourage and promote further important transport links for the continued regeneration, tourism, employment and growth of the Town of Leek and the surrounding areas.

3.2 The proposed Leek terminus is approximately ½ mile South from the historical Leek station site. It is considered that the line within the operational railway land can be reinstated without planning permission. This application therefore relates to those elements of the new line outside of this area.

3.3 The Cornhill site off Barnfields Road has recently obtained planning permission for a major residential development including land allocation for a new railway station supporting this proposal for the reinstatement of the Leek to Leek Brook railway line. This application relates only to the reinstatement of the trackwork. The new station already benefits from outline consent under the approval for the Cornhill site and this proposal, if approved, would be followed by a reserved matters application for the detailed design and layout of the station buildings and structures.

3.4 The land is proposed to continue to be accessible to walkers and cyclists alongside the railway by providing a segregated zone within the railway boundary. The existing Leek promoted walk which is North of the Leek terminus will be run alongside the proposed Leek terminus. It is proposed to provide a footpath for walkers / cyclists at the bottom of the embankment away from the railway formation. The exit point for pedestrians will remain at Barnfields Road and will link up with an unnamed road, unofficially known as Water Works Lane at Leek Brook. Currently, there is no formal link through from the footpath on the Council owned trackbed to Water Works Lane without straying onto the operational railway land, although this has been done informally for many years. This application will formalise the arrangement and provide a properly demarcated and safe route through this land.

Page 34 4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

SMD/2014/0750 Demolition of former industrial buildings and redevelopment of site comprising: residential (use class C3 up to 175 dwellings) with associated open space, play areas and cycle links; live/work units 2000sqm, employment (use class B1c and B2 up to 1847 gross sqm including mezzanine); tourism and leisure uses including a marina / basin and associated boating facilities (up to 20 berths), railway station with associated heritage/railway activities building including tourist/local needs retail unit (use class D2/A1 up to 394 gross sqm); public house / restaurant (use class A3 / A4 up to 340 sqm) and associated car parking and servicing; reserve land for future highway including associated landscaping at Land At Barnfields Road And Sunnyhills Road, Cornhill, Leek For Barnfield Hughes Ltd. – Approved.

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1 The Development Plan comprises of:

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

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (1998)

5.2 Development boundaries within the 1998 Adopted Local Plan are still in force until such time as they are reviewed and adopted through the site allocations process. Following consultation last year a Preferred Options Site Allocation DPD is currently out for consultation.

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

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

. SS1 Development Principles . SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development . SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources . SD3 Carbon-saving Measures in Development . SD4 Pollution and Flood Risk . SS6C Rural area strategy . DC1 Design Considerations . DC3 Landscape and Settlement settings . C1 Creating Sustainable Communities . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport . T2 Other Sustainable Transport Measures

National Planning Policy NPPF

Page 35

National Planning Policy Guidance

Churnet Valley Masterplan

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Press Notice expiry date: 7th March 2018 Site Notice expiry date: 8th March 2018 Local residents have been notified by letter. 19th March 2013

Public Comments

6.1 3 comments have been received making the following points:

- I live locally to the proposed train line, and regularly walk along part of the route. Whilst I am in favour of the development in principle, I feel that there are some issues which have not been adequately addressed by the various ecological firms which have conducted surveys at the site. As I work as an ecologist myself I feel that I have the knowledge to make a meaningful assessment of the ecological reports undertaken. o My main concern is that none of the waterbodies have been assessed, and no further amphibians surveys recommended or undertaken. In particular, the closest waterbodies (40m away) within the sewage works have not been surveyed, with no acceptable rationale as to why. These ponds look potentially suitable on looking at aerial photography. The fact that several amphibians were recorded under reptile refugia in September indicate that there are nearby ponds to the south of the site, most likely these animals have come from the sewage works ponds. One obvious issue is the fact that a GCN was recorded, as it was a juvenile this would indicate more strongly that the breeding site is not too far away. GCN are known to breed in the local area, including at Ladderedge Country Park. An amphibian survey should be undertaken of the sewage works ponds to ensure that the correct mitigation measures are undertaken. Also, common toad were recorded, these are a BAP species, the need for mitigation to protect this population should also be assessed o The other issue which has not been addressed is the impact of increased disturbance from the trains themselves, as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The disused railway line currently forms a habitat corridor and nesting habitat for birds, however, no breeding bird survey, or assessment has been undertaken. Simply installing bird boxes would not mitigate for the loss of scrub habitats. Planting of scrub and hedgerows along the new footpath would be beneficial. - I support this application as it presents a fantastic opportunity to give Leek a much needed and much missed transport link that would encourage tourists and provide a more sustainable route into the Stoke area. However, I have some issues with the plans as they now stand. o The stated aims are to reconstruct the line into Leek so that the town is once more linked to the CVR and, eventually, to the main line at Stoke.

Page 36 At the same time the application includes provision for walkers and cyclists to continue using the formation between Barnfields and Leekbrook. o At the Leek end, the plans show a lack of ambition in that if the Council's stated aim is to restore both heritage trains (on the CVR) and also trains to Stoke then the proposed arrangement for the station is inadequate. There need to be 3 roads at the station so that the Stoke service can run into the station without interference while locomotives on the heritage service are using the passing loop to run round their trains (and at times continuing to the Leekbrook triangle to turn and reverse back onto their train). As these locomotive movements take a considerable time to execute it also follows that the line should be double tracked from Leekbrook, or else it would not be possible to run the Stoke service at the same time as the heritage services on the CVR. o The proposed alignment for the walking and cycle path also needs looking at again. The first crossing on the Leek side of the Birchall tunnel is shown very near to the tunnel mouth, surely a safety issue. Again, I am thinking about the eventual passenger service to Stoke which would be more frequent than the heritage services. In addition, the route over the tunnel would need a lot of work to make it safe and accessible for cycles and people with pushchairs or disabilities, as it is very steep and virtually impassible as shown. There are the remains of a signed path on the other side but again it needs a lot of work done. No doubt all of this will have to be addressed when the detailed plans are submitted, and the station arrangement I suggest would need a land purchase or be incorporated in the Barnfields development, but I raise these issues now as I feel that it is important to present an application that gives Leek a facility that works for everyone. At the moment, as it stands, it falls well short of the ideal.

Highways

6.2 There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal.

Leek Town Council

6.3 Not unneighbourly

Severn Trent

6.4 As the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system I can advise we have no objections to the proposals and do not require a drainage condition to be applied.

6.5 Severn Trent Water advise that there are public sewers located within this site. Public sewers have statutory protection and may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without consent. You are advised to contact Severn Trent Water to discuss the proposals. Severn Trent will seek to assist in obtaining a solution which protects both the public sewer and the building. Please note, when submitting

Page 37 a Building Regulations application, the building control officer is required to check the sewer maps supplied by Severn Trent and advise them of any proposals located over or within 3 meters of a public sewer. Under the provisions of Building Regulations 2000 Part H4, Severn Trent can direct the building control officer to refuse building regulations approval.

Staffordshire County Council

6.6 Having regard to the policies, guidance and observations referred to above, it is reasonable to conclude given the nature of the application proposals that the development would not lead to the significant sterilisation an important mineral resource. Therefore, in accordance with the powers contained in the ‘Scheme of Delegation to Officers’, this letter confirms that the County Council, acting as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority, has NO OBJECTION to the proposed reinstatement of single line railway track and replacement footpath on former railway line between Cornhill Leek and boundary of existing operational railway land at Leekbrook.

Environment Agency

6.7 make the following comments.

 Reference to the 1:50,000 scale geological map indicates that the site is located on Alluvium which in turn overlies the Chester Pebble Beds Formation.  The superficial deposits are classified as a Secondary A aquifer. These are permeable strata capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers.  The bedrock is classified as a Principal aquifer. These are geological strata that exhibit high intergranular and/or fracture permeability. They usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale.  The superficial deposits are likely to be in continuity with the adjacent River Churnet. The site sits within groundwater Source Protection Zone 3.  We consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development as submitted if a condition is attached stating that if, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.  The applicant / developer should refer to our document ‘The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection’, available from gov.uk  The CLAIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste. This should be

Page 38 adhered to throughout development  Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed on site operations are clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.  The Environment Agency recommends that developers should refer to: the Position Statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice  Contaminated soil that is, or must be, disposed of is waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal are subject to waste management legislation, including Duty of Care Regulations 1991, Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005, Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011  Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically in line with British Standard BS EN 14899:2005 'Characterization of Waste - Sampling of Waste Materials - Framework for the Preparation and Application of a Sampling Plan' and that the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.  The single-track railway line is proposed to be reinstated on the currently existing raised ground, which is classified as flood zone 1, and does not propose any further ground raising in flood zone 2 or 3. Therefore we have no objection to the current plans.

Environmental Health

6.8 Noise – A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The conclusion of the assessment is there are not predicted to be any adverse impacts to existing NSRs, noise maybe audible from the operation of the steam trains at a small number of existing residences but not to any significant level that could be considered detrimental to the amenity of the area. There are proposed to be increased levels of noise at the site of the proposed new housing developments but there is a sound insulation scheme required for these houses prior to development commencing. Vibration was ruled out as a likely impact. A condition is advised to ensure that loud workings only take place during daytime hours.

6.9 Contamination – Conditions advised. EA have also advised conditions to ensure ground water protection.

6.10 Air Quality: Condition advised on SMD/2014/0750 (condition 26) for future residential occupiers. There is not predicted to be any adverse impact to existing residential occupiers but future occupiers at the proposed residential scheme should be considered prior to development commencing. .

6.11 Construction - A comprehensive construction plan should be submitted with a requirement to protect early morning amenity of existing residents.

Page 39 6.12 Nuisance: The proposed development is close to existing residential properties so a construction and demolition environmental management statement should be submitted for approval.

6.13 Conditions: Conditions are recommended requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Construction Environmental Method Statement, and conditions to control importation of soil and to deal with any unexpected contamination.

Canal and River Trust

6.14 Comments awaited

Lead Local Flood Authority

6.15 Comments awaited

Trees and Woodlands Officer

6.16 A tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment report in accordance with BS 5837 accompanies the application. Of necessity, and in accordance with my pre- application advice to Helen Pakpahan, the arboricultural consultants’ tree report does not attempt to individually identify, represent and assess all existing trees along the railway corridor. Rather, existing tree/scrub cover is broadly identified and grouped into areas of similar character and/or general position.

6.17 Since being discontinued as an operational railway in the 1970s, this linear site has seen gradual scrub and tree colonisation and encroachment, although its default – and since promoted – use as a recreational/amenity route for walking and cycling has to a large extent restricted such vegetation growth to the embankment/cutting slopes along each side and mostly kept the former trackbed itself clear. In places there is dense understorey and ground cover vegetation such as Bramble.

6.18 Overall, due to the virtually continuous tree/scrub cover along both sides of the c.900 metre length of the application site with the majority on raised embankment relative to adjacent land, the combined broad landscape structure is notable. However, as noted in the tree report, the arboricultural quality of existing trees is individually relatively low. Some stretches have been badly affected by windthrow, requiring remedial clearance in view of the close proximity of overhead electric wires. There would clearly be a requirement to remove a significant amount of existing tree/scrub cover, particularly along the edge of and close to the former track bed, in order to physically accommodate the reinstatement of track together with associated works. Whilst the tree report (at its paragraph 8.1) recommends complete vegetation removal fence-to-fence along the site, the Design and Access Statement (at its section 14) advises vegetation removal would be limited to that necessary to complete the works. In addition, however, it must be anticipated that a certain amount of tree and scrub clearance would also be necessary for subsequent safe operation of the reinstated line – although in this regard it is noted that the existing operational Churnet Valley Railway does not need to pursue a policy of complete

Page 40 removal from fence-to-fence across its railway corridor. Furthermore, there would no doubt be a need for some more limited tree/scrub removal in order to accommodate the proposed segregated footpath/cycle route.

6.19 In practice, therefore, it would be anticipated that some groups or individual trees and scrub, within the site but well away from the actual track (eg near/along the base of the wider embankments), would not need to be removed and could be retained. The Council’s land ownership of the site provides an opportunity for on- going discussion and agreement with contractors and/or the railway operator over matters of detail regarding retention of any existing trees and scrub, although it would be prudent to incorporate this into relevant conditions if planning permission is granted. Similarly, controls over the timing of vegetation removal with regard to bird nesting season and any other ecological considerations should also be applied.

6.20 In the final analysis, the tree report concludes, and I agree, that none of the trees are of high enough quality/significance to be regarded as in-principle constraints to potential development, and particularly one which has for several years been a major part of a corporate regeneration strategy of the Council. Consequently, I have no objection to this application, whilst recognising that implementation of the proposed development would inevitably lead to the loss of substantial tree numbers.

6.21 Given the confined width of the site, and the nature of its proposed use (including the footpath/cycle route provision) it is unlikely that the site could reasonably accommodate anything much in the way of compensatory new planting, but in the natural order of things it is likely that there would anyway be an on-going process of natural regeneration of self-set trees and scrub along the site margins and less-intensively used/maintained parts of the site.

6.22 Following its recommendation of full scale tree removal, the application tree report goes on to advise that temporary tree protection measures during development would be irrelevant and unnecessary; however, the tree report also advises that in the event of any tree retention, any specific temporary tree protection measures required are unlikely to be needed to full BS 5837 specification. Again this seems an appropriate conclusion, and in fact in view of the railway track proposed to be reinstated on the existing trackbed, the likely position/route (i.e. along the trackbed) for contractors plant/equipment/vehicles to implement this, and the positions of existing trees which may be appropriately retained (generally along the base of embankments, furthest from the trackbed) I would concur that temporary tree protection measures would be largely unnecessary.

6.23 In the event that planning permission is granted, I would request that the following conditions are imposed: - No removal of trees during nesting season unless a survey for breeding birds has been carried out - Inspection of trees for bat roosts - All tree, shrub and scrub removal shall be agreed and authorised by the Council’s arboricultural officer

Page 41 Ecology

6.24 The proposal needs to be subject to pre commence condition to submit for written approval an Ecological Construction and Management Plan (ECMP) which will wrap up all the necessary mitigations including timing of works in respect of Bats, Birds, Reptiles and amphibians, Badgers and will also include details of after development site management.

6.25 I am satisfied from studying the reports that the appropriate safeguards can be put in place (with further survey as stipulated in the reports eg for GCN) to ensure appropriate protection and mitigation of impacts on protected species.

6.26 We will need to have the ECMP and any accompanying survey results deemed necessary to compile the ECMP prior to all commencement including any site clearance.

7. OFFICER COMMENT AND PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context

7.1 As with all applications, the LPA is required to determine this application in accordance with the Development plan, unless there are material circumstances which indicate otherwise and in determining these applications, it shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, in so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. The Development Plan consists of the adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy. The Churnet Valley Master Plan (CVMP) a recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) are material considerations of significant weight in the determination of this application.

7.2 Core Strategy Policy SS1a establishes a 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' in line with the National Planning Policy (herein referred to as the NPPF) where: (1) planning applications that accord with policies within the Core Strategy will be approved without delay and (2) where there are no relevant policies or they are out of date, the Council will grant planning permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise considering:-

I. Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or, II. Specific policies in within the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.

Principle

7.3 The application site lies partly within the settlement boundary of Leek, where there is a general presumption in favour of new development, and partly within the countryside which is also designated as Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. New development within the Green Belt is considered to be inappropriate unless it falls within one of a number of categories.

Page 42 Paragraph 90 of the NPPF confirms that engineering operations (the construction of a railway in this case) are appropriate development in the Green Belt provided that they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Policy SS6C of the Core Strategy is consistent with this approach. It is considered that the engineering works (track laying) in this case do preserve openness and do not conflict with purposes of including land within it and therefore the development is appropriate in the Green Belt.

7.4 Policy SS5a - Leek Area Strategy refers to creating major regeneration mixed use opportunities and related infrastructure improvements for the following strategic site:

Cornhill, Leek – uses which may be suitable are employment, tourism and leisure; any development shall make provision for a link between the A520 and A53 to the south of the town and links to the canal and Churnet Valley Railway. . 7.5 Policy T2 - Other Sustainable Transport Measures states that the Council will “support, subject to feasibility assessment, strategic infrastructure improvements and links to major urban areas for example to road, rail, bus facilities in the District and the development of new rail or bus termini within the District” and “continue to safeguard all existing disused railway lines within the District and support the reuse of these for public or commercial/tourism use.”

7.6 The Churnet Valley Masterplan identifies the railway as being an important man- made landscape feature, and part of the Industrial heritage of the valley which, along with it’s status as an important tourist attraction is seen as a “strength”. The Masterplan includes within the identified “opportunities”:

o Significant visitor potential linked to the combination of fascinating industrial heritage, attractive natural environment, walking, cycling and horse riding opportunities, the canal and the further development of the Churnet Valley Railway as both an attraction but also a transport link. The potential of the Churnet Valley is in its development as a coherent 'attraction' – conceived as providing full days of activity, with a mixture of experiences from tranquillity and quiet enjoyment to active participation and education. o Active interest of Moorland and City Railway in re-opening the railway line to Leek and Stoke, and the line from Oakamoor to Alton which provides potential to reduce car journeys, connect villages and, existing and potential attractions, and to act as a visitor attraction in its own right with enhanced visitor appeal due to ability to visit a number of attractions on the route. There is also the potential to continue the recently re-opened route to Cauldon Lowe further to Waterhouses where a former station is already in existence. This could provide an opportunity to access the visitor attractions of Blackbrook Zoological Park and the Manifold Trail by rail.

7.7 A key principle of the Masterplan is to “improve accessibility and connectivity” by, inter alia, “addressing the need for strategically located car parking particularly to

Page 43 act as hubs to then use sustainable modes (foot/ cycling/ bus/ rail/ canal/ horse riding) to explore the Valley” It includes at paragraph 7.3.3 amongst the “Key Actions”: “re-opening of the rail line to Leek and development of canal gateway and strengthening of sustainable transport links between town centre and Cornhill and to other visitor attractions in the Churnet Valley”

7.8 Possible Improvements for the Leek Hub and Gateway, include improved connection to Cornhill and proposed railway station, canal basin, etc. The Masterplan also identifies a number of key opportunity sites, including Cornhill. It states that “ Cornhill is located in the northern part of the Churnet Valley. It occupies an important site on the edge of Leek at the head of the Caldon Canal and Leek - Stoke railway line.” It explains that the site has the potential to act as a significant gateway into the Churnet Valley and is suitable for employment, tourism and leisure uses and that any development shall make provision for to the Churnet Valley Railway. It identifies the potential for extension of canal and railway, as a key opportunity for the site. The development strategy for the site includes “creation of employment and leisure development linking Leek with the canal and railway” whilst the “General Development Principles” state an intention to “make the most of the areas assets including the Caldon Canal, Leek to Stoke railway line”. It says that the Council will “take a holistic and comprehensive approach to development of the site ensuring that any future development complements the overall strategic approach to development in the Churnet Valley”. Specific proposals within the policy to improve accessibility and connectivity include reopening the rail line for passenger services.

7.9 Section 8.4 of the Masterplan deals specifically with Sustainable Transport issues. It explains that:

All proposals should aim to support more sustainable means of transport within and into the Churnet Valley and seek to change visitor perceptions of how they can travel around the Churnet Valley by increasing transport choices for those wishing to visit attractions and facilities and, where appropriate, providing facilities to enable visitors to park up and travel from key points by more sustainable travel means, and through measures to manage access and movement and encourage off-site exploration by non-motorised means.

7.10 Specifically, with regard to rail travel it says that:

- The railway presents a significant opportunity to reduce travel by car and promote more sustainable means of exploring the Churnet Valley. There shall be continued support for the use of the Churnet Valley rail line as a heritage and tourist attraction and support for the re-opening of the rail line into Stoke-on-Trent and into Leek. - The existing rail line and any future extensions of the rail line should be integrated with development proposals for major sites where feasible, in particular at Cornhill and the Bolton Copperworks site and be closely aligned to improvements to walking, cycling, parking and public transport with appropriate connections created. - Any associated development such as station buildings and car parking should be sensitive to its surroundings, in-keeping with the landscape

Page 44 character of the area, and be of a high quality design which reflects the heritage of the area. - Where appropriate, provision should be made for enhanced railway related facilities – parking and a new station at Cornhill/Leek and heritage centre/workshops and extended parking at Froghall and Cheddleton. - Any affected recreation uses should be either safeguarded alongside a re-opened railway or re-provided in another way. This will be returned to below.

7.11 However, in terms of the principle, the proposal is therefore firmly supported by Local Planning Policy and is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with all other relevant Core Strategy and NPPF policies.

Access

7.12 This application deals only with the reinstatement of the railway line which itself will not generate any road, pedestrian or cycle traffic. The new station at Leek has been the subject of a separate previous approval and the impact of visitors travelling to the new terminus was considered as part of that application. The construction traffic arising from the provision of the new line would be principally rail based and the County Highway Engineer has raised no objection. The proposal has the potential to help to improve travel to and from Leek and other attractions in the Churnet Valley by sustainable means and therefore has long term benefits in terms of traffic reduction on the wider road network. Consequently, there are no objections on highway access or parking grounds.

Residential amenity

7.13 The masterplan identifies as a “threat” to the area the impact of the re-opening of the railway on local amenity and noise. There are a number of residential properties nearby and the protection of their amenity is a material planning consideration. A noise impact assessment has been submitted in support of the application. The conclusion of the assessment is there are not predicted to be any adverse impacts to existing properties. Whilst some noise maybe audible from the operation of the steam trains at a small number of existing residences but not to any significant level that could be considered detrimental to the amenity of the area. There are proposed to be increased levels of noise at the site of the proposed new housing developments but there is a sound insulation scheme required for these houses prior to development commencing. Vibration was ruled out as a likely impact.

7.14 Similarly with regard to Air Quality conditions were imposed on the planning permission for the development of the Cornhill site to protect future occupants from adverse air quality impacts. As with noise, there is not predicted to be any adverse impact to existing residential occupiers.

7.15 In the absence of any objection from the Environmental Health Officer and subject to conditions to secure details of a construction management plan and to deal with contaminated land there would be compliance with Policies DC1 and SD 4 and the NPPF

Page 45 Footpath

7.16 The masterplan also identifies as a “threat” to the area the impact of the re- opening of the railway on the existing greenways which are used for walking, cycling and horse riding. It states that “where a railway use is reinstated on a former disused rail route used for walking, cycling or horse riding, this facility shall be replaced or realigned.”

7.17 The existing trackbed is currently in use as a discretionary footpath, which can also be accessed on bicycle. The principal access points are via a link at the northern end from Barnfield Close, under the former railway bridge, via a path from the former railway bridge to the rear of the Pride of the Moorlands pub, and via a linking path from the turning head at the end of Barnfield Road. There are a number of stepped links from Birchall playing fields. It should be noted that the footpath is not on the “definitive map” and does not have the status of a “public right of way”. Nevertheless it is an established recreational route which appears to be well used.

7.18 As noted above it is possible to walk from the southern end of the route, over the operational railway land through to Waterworks Lane. This enables users of the path to complete a circular walk along Waterworks Lane back to the A520 and to return to Birchall / Leek. However, as noted above there is no right of access over this railway land and access is actually via a gap in the palisade fencing which was previously erected on the Waterworks Lane boundary

7.19 As part of the reinstatement of the railway it is proposed to re-provide the path alongside the new railway. The section of path between Barnfields Close and the new railhead will be unaffected by the development and access to the railway and footpath link can be provided and retained through the new Cornhill development to the east of the proposed station to Barnfields Road. At the new railhead the path would deviate down onto the lower part of the embankment on the eastern side of the railway and would run along here as far as the northern tunnel portal. From here it would climb the embankment before crossing the line and climbing up and over the tunnel, descending on the eastern side of the track adjacent to the southern tunnel portal. For health and safety reasons it is not possible for the path to run through the tunnel with the new railway. A new discretionary path would be formally provided on the eastern side of the new line, over the operational railway land, crossing the newly Leek spur of the Caldon branch before joining Waterworks Lane.

7.20 Full constructional details of the path including widths, surfacing, steps and gates have not been provided but the specification has been provided by SMDC Parks team based on models of good practice and the Agreement to lease requires CVR to obtain final design approval from SMDC prior to commencement of construction and formal start of lease. The provision of the path and detailed design could be secured and approved via planning condition. However, Given the level changes involved the route is likely only to be suitable primarily for walkers, rather than cyclists, or wheelchair users. However, access to the current discretionary path is poor for these groups of users, particularly from Barnfields Close, and Pride of the Moorlands where the path is narrow and steep, from Birchall playing field, where there are existing steps and from Barnfields Road where there is a horse stile which

Page 46 restricts bike and wheelchair access. The informal route over the operational railway land to Waterworks Lane is also only suitable for access on foot or mountain bike.

7.21 Furthermore, the disadvantage of the limited accessibility of the proposed path has to be has to be balanced against the sustainability benefits of improved rail linkages, and the provision of a formalised concessionary route over the railway land to Waterworks Lane. This will be returned to in the overall planning balance below.

Drainage and Flooding

7.22 A small part of the site (approx. 350m of trackbed) is shown as being within Flood Zone 2 & 3. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application which concludes:

“The former rail embankment top is above any local 1 in 100 year risk levels by over 2m and its top surface is flood zone 1. Two streams pass under the embankment, the northern one is Birchall stream which based on instruction of the inlet and exist is a box culvert in good condition. The southern stream is gold course runoff which passes under the embankment in a 600mmdiameter clay pipe in good condition.

Public mapping shows the embankment as being in floodzone 2 on the ‘risk of flooding from rivers or the sea’ mapping. However, an accurate land survey and obtaining river risk levels from the Environment Agency has shown this to be incorrect and a map copy corrected by us is attached. The flood risk status of the embankment uis shown correctly on the flood map for planning.”

7.23 Severn Trent Water Authority, the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority have been consulted on the application. Severn Trent and the EA have confirmed that they have no objections to the scheme whilst the LLFA have yet to comment. Members will be provided with an update prior to their meeting. However, in the light of the above it is not considered that the proposal will be at risk of flooding given that it involves reinstating rails on the top of the existing embankment. As no other engineering works are proposed, it is considered to be unlikely that the proposal will exacerbate the risk of flooding elsewhere and as such it will comply with Policy SD4 of the Core Strategy.

7.24 An existing sewer which was installed after closure of the railway runs along the length of the trackbed from Barnfields to the sewerage works at Leekbrook. To avoid damage to the structure of the sewer arising from the passage of heavy trains over the top it is proposed to construct the railway on the western side of the track formation (the sewer lying on the eastern side). It is acknowledged, on the plans, that some remedial works will be required to the sewer. Churnet Valley Railway have also commissioned an independent report on the sewer which indicates that a technical solution which allows the railway to be constructed and to co-exist with the sewer can be achieved.

7.25 Furthermore, whilst Severn Trent have noted in their consultation response, the proximity of the development to the sewer and the need to obtain the necessary consents from themselves, they have raised no objection in principle to the

Page 47 development. These consents would be dealt with under separate legislation and therefore in the absence of any objection it is not considered that a refusal on the grounds of impact on the sewer could be sustained.

Landscape and Visual Impact

7.26 Given that no new engineering works such as embankments, bridges, tunnels or cuttings and the works are restricted to the reinstatement of rails, signalling etc on the existing formation, the landscape and visual impact of the works themselves is extremely limited and restricted primarily to the associated tree removal, which is discussed in more detail below.

7.27 There will be some impact from the trains themselves. However, this impact will be transient with the passing of the trains. A substantial part of the route is within the tunnel and cutting where it cannot be seen from the surrounding landscape. The length of line to the south of the tunnel runs adjacent to the sewage works to the west and woodlands to the east which limit public views. The most sensitive views are where the trackbed is raised on an embankment to the north of the tunnel and there are long range views from the canal towpath to the west and from the A520 across Birchall playing fields from the east. However, in this location the route is for the most part well screened by vegetation proposed for retention on the sides of the embankment, (see tree section below) and therefore it is considered that any landscape and visual impact will be minimal.

Trees

7.28 A tree survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment report has been submitted with the application. Some fairly substantial removal of existing trees and scrub along the route would be inevitable and necessary in order to reinstate the railway and provide appropriate operational/safety clearance, and to a much lesser extent to incorporate the parallel walking/cycle provision.

7.29 The trees have gradually colonised the site since closure of the line in the early 1970’s and are thus self-set and relatively young and not of good quality. Some stretches have been badly affected by windthrow, requiring remedial clearance in view of the close proximity of overhead electric wires. The use of the route for walking has to a large extent restricted such vegetation growth to the embankment/cutting slopes along each side and mostly kept the former trackbed itself clear. However, due to the virtually continuous tree/scrub cover along both sides of the c.900 metre length of the application site with the majority on raised embankment relative to adjacent land, the combined broad landscape structure is notable.

7.30 The Council’s Trees and Woodlands officer, has stated that, contrary to the conclusions of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and in line with the comments in the Design and Access Statement, this should not need to result boundary-to- boundary clearance along the site and as a result there is the opportunity for much of the vegetation to be retained. The Council’s Trees and Woodlands officer is of the opinion that some groups or individual trees and scrub, within the site but well away from the actual track (eg near/along the base of the wider embankments), would not

Page 48 need to be removed and could be retained which will mitigated the visual impacts of the proposal as discussed above.

7.31 Having considered the submitted report carefully, the Council’s Trees and Woodlands Officer has raised no objections subject to conditions, including a requirement for Tree removal to be agreed with the Council on site and on this basis it is concluded that the proposal complies with Polices DC1 and DC3 and advice in the NPPF which requires development to protect and enhance the natural environment.

Canal

7.32 The Leek branch of the Caldon Canal lies some distance to the west of the railway line. At its closest point it is approximately 87m from the trackbed. A small length of the route (235m) at the northern end, adjacent to Birchall playing fields therefore lies within the Canal and River Trust Consultation area. Comments from the Trust were awaited at the time of report preparation and Members will be updated at the meeting. However, given that the proposal involves relaying of track on the existing embankment and no works are proposed to it’s formation, it is not envisaged that any adverse impact on the canal will occur or that the Trust will raise any objection.

Ecology

7.33 There are a number of ponds located within 100m of the site. Great Crested Newts are a material consideration determining planning applications. They are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Species and Habitat Regulations 2010. An ecological report has been submitted with the application which confirms that it is unlikely that there are significant populations of reptiles within the railway development area or zone of influence of the development.

7.32 Aerial photos show that there are water bodies within the nearby sewage treatment site SW of the application site. This has been raised as a concern by third parties. A single GCN was found on the east embankment at the south end of the cutting leading to /from the tunnel to the north. This is not far (c.100m) from the sewage works site to the SW.

7.33 The Council’s ecologist has been consulted and has commented that bearing in mind the nature of this development – the re-laying of a railway on existing track bed with embankment vegetation generally retained and no loss of aquatic habitats he considers that there is a rational case to grant permission subject to condition which would be for further GCN-specific risk assessment survey and any necessary mitigation prior to commencement of / and/or during any site work including site clearance / preparation – subject possibly to seasonal timing allowances for certain work. Mitigation could involve a mix of barrier exclusion and / or seasonal timing restriction of certain works. It needs to be borne in mind that outside their pond breeding period GCN have terrestrial phases but generally in moist or within range of moist habitats. If there are wet ditches or ditches which may periodically be wet eg alongside the track – as sometimes occurs with railways, these could harbour GCN

Page 49 and should not be overlooked. If they are present he would envisage that they could be retained and therefore again conditions in the event of permission would be acceptable.

7.34 The EC Habitats Directive 1992 requires the UK to maintain a system of strict protection for protected species and their habitats. The Directive only allows disturbance, or deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places (a) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and provided that there is (b) no satisfactory alternative and (c) no detriment to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation status in their natural range

7.35 The UK has implemented the Directive in the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 2010 (as amended) which contain two layers of protection (i) a requirement on Local Planning Authorities (“LPAs”) to have regard to the Directive`s requirements above, and (ii) a licensing system administered by Natural England and supported by criminal sanctions. Core Strategy Policy NE1 states that development will not be permitted which would have an adverse impact upon protected species.

7.36 Circular 6/2005 advises LPAs to give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site to reflect EC requirements. “This may potentially justify a refusal of planning permission.” The NPPF advises LPAs to conserve and enhance biodiversity: if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts) or adequately mitigated, or as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.

7.37 Natural England`s standing advice is that, if a (conditioned) development appears to fail the three tests in the Habitats Directive, then LPAs should consider whether Natural England is likely to grant a licence: if unlikely, then the LPA should refuse permission: if likely, then the LPA can conclude that no impediment to planning permission arises under the Directive and Regulations.

7.38 In this case the tests would be met as follows: (a) There are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, for allowing the development. (b) There is no satisfactory alternative route for the new rail link other than along the former trackbed. (c) The applicant has demonstrated that there would be no detriment to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation status in their natural range and that this could be achieved and ensured through the use of suitable planning conditions.

Page 50 7.39 On this basis, and subject to the imposition of conditions as recommended by the Council’s ecologist the proposal is considered to comply with Policy NE1 of the Core Strategy and the provisions of the NPPF in respect of biodiversity.

Economic and Social Impacts

7.40 The NPPF makes clear that there are three strands to sustainable development. These are economic, social and environmental and that all three must be considered and taken into account in making planning decisions. So far, this report has focused primarily on environmental impacts of the proposals, such as landscape, ecology, air quality, flooding etc. However, the rail link is also likely to have significant economic and social implications for Leek as a town as well as the Churnet Valley to which it connects and the wider Staffordshire Moorlands, particularly in terms of the tourist economy.

7.41 A longer running length will increase the appeal of the railway as a tourist destination in it’s own right and will encourage visitors to spend more time and money at the railway. It will encourage visitors to the railway and visitors to other tourist attractions in the Churnet Valley to also visit the town of Leek and will increase tourist spend in the town. It will also encourage people visiting or staying in Leek to visit the railway and enable them to access other tourist attractions along the route, thereby increasing the vitality and viability of those tourist enterprises, all of which will increase the tourist spend in the local economy which will have significant economic benefits for the town of Leek and the area generally.

7.42 A report assessing the potential economic benefits that could be derived from the proposed heritage railway extension to Leek. Has been submitted with the application. It concludes as follows:

- Informing this appraisal has been a review of thedevelopment proposals in the context of: the “fit” with tourism related strategies; the opportunity to optimise growth in relevant markets including the tourism market and the heritage/steam railways sector; and the current performance and market position of the CVR. - What is clear is that the proposed rail development proposals “tick” a number of boxes including: o Acknowledging the value of tourism to the local economy with the CVR already playing an important role in drawing people to the area and acting as an attractor and destination in its own right. o The importance placed by the Council on developing its tourist products in general and specifically in the Churnet Valley, with industrial heritage identified as one of the key sectors. o The potential to differentiate the Churnet Valley from its competitors (in other locations) through the development of complementary activities/facilities/attractions of which the railway is one. o The role that can be played by the extended railway in linking together other attractions as well as “moving people”. o The need to enhance dwell times and visitor spend to which the railway extension will contribute

Page 51 - Based on this (and other supporting data), the summary economic appraisal confirmed the positive impact of the rail extension to Leek in terms of employment and expenditure. The appraisal considered 3 scenarios in relation to potential increases in the number of visitors i.e. 20,000, 25,000 and 30,000. Taking the second scenario – an additional 25,000 visitors per annum – as being realistic and achievable, the impact (excluding construction) could result in the following: o £952,000 gross expenditure per annum from the railway’s operation predominantly focused on the town of Leek o £577,600 net additional expenditure per annum injected into the local economy o 13.4 FTE jobs supported, and o a net increase in GVA of £255,360 per annum after five years - Given the rural nature of the area, these impacts are considered important and could be further enhanced if the other MCR plan are realised. Moreover, these benefits form part of a platform for further growth beyond the next five years as the railway implements

7.43 Furthermore, it will allow residents and visitors in Leek to access the Churnet Valley and vice versa in a sustainable manner which will reduce the dependence on the private car as a mode of transport. This is an important social and environmental benefit which is supported by Core Strategy policy and the NPPF which states that “plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people.”

7.44 As noted above in this report, this is acknowledged in the Churnet Valley Masterplan, particularly in terms of the potential of the railway “to reduce car journeys, connect villages and, existing and potential attractions, and to act as a visitor attraction in its own right with enhanced visitor appeal due to ability to visit a number of attractions on the route.” The potential of the Cornhill site and Leekbrook to Leek extension of the railway to act as a gateway to this route and to the Valley as a whole is also identified. These benefits need to be weighed into the overall planning balance.

Other Matters

7.45 Concerns have been raised by third parties that the line will have insufficient capacity for an eventual connection to Stoke and should be double track from Leekbrook with a 3 road station. The track formation itself was originally built to take a double track railway and the reinstated line will be laid on one side giving the future potential for doubling of the track if the need arose. The station itself does not form part of this application and will need a separate reserved matters approval and issues of capacity could be considered again at that stage.

7.46 Safety concern is raised about the proximity of the pedestrian level crossing to the mouth of the tunnel. However, the reconstructed railway will need to be designed to meet the requirements of the Railways Inspectorate and will need to be passed as safe to use by them. The planning system should not seek to intervene in matters which are covered under other legislation or regulatory processes.

Page 52 7.47 Concern is raised that the route over the tunnel will require a considerable amount of work to ensure that it is safe and accessible for all. However, as detailed above, this is not materially worse than the existing situation and is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The precise specification for the footpath could be the subject of a planning condition.

8. PLANNING BALANCE & CONCLUSION

8.1 The site is located partly within the settlement boundary where there is a presumption in favour of new development and partly within the open countryside and Green Belt where under the NPPF and Core Strategy policy there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Engineering operations in the Green Belt are not inappropriate provided that they do not impact on openness. In this case, the proposal involves relaying track on an existing railway formation, which will not impact on the openness of the Green Belt or conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Accordingly it is not inappropriate development. There is considerable policy support for the reinstatement of the railway in both the Core Strategy and the Churnet Valley Masterplan which is an adopted Supplementary Planning Document and an important material consideration in determining this application. However, the masterplan acknowledges a need to ensure that existing footpath and cycle routes are catered for and that no adverse impact arises from noise / vibration / amenity impacts from trains. Subject to this the proposal is acceptable in principle.

8.2 The existing footpath on the site is not a public right of way and in order to access Waterworks Lane involves walking on a non-designated route over the operational railway land. The footpath would be realigned alongside the new track on the Council’s land and permanent provision would be made for a formal link over the railway land to Waterworks Lane. This is a significant benefit of the proposals. Full details would need to be secured by condition. However, it is acknowledged that due to level changes it is unlikely to be fully accessible to cycles, horses or wheelchair users. However, much of the existing route suffers from this difficulty.

8.3 It is not considered that the proposal will be at risk of flooding or will exacerbate the risk of flooding elsewhere and the Churnet Valley Railway are confident that an engineering solution can be achieved which will allow the railway to co-exist with the sewer which runs along the trackbed. This would need to be subject of separate consent. However, it is noted that no objection in principle has been raised by Sever Trent at this stage.

8.4 There are no objections from the Environmental Health Officer in respect of amenity impacts such as noise and vibration or air quality. Impacts on existing dwellings will be minimal and the proposed dwellings on the site at Cornhill are subject to planning conditions which will ensure that future residents are unaffected.

8.5 The landscape and visual impacts would be limited to transient impacts arising from passing trains. However, the route is screened to a large extent by the tunnel and cutting. Where the line is more exposed to long range views on the embankment, it will be screened to some degree by the existing vegetation, much of which the Trees and Woodlands Officer has advised can be retained. Nevertheless

Page 53 substantial tree removal will be required on the trackbed itself to allow for reinstatement, safe operation and on the embankment to accommodate the new footpath. However, the Trees and Woodlands Officer has commented these trees are largely self-set, fairly young species, having grown up since closure of the line and are of relatively poor quality. As such he has raised no objection subject to conditions requiring the removal works to be agreed and supervised. Any ecological impacts can be addressed through the use of suitable planning conditions.

8.6 The reinstatement of the track itself will not generate any access or parking requirements and there are no objections from the County Highway Authority and there are no concerns with regard to impact on the nearby Leek branch of the Caldon Canal.

8.7 The extension to the railway would increase its appeal as a tourist attraction in its own right. The railway would enable and encourage residents and visitors to the town of Leek to visit other attractions further south in the Churnet Valley and vice versa and would result in significant increase in spending in the local economy. The report submitted with the application estimates that this would amount to £952,000 gross expenditure per annum from the railway’s operation predominantly focused on the town of Leek; £577,600 net additional expenditure per annum injected into the local economy; 13.4 FTE jobs supported, and a net increase in GVA of £255,360 per annum.

8.8 These economic, social and environmental benefits are considered to substantially and demonstrably outweigh the minimal harm arising from the accessibility issues of the new path, the loss of some poor quality trees, and some slight transient landscape and visual impacts.

8.9 In all other respects the proposal complies with the relevant Core Strategy policies as identified and the provisions of the NPPF and Churnet Valley Masterplan and having due regard to all other material considerations raised is accordingly recommended for approval.

9. RECOMMENDATION

A. APPROVE subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason:- Reason:- To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TBC Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. Prior to the commencement of development full constructional details for the proposed concessionary foothpath over both the application site and the existing operational railway land between the proposed railway terminus and Waterworks Lane shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local

Page 54 Planning Authority. The details shall include, widths, surfacing, details of any steps, gates, fences, stiles, gradient and levels details. The path between the proposed railway terminus and Waterworks Lane shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the first operation of the railway and shall thereafter be retained and maintained unobstructed for the use of the general public at all times. Reason: To ensure that the existing footpath is re-provided in accordance with the Churnet Valley Masterplan.

4. No trees, shrubs or scrub vegetation shall be removed other than those whose removal is directly required to accommodate the approved development, including its proposed subsequent use as operational railway, unless otherwise approved by the LPA. There shall be no removal of any trees, shrubs or hedgerows during the bird nesting season (nominally March to August inclusive), unless otherwise agreed by the LPA and in this case only following careful inspection by a competent person to establish that such trees, shrubs or hedgerow are not in active use by nesting wild birds. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

5. Any mature tree to be removed or to have substantial crown pruning operations carried out shall first be carefully inspected for the potential to provide bat roosting opportunities. Any tree which has such potential (which could include cavities, splits, decay pockets, hollow stems or branches, areas of loose bark, dense ivy cover or dense epicormic shoots) shall be subject to a further detailed and if necessary climbing inspection by a licensed bat worker immediately prior to felling or pruning, and all felling or pruning of such trees shall take place in the presence of the bat worker who can then immediately advise on appropriate measures if bats are encountered during dismantling, felling or pruning operations. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

6. Notwithstanding any indication in the plans and supporting documents of the application hereby approved, including the application’s Tree Survey Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment, all tree, shrub and scrub removal shall be agreed and authorised by the Council’s arboricultural officer following site meeting(s) with representatives of the prospective railway operator, construction contractors and arboricultural contractors when the construction requirements of the railway reinstatement hereby approved and its subsequent operational requirements can be considered in practical detail. Reason:- To protect existing trees and hedgerows in the interests of the character and appearance of the area

7. Prior to commencement of development (including any site clearance) an Ecological Construction and Management Plan (ECMP) which shall include the necessary mitigations including timing of works in respect of Bats, Birds, Reptiles and amphibians, Badgers and will also include details of after development site management shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved ECMP

Page 55 Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

8. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a Demolition and Construction and Environmental Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which shall include the following details:-

I. the hours of work, which shall not exceed the following: Construction and associated deliveries to the site shall not take place outside 08:00 to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holiday;

II. details of any piling work including noise and vibration mitigation proposals;

III. the arrangements for prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties;

IV. the responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint;

V. a scheme to minimise dust emissions arising from construction activities on the site. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development. The approved dust suppression measures shall be maintained in a fully functional condition for the duration of the construction phase;

VI. a scheme for recycling/disposal of waste resulting from the construction works;

VII. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

VIII. the loading and unloading of plant and materials;

IX. the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

X. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

XI. details of measures to protect the public footpaths and amenity of users of the pubic footpaths crossing the site during the construction works.

All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Demolition and Construction and Environmental Method Statement. Any alteration to this Plan shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any deviation from it .

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area.

Page 56

9. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. If after consultation with the Local Planning Authority the contamination is considered to pose a possible risk, to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment (receptors), development shall not progress further until a site investigation and risk assessment has been completed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If the contamination investigation and risk assessment indicates that potential risks exists to receptors, development shall not recommence until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to the receptors has been prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

10. No soil is to be imported to the site until it has been tested for contamination and assessed for its suitability for the proposed development; a suitable methodology for testing this material shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the soils being imported onto site. The methodology shall include the sampling frequency, testing schedules, criteria against which the analytical results will be assessed (as determined by the risk assessment) and source material information. The analysis shall then be carried out and validatory evidence submitted to and approved in writing to by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason (common to 2-3):- To ensure that the proposed development meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in that all potential risks to human health, controlled waters and wider environment are known and where necessary dealt with via remediation and or management of those risks.

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the 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.

Page 57

Page 58 Agenda Item 9

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

12th April 2018

Application SMD/2017/0838 No: Location Former Stable building at Spring Cottage, Greatgate Road, Winnothdale

Proposal Change of use of former stable building to form 1no. dwelling Applicant Mr Tom Whiston Agent Rob Duncan Planning Consultancy Ltd Parish/ward Checkley Date registered 18th Dec 2017 / Checkley If you have a question about this report please contact: Arne Swithenbank tel: 01538 395578 or e-mail [email protected]

REFERRAL

The application is a Full Minor and is referred to Committee at the requests of Cllr Richard Alcock and Cllr Peter Wilkinson in order for committee to determine in particular the sustainability of the location for a new dwelling in the countryside.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The total site area is c.660sqm (0.16 acres) occupying a hollow to the north side of Greatgate Road. The site is bounded by trees and hedgerow generally but with a more open boundary to rising field land to the north. There is a brook course passing through the site from west to east alongside the northerly boundary. A public footpath leads away north from the roadside by the westerly corner of the plot. Adjacent the east side of the plot is an entrance drive to Dam Farm, a private residence, which stands on higher ground about 50m north of the application building. The application building (c.10m x 5.5m) is single storey of brick and tile with traditional detailing constructed following a 1998 consent.

2.2 The site is within open countryside towards the lower easterly fringe of a loose knit dispersed settlement of individual farmsteads and dwellings which characterise parts of Winnothdale.

Page 59

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The proposal is to convert the existing building without extension into a three-bed dwelling incorporating two bedrooms within the roof space. The dwelling would have a ground floor internal area of c. 44sqm and a first floor habitable area of c. 25sqm making c.69m2 in total. Access would utilise an existing gateway directly off Greatgate Road.

3.2 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement and a separate Marketing Report. A copy of the marketing publicity shows that the property was described as a building “available for commercial use including holiday use (subject to consents). Interested parties should note that the property is not available for residential purposes and the vendor may place a covenant on the sale/lease of the property to this effect”.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 SMD/2014/0644 erection of residential dwelling (re-submission of SMD/2013/1204) – refused

4.2 SMD/2013/1204 proposed residential dwelling – refused

4.3 99/00005/OLD stable block – refused

4.4 98/00253/OLD stable block – approved

4.5 88/00664 site for detached dwelling – refused

4.6 80/019135/OLDDC site for replacement dwelling – refused

4.7 79/07313/OLDDC details of dwelling – refused

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

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

Core Strategy Development Plan (Adopted 26th March 2014), SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in favour of sustainable development SS6c other Rural Areas – Area Strategy H1 New Housing Development DC1 Design DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting R1 Rural diversification R2 Rural Housing

Page 60 NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport

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

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

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2012 Paragraphs 1 – 17 Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 Requiring good design Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Public

6.1 Neighbour consultations x 1 for response by 26th February 2018. Site notice posted for responses also by 26th February 2018. – no public representations received

Parish Council

6.2 Checkley Parish Council – no representations

SMDC Environmental Health

6.3 No objections subject to conditions as to timing of work during construction (noise); foul drainage; unexpected contamination; tests on any imported garden soil and any imported fill materials; and waste management – no fires.

SMDC Ecology / Public Rights of Way

6.4 Until all appropriate bat surveys have been conducted the application should be refused.

6.5 A survey by RICS Ecology dated 8th November 2017 indicated that evidence of brown long-eared and common pipistrelle bats was found in the building proposed for conversion. The wording in the report indicates: ‘The conversion of the property will have a negative impact on bats due of the loss of the roosting against the ridge board and in the cavity walls. In order to determine how this site is being used emergence surveys are necessary’. The report recommends two emergence surveys. Surveys can only be carried out between May and September.

Page 61 6.6 Until these surveys have been completed the impact on bats cannot be determined, and it is not possible to determine proportionate avoidance, mitigation or compensation. Surveys should follow best practice in: Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust.

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

Severn Trent Water

6.8 As the proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage system I can advise we have no objections to the proposals and do not require a drainage condition to be applied.

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS / PLANNING BALANCE

Policy Context

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

Principle of Development and Main Issues

7.2 In the rural areas outside of any development boundary Policy SS6c provides for the conversion of an existing rural building in accordance with Policies R1 and R2.

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

7.4 Policy R2 provides for conversion of non-residential rural buildings where suitable and worthy in physical, architectural and character terms and either viable alternative uses are unavailable or conversion would enable a building of particular merit to be safeguarded. R2 also requires a market evaluation of the viability of the building for agricultural or commercial use.

Page 62 7.5 This is not a building of particular merit but is suitable and worthy in physical and architectural terms and not unsuitable in terms of character.

7.6 It must be considered unfortunate and a significant omission however that the building was not marketed for the purpose for which it appears to have been designed and built. Built as a combined twin stable and associated store but not having been marketed as such we have no clear confirmation as to the demand or otherwise for this specific building in this location nor therefore of its claimed redundancy. The applicant’s estate agent and valuer regarded a purchase offer of £19,000 as derisory and says, “the value of the premises could be anticipated to be in the region of £45,000 - £50,000 for commercial purposes. This is on the basis of a suitable rent being in the region of £400 per month, or £4,800 per year from a light industrial use for example. If this is capitalised at a return of 10% it would give a capital value of £48,000. It would be common for investors to accept a lower yield for rural properties usually, which would produce a higher capital value than quoted.” It may however be questioned as to whether a light industrial use would be acceptable in this location and such a proposal would itself certainly be subject to planning consent.

7.7 In terms of respecting rural qualities of this loosely residentially developed rural neighbourhood (Policy R1) it must be considered that a further dwelling would bring additional urbanising influences which would not arise with its current use (if implemented) as a small private rural stable.

7.8 A further significant consideration is the distance of the site from schools, shops and other essential services. Policy T1 states that the Council will promote and support development which reduces the reliance on the private car for travel journeys, reduces the need to travel generally and helps deliver the priorities of the Staffordshire Local Transport Plan, where this is consistent with other policies. Paragraph 34 of the Framework says that decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel can be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Paragraph 38 of the Framework identifies primary schools and local shops as key facilities that should be located within walking distance of most residential properties. Paragraphs 94 and 95 of the Framework in discussing climate change, also state that local authorities should adopt proactive strategies that plan for new development in locations and ways that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

7.9 The journey distance from the site to Upper Tean which is a larger village with a range of services including a dentist, doctors surgery, small supermarket and primary schools is 2.8km. The journey distance to Hollington with a more limited range of services is 3km.

7.10 From the above it is concluded that this site is within an unacceptably remote location, with future occupiers having unreasonable access to shops and services. As a consequence, there is a fundamental conflict with Policy T1 of the Adopted Core Strategy and the NPPF more generally which seeks, among

Page 63 other things, to reduce reliance on the private car for travel journeys and reduce the need to travel generally.

7.11 Although not part of the initial submission the applicant and agent have responded to the question of sustainability of the location to say that the applicants work in the locality. Mr Whiston is described as an agricultural engineer servicing all the farms in the local area whilst also working part time on his parents’ land holding at Winnothdale. Mrs Whiston is described as working full time on her parents’ farm of 90 acres (Beech Farm, Winnothdale) with lambing occupying 8 months of the year. A farm worker’s dwelling where shown to be essential (Policy R2) can be found acceptable but this would be subject to appropriate needs analysis and report which has not been provided. If the need were accepted and consent were granted it would normally be subject to an occupancy clause restricting its use to someone engaged in agriculture in the vicinity. At the present time the application does not sufficiently demonstrate this case.

Design and Visual Impact

7.12 In design the proposal appropriately uses existing openings retaining the building characteristics and is found to therefore to fit with the Council’s adopted design guidance.

Amenity

7.13 The plot offers sufficient space to provide adequately for parking turning and garden amenity for a dwelling. The property is at sufficient distance from any neighbouring dwelling (or other developments) to avoid any conflicts in terms of with amenity either for occupants or neighbours.

Other Matters

7.14 The applicant and agent are aware that the proposal does not meet necessary ecology survey requirements as there is a confirmed bat presence in the building but this has not been sufficiently surveyed for the potential conservation requirements to be established. For this reason the proposal must be recommended for refusal on this count.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

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

Page 64 7.16 In addition, paragraph 19 of the NPPF advises that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Future occupiers may generate additional spend in the local area. Those economic benefits carry positive weight. The provision of a new dwelling at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land is also a benefit of the scheme. However, the benefit is limited by the fact that only a single dwelling unit would be provided. Those considerations would meet with the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development as set out in Core Strategy Policies SS1 and SS1a and in the NPPF. With regard to the overall planning balance however, there are significant shortcomings in terms of accessibility of the location as discussed in the report above and therefore the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, the proposal cannot be considered as comprising sustainable development and thus does not benefit from the presumption in favour of such as set out in the Framework. It is concluded, therefore, for the reasons set out above, that the proposal should not be granted planning permission.

7.17 As noted at 7.14 the absence of a full ecology assessment gives rise to a further reason for refusal.

7.18 As noted at paragraph 7.6 it has not been convincingly established that the building as existing does not have a viable future in its currently designed use.

8. RECOMMENDATION

A. REFUSE for the following reasons:

1. Due to the site’s remoteness of location and distance from shops and services placing an essential reliance of future occupiers on the private car the development is considered not sustainable in the context of the NPPF and therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policies SS6c and T1 and the NPPF. 2. Preliminary survey having established use of the building by protected bat species further survey and assessment is required but has not been carried out and therefore the full impacts of the development on protected species has not been determined and their interests cannot therefore be properly safeguarded making the development contrary to Policies R1 and NE1 and the NPPF. 3. Contrary to the requirement of Policy R2 it has not been convincingly established that the building in its present functional form does not have a viable commercial use. 4. The cumulative environmental and economic harm identified above is considered to substantially and demonstrably outweigh the limited social and economic benefits arising from the provision of a single dwelling.

Page 65 B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the 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.

Informatives

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

2. This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 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.

10. APPENDICES TO THE REPORT

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

Page 66

Spring Cottage – location plan

Page 67

Site of Spring Cottage

Page 68 Agenda Item 10

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Planning Applications Committee

12th April 2018

TITLE: PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS

CONTACT: DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM

WARDS INVOLVED: ALL

Appendices Attached - None

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

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the report be noted.

3. APPEALS LODGED

None.

4. APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

Application No. SMD/2017/0559

Location: rear of 14 Uttoxeter Road, Lower Tean, Staffordshire, ST10 4LJ.

Proposal: detached Granny Annex

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated 7th November 2017

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Page 69 Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 12th March 2018

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI

Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

 Whether or not the proposed development would preserve the setting of the nearby Listed Building;  The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area;  The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 16 Uttoxeter Road with particular regard to privacy.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The proposed building would be a timber clad single storey structure. Although only comprising four rooms, the scale and mass of the building would be large in comparison to the other domestic outbuildings currently situated in the rear gardens, and would erode some of the open nature of the curtilage, and the contribution the open setting makes to the heritage significance of the asset. Moreover, the materials and design of the annex would not reflect, or relate to, the Listed Building, and so would detract from it.  The proposed building would be timber clad and would have a simple design that would not be dissimilar to many sheds or outbuildings found within domestic gardens. As such it would not appear an incongruous feature within the rear garden of the host property.  The front elevation would contain a veranda and windows serving the largest rooms. This elevation would be approximately 9m from the boundary with No 16. The existing boundary treatment is a low fence, and as a result there would be direct views from the proposed building into the rear garden of No 16. I accept the height and natures of the boundary treatment means that there is currently limited privacy between the rear gardens of No 14 and 16. Nevertheless, the development of a building to be used for residential purposes in the garden would introduce a much greater level of overlooking of the neighbouring garden.

Page 70  Consequently, I consider the proposed development would be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 16 Uttoxeter Road, with particular regard to privacy.

Officer Comment:

 This is a positive decision for the Council as all three of the delegated reasons for refusal were supported by the Inspector. The weight given to the setting of the listed building and design are particularly encouraging.

Application No. SMD/2017/0520

Location: Boathouse Cottage, Reacliffe Road, Rudyard.

Proposal: single storey extension

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated 13th October 2017

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 21st March 2018

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI

Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

 Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework);  The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and  If the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

Page 71 Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The proposed extensions would result in a very large increase in the size of the appeal property, whichever calculation is adopted. I take the view that an increase in the floor area of the original dwelling of the scale proposed cannot be considered to be anything other than disproportionate.  In the light of the above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development, which according to paragraph 87 of the Framework is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and should only be approved in very special circumstances.  Whilst I accept there is limited visibility of the building, this does not mean that the proposal would not affect the openness, as a lack of visibility does not in itself mean that there would be loss of openness  Very special circumstances do not exist, and the proposal would conflict with the Framework and Policy SS6c of the CS.

Officer Comment:

 This is another positive decision for the Council and demonstrates that notwithstanding the more laissez faire approach being adopted by Inspectors over recent months considerable weight is still being given to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the resulting harm to openness.

Application No. SMD/2017/0487

Location: 88 Thames Drive, Biddulph, Staffordshire, ST8 7JF.

Proposal: alterations to the existing bungalow to reconfigure existing rooms and reconstruct the original extension

Level and Date of Decision: Delegated 13th October 2017

Recommendation: Refuse

Decision: Refused

Appeal Decision and Date: Allowed 23rd March 2018

Method of Decision: Written Representations

Major / minor: Minor

Inspector: Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI

Page 72 Costs awarded: No

Main Issues:

 The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

Conclusions:

The Inspector concluded:

 The appeal property forms the last in a row of 7 identical bungalows that are stepped down a short hill. Apart from the two located at the top of the hill, each house is set down and set back in relation to its neighbour.  It is also proposed to raise both the eaves and ridge height of the main bungalow by approximately 1.5m.  Whilst this would make the bungalow taller than the others within the row, the difference in ground levels with the adjacent property, means it would appear the same height as No 90. As such, the two bungalows would appear similar to the two at the top of the slope that are the same height, particularly as the tall hedge that exists around the front boundary of the property means that the lower part of the property is not seen from the road. This means that the overall height of the dwelling would not be readily noticeable, and would not make the dwelling appear out of keeping with the predominantly single storey character of the area.  The difference in height would be most noticeable when approaching the site from the West, but the curvature of the road and the woodland area adjacent to the site limits such views to the short range. As such, the appeal property is not a prominent dwelling in the street scene, and the increase in the height of the dwelling would not be an unduly noticeable feature. As a result, I consider it would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.  The amount of brickwork above the ground floor windows would be greater than on the other bungalows but given the limited views of the property, I am satisfied that this would not have a detrimental visual impact on the host property, or the wider area,

Officer Comment:

 This decision is obviously disappointing but as a design and street scene issue is clearly somewhat subjective.

Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank