Public Document Pack
Simon W. Baker B.Ed MBA MISPAL Chief Executive
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Thursday, 7 June 2018, 2.00 pm Council Chamber, Moorlands House, Stockwell Street, Leek, ST13 6HQ
Contact Officer: Pat Trafford. 01538 395551 - [email protected]
SITE VISITS: A coach for Committee Members will leave Moorlands House at 9.30 a.m. prompt on the day of the meeting. Appropriate footwear is recommended.
Speaking at Committee: Under the Council's Constitution, applicants (or their agent) and objectors/supporters are eligible to speak at this Committee for 3 minutes each. The maximum number of speakers on any item is six (three speakers for and three speakers against) plus any Ward Councillors. All speakers, including Ward Councillors, should register by ringing Committee Services on the above number between 10.00 a.m. Monday and 4.00 p.m. Wednesday on the week of the meeting. Also please note that speakers need to re-register if an application has been previously withdrawn from an agenda. Registered speakers should report to the Council Chamber no later than 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.
An information leaflet relating to these procedures is available from the main Council Offices, on the Council’s website and will be available at the meeting. Speakers are advised to read the leaflet prior to the meeting.
Note: In the event of a delayed return by the Committee, following the site visits, the start time for the Committee may be postponed. Also the order of business on the agenda may change at the discretion of the Chair. As it is not possible to give a precise time when an item may be discussed, it is always advisable to arrive for the start of the meeting.
Please be aware that meetings open to the public may be recorded by representatives of the media or by members of the public. A guidance document for the recording of public Council meetings is available on the Council’s website.
www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk Moorlands House, Stockwell Street, Leek, Staffordshire Moorlands, ST13 6HQ. Tel: 0345 605 3010
Available in an alternative format by prior request and on the Council's website: www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk Planning Applications Committee - Thursday, 7 June 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 - 10)
(a) To approve as a correct record the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 10 May 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. SMD/2018/0108 - Evergreen House, Dog Lane, Ipstones Edge (Pages 11 - 20)
7. SMD/2017/0822 - Rose Cottage, Foxt Road, Foxt (Pages 21 - 32)
8. SMD/2018/0078 - Opposite Rue Hill House, Ashbourne Road, Rue Hill, Cauldon Low (Pages 33 - 54)
9. SMD/2018/0028 - Land at Ball Green Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Brown Edge (Pages 55 - 64)
10. SMD/2018/0027 - Land at Ball Green Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Brown Edge (Pages 65 - 74)
11. SMD/2018/0029 - Land at Ball Green Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Brown Edge (Pages 75 - 84)
12. SMD/2018/0165 - 3 Woodhouse Green Farm, Woodhouse Green, Rushton Spencer (Pages 85 - 96)
13. SMD/2018/0220 - Garage Court, Land off Stockwell Street, Leek (Pages 97 - 120) Planning Applications Committee - Thursday, 7 June 2018
A G E N D A (Continued)
14. SMD/2017/0771 & SMD/2018/0089 - Well Street Mill, Well Street, Leek (Pages 121 - 136)
15. SMD/2018/0141 - Alton Towers (Pages 137 - 156)
16. Appeals Report (Pages 157 - 162)
17. NOTE - A Late Representations Report will be circulated prior to the meeting i.e. any representations received since this agenda was published.
Published 30 May 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 T Riley Councillor S Scalise This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes THURSDAY, 10 MAY 2018
PRESENT: Councillor P Roberts (Vice-Chair)
Councillors W Cawley, M Gledhill, P Jackson, C R Jebb, L D Lea, I J Lucas, D Ogden, C Pearce, P Roberts and S Scalise
IN ATTENDANCE: B Haywood - Operations Manager, Development Services Z Walker - Legal Advisor, Freeths LLP S Hampton - Democratic Services Officer P Trafford - Democratic Services Officer
APOLOGIES: Councillors S Ellis, J Davies and G Lockett
139 CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) The Vice - 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 Vice - 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 Vice - Chair.
140 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
RESOLVED – That the Public Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 April 2018 be APPROVED as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
141 URGENT ITEMS, IF ANY.
There were no urgent items.
Page 5 1 Planning Applications Committee - 10 May 2018
142 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following declarations were made at this point, unless stated otherwise:-
Member Declaring Agenda Item Nature of Interest Interest Cllrs. Cawley, Gledhill, P. Jackson, Jebb, Lea, “Other” – Speaker was a Agenda Item 8 – Lucas, Ogden, Pearce, fellow District Councillor SMD/2018/0111 – Roberts & Scalise Garden Cottage, School Green, Ipstones Cllrs. Jebb, Pearce & “Other” – Members of the Roberts Conservation Liaison Panel
Agenda Item 9 – Cllrs. Cawley, Gledhill, SMD/2017/0775 – P. Jackson, Jebb, Lea, “Other” – Speaker was a Land off Woodhouse Lucas, Ogden, Pearce, fellow District Councillor Lane, Biddulph Roberts & Scalise Agenda Item 10 – Disclosable Pecuniary SMD/2018/0065 – Interest – Working on Cllr. Ogden Butter Market, Market development of the market Place, Leek as Cabinet Support Member
143 SMD/2017/0635 - HIGHFIELD, LEEK ***WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT***
PROPOSED OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED (EXCEPT ACCESS) FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGS FOR SAMMONS ARCHITECTURAL.
The application was withdrawn prior to the meeting by the Applicant.
144 SMD/2018/0153 - THE CROWN, TEAN ROAD, MOBBERLEY, CHEADLE
RESERVED MATTERS FOR APPEARANCE, SCALE, LANDSCAPING AND LAYOUT FOR A J DEVELOPMENTS
(Report recommended Approval)
Received – Representation from the undermentioned speaker:-
For the application: Miss N. Hewitt - Applicant’s Agent
NOTED - 1. Late Representations Report received containing:- Additional condition requested by Trees & Woodlands Officer regarding a mix of species in the hedging; Revised plans confirming; a) Rear boundary fencing on Plot 5, b) Landing window added to the south elevation, c) Removal of front facia board and replaced with brick detailing, d) Confirmation of roofing tile materials. 1 anonymous letter of objection. Page 6 2 Planning Applications Committee - 10 May 2018
RESOLVED – That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions and informatives in the report and the additional condition shown above.
(Proposed by Councillor Jebb and seconded by Councillor Jackson.)
145 SMD/2018/0111 - GARDEN COTTAGE, SCHOOL GREEN, IPSTONES
CONSTRUCTION OF GARDEN ROOM FOR MR. A SIMPSON.
(Report recommended Refusal)
(All Councillors present had declared “other” interests.)
RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-
For the application: Mr. Alan Simpson - Applicant Mr. Allen Newby - Applicant’s Agent Cllr. Linda Malyon - Ward Councillor
NOTED - 1. Members expressed concern regarding the roof design of the proposal.
Councillor Jackson proposed APPROVAL and Councillor Lucas seconded the motion. However when the motion was put to the vote, the motion was LOST.
RESOLVED – That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report.
(Proposed by Councillor Jebb and seconded by Councillor Lea.)
146 SMD/2017/0775 - LAND OFF WOODHOUSE LANE, BIDDULPH
OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR LAND OFF WOODHOUSE LANE, BIDDULPH MOOR FOR DAVID EVANS DEP ARCHITECTS.
(Report recommended Approval)
(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)
RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-
Against the application: Mr. Alan Smith - Objector Mr. Steve Dawson - Objector Cllr. David Hawley - Biddulph Town Councillor (Statement from Cllr. Hawley read out by Cllr. John Jones) Cllr. John Jones - Ward Councillor
Page 7 3 Planning Applications Committee - 10 May 2018
NOTED - 1. Clarification given as to whether this was deemed to be Limited infil within the Village. Officers considered this to be both Limited and within the village.
2. Speakers were concerned that this site was not discussed during Local Plan negotiations over the previous 2 years.
3. Clarified that Footpath 62 would, in the event of approval, be considered at the reserved matters stage of the planning process.
4. The emerging Local Plan allowed for the housing need to be met partially from Windfall sites such as Limited Infill sites.
5. Speakers stated that there was no housing need in Biddulph Moor.
RESOLVED – That, contrary to officer recommendation, the application be REFUSED for the reason stated below:-
Reasons/Policies:
Not considered to be Limited Infill in a Green Belt location due to the length of the frontage. The development was therefore inappropriate in the Green Belt.
(Proposed by Councillor Jebb and seconded by Councillor Lucas.)
147 SMD/2018/0065 - BUTTER MARKET, MARKET PLACE, LEEK
REFURBISHMENT WORKS INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF ROOFLIGHTS, GUTTERS AND WINDOW GLAZING, INSERTION OF FLUES AND THE PROVISION OF A LEAD CAPPING ONTO EXISTING ROOF PARAPET WALLS FOR SMDC.
(Report recommended Approval)
(Councillor Ogden had declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and left the room, taking no part in the discussion or vote.)
RESOLVED – That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions and informative contained in the report.
(Proposed by Councillor Scalise and seconded by Councillor Gledhill.)
Page 8 4 Planning Applications Committee - 10 May 2018
148 PERFORMANCE ON PLANNING APPEALS REPORT
There had been no appeals lodged nor decisions received since the last meeting.
The meeting closed at 3.37 pm
______Chairman ______Date
Page 9 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0108 No: Location Ever Green House, Dog Lane, Ipstones Edge, ST10 2LP Proposal Material change of use of land from a dwellinghouse (Class C3) to a residential school (Class C2) for a total of 8 residential pupils aged between 6 and 13 years old. Applicant Mr. M. Wilson Agent None Parish/ward Ipstones Date registered 28/03/2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Hurst tel: 01538 395400 ex 4127 [email protected]
REFERRAL
This application is brought to Committee as it is locally controversial
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Approve with conditions
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The application site is an old farmstead, one of a number that are scattered along the ridge of Ipstones Edge. It consists of a large stone farm house that is attached at the rear to a range of three portal frame farm sheds that open onto a hardstanding forming the old farmyard. On the other side of the house the character is that of a secluded residential property with a large patio area that overlooks open countryside.
2.2 The site it is set back from the roadside and accessed from an unmade track. The track has a fork to the east approximately 20 metres from the site entrance where it provides the access to the adjacent neighbouring farm property ‘Little Green Hills Farm’.
2.3 The site is located in an ‘other rural area’, outside any designated settlement boundary, to the north of the villages of Ipstones and Foxt. The surroundings are distinctly rural and attractive open pasture and heath land. A shelter belt of mature deciduous and coniferous woodland screens and ‘hides’ the site from the roadside and the closest public footpath which shares part of the unmade access track before crossing open field.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 This is a full application seeking planning permission for a proposed material change of use that would see the existing dwellinghouse and grounds used as a ‘Residential School’ (Class C2 of the Use Classes Order) for 8 full residential pupils aged between 6 and 13 years. The applicant is comfortable with a planning condition that would restrcit the use on that basis and prevent further change or intensification within that use class. Internal
Page 11 alterations and the installation of two additional first floor windows, changes that do not materially affect the external appearance of the building and do not require planning permission, would create two additional bedrooms to the existing six currently available. Within the property there would be shared bathrooms, kitchen and sitting/dining areas and two study areas would provide class rooms.
3.2 Since 2013 the dwellinghouse (Class C3 of the Use Classes Order) has been used as such by six ‘home schooled’ children who are cared for by a team of staff carers who rotate on a shift pattern. The applicants would say that they rely on the lawful use of the property as a dwellinghouse and that their existing use has not resulted in ‘material change’. While they have not tested that proposition with an application for a legal determination and a certificate of lawfulness, there is nationwide precident relalting to similar arrangements and use of property to indicate that their existing position is likely to be a credible one. However, now they wish to increase resident numbers to eight and to permit this intensification they seek the planning permission that would allow the property to be used within the ‘Resdiential Institution’ use class.
3.3 The number of staff who would work at the property would be a team of approximately 17, including teachers and therapists. There would be 4 Care members of staff working during the day one of which will be the Manager. The number of care staff would reduce late evening to 2 Care staff on a waking night. Also in term time there will be up-to 2 teachers and one teaching assistant during School hours.
3.4 The old farm yard, the small grassed area and the secluded patio would provide parking space and opportunity for the children to play and exercise. Together these areas would provide the one school unit to which the planning permission would apply and there would be no encroachment into surrounding farmland that belongs to the applicant’s company. There appear to be claims that the applicant’s site plan takes in land belonging to the neighbour. The site plan has been checked against the land registry plan and they accord precisely, these is no evidence to support this claim. Future plans may include the introduction of a multi purpose pitch and outdoor play equipment in areas of the old farmyard, but where these plans relate to further development additional planning permissions will be required.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SM.601-86 Change of Use to a Road Transport and Lorry Repair Base. Approved 1989.
04/01478/OUT Replacement Agricultural Dwelling. Outline Permision Approved 2004.
05/01480/FUL Replacement Agricultural Dwelling. Reserved Matters. Approved 2005.
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
Page 12 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 . SS6C Rural area strategy . DC1 Design Considerations to protect residential amenity . DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting . R1 Rural Diversification . SD4 Noise Pollution and Amenity Impacts
5.4 In respect of the Council’s development plan the ‘Rural Strategy’ policy SS6c applies to the Countryside outside of the development boundaries of the towns and villages, including those small settlements not identified not identified in the Core Strategy. As part of the strategy for these areas provision is made for development which meets an essential local need, supports rural diversification and sustainability of the rural area. Specifically, the strategy allows for the conversion of existing rural buildings for commercial use.
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site Notice expiry date: 10th May 2018 Local residents have been notified by letter.
6.1 The Council has received letters objecting to the development. All of these letters of objection have been considered for the purposes of this report. All of the concerns, questions and points raised in those letters are dealt within the detail of this report.
Letters of objection
6.2 The Council has received objections from eight individuals. Three of those objections are from the same household at the nearest adjacent property ‘New Greenhills Farm’; three are from nearby farms, two of which from the same household; one is from a resident in Ipstones; and the other from a resident in Derbyshire. The following points are raised:
The site plan includes some land belonging to the next door property
Permission would open the possibility of many more children attending in the future
There is a documented history of antisocial behaviour at Ever Green Care Home that has significantly impacted the local residents and those of Ipstones village.
Residents have been impacted by incidents of children absconding from the property, staff walking up the middle of the road, standing on walls and shouting within a few yards of properties fronting the road is antisocial behaviour that significantly disturbed the peace and caused distress to residents.
The track to the site is unfit for traffic volumes as a public footpath traffic increases would be dangerous to walkers.
Page 13 Noise from children will increase and this will be to the detriment of the quiet rural locality.
Parish Council
6.3 Ipstones Parish Council object to the development:
A change of use to Class C2 would open the way for further expansion in the future and this would be inappropriate for the location and with the historical problems that have been caused to the neighbours. (It has been quieter in recent months due to a period of being closed and then only being one or two children at the premises). It is also understood that the company have purchased another property further along Ipstones Edge, which members believe may also be opened as a School. Members feel it is wrong that the site plan encompasses the neighbour’s property, especially with all the controversy in the area and think that the boundary should be put back to its correct position shown on the site plan. If this is not changed it could cause problems in the future. The owners of the adjacent property object to the fact that their property in included in the site plan of Ever Green House.
Staffordshire Police
6.4 In the last 12 months there have been approximately 15 incidents reported to the police in relation to children at the home being absent or going missing. In addition, there were 2 incidents reported in relation to anti-social behaviour by said children directed towards neighbours and 1 of damage caused to the home itself.
6.5 All these incidents occurred in the first two months of this period. No incidents of anti- social behaviour perpetrated by the children or incidents of children going missing have been reported since mid-July 2017.
7. OFFICER COMMENT AND PLANNING BALANCE
7.1 The main issues relevant to the consideration of this application are:
(a) Would there be any conflict with the ‘Other Rural Areas Strategy’ set out at SS6c? (b) Would there be adverse impacts on residential amenity? (c) Would there be any harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area? (d) Would there be any harm to highway safety?
Would there be any conflict with the ‘Other Rural Areas Strategy’ set out at SS6c?
7.2 The strategy policy for a rural area such as this does make provision for development that meets local needs, supports rural diversification and sustainability. Specifically it provides for the commercial conversion or re-use of rural buildings.
7.3 While objectors make some criticism of this ‘isolated’ rural location as being unsuitable for the provision of education and care, suggesting that urban environments might be more suitable, there is clearly across the whole spectrum of school aged children with varying different needs, requirements and circumstances a need to access different types of facilities and arrangements. Evidently, there are particular members of our communities who depend on facilities such as this. Clearly, not all schools are located within residential or urban areas. There is clearly within this country an established tradition of the residential school, where premises provide educational facility within rural grounds and campuses that
Page 14 are relatively isolated and self contained. While teaching and care staff will be driving to and from the site on a daily basis, these movements would be limited and as a residential school there will not, in comparison, be the considerable vehicle journeys that might be associated with a large day school and as such it is not considered that the proposal raises conflict with principles of sustainability.
7.4 There is not considered to be conflict with the ‘Rural Strategy’ policy in the Core Strategy and is acceptable in principle.
Residential Amenity
7.5 It would seem that the wider environmental impacts of any school would primarily be the noise generated by the pupils, often hundreds in number, either at play or when they are arriving and leaving the grounds; and a degree of traffic congestion around the school gates at both start of day and home time. These impacts are normally felt in residential areas where the premises lie at the heart of the community.
7.6 By comparison, the impacts of the proposal would be considerably less – pupils limited to just eight, between the ages of 6 and 13, without any of the movements of morning arrival and afternoon departure associated with most day schools. In this case everyday impacts would be limited to the ‘play’ or ‘recreation’ of no more than 8 pupils and during term time staff numbers would include, during the day, four care staff and up-to two teachers and one teaching assistant. On a normal term time day vehcile arrival and departures should be no more than seven. But clearly pupils will not be arriving and departing on a daily basis.
7.7 In this realtively isolated rural location clearly the number of neighbouring residents that could be affected by school activities, are limited and the residential farms are scattered, surrounded by farm land. Some of the objectors appear to suggest that with their rural location comes a greater sensitivity to noise and disturbance, and their expectation perhaps one of considerable quiet and tranquility. However, the context against which this site in parituclar should be judged is that of a large dwellinghouse that was available and sold on the open market. It could be occupied at any time by a large family with a large number of children who might want to play, explore and roam their countryside surroundings. At some point prior to the current applicant’s purchase the site was a working farm with, presumably, noise associated with tractors, animals and farm machinery. Moreover, in 1989 a large part of the yard area together with the land now belonging to the adjacent neighbour at ‘Little Green Hills Farm’ was granted planning permission to be used as a ‘Road Transport and Lorry Repair Base’. The occupants of the adjacent ‘Little Green Hills Farm’ are perhaps the most likely to hear anything of the pupils. However, this property is a new replacement farm workers dwelling that was granted planning permission in 2005 to replace a ramshackle dwelling that had been formed from an old caravan and occupied without permission for more than 4 years. The point being that it is a working farm, subject to an agricultural occupancy condition with a considerable range of farm sheds. The proposal therefore, and its amenity impacts, should be judged against the context of these pre existing uses, which may in themselves have been considered to be ‘noisy activity’ and hardly a backdrop of considerbale quiet and tranquility.
7.8 The secluded patio area on the otherside of the house is an obvious area where pupils can play, this is 100m from the neighbour’s dwelling on the otherside of the applicant’s property and sizeable farm buildings on both the applicant’s and the neighbour’s site. However, there is a liklihood that the yard area, where it is not required for parking, will be used for play and recreation. Where it is somewhat closer to the neighbour’s dwelling it still remains on the other side of ‘working’ farm sheds and given the limited number of pupils, it should not impose unreasonable impacts.
Page 15 7.9 Additionally to those impacts discussed above, the objectors have alluded to problems they have experienced with previous occupants behaving anti socially, damaging property, and absconding. They are concerned that with an increase in numbers these problems will intensify. However, there is very little detail or evidence relating to those incidents. One objector describes a recent, apparently isolated, incident where a child ran from the property resulting in “staff walking up the middle of the road, standing on walls and shouting within a few yards of properties fronting the road” as “antisocial behaviour” that “significantly” disturbed the peace and caused distress to residents. While the incident may have indeed come to the attention of neighbouring residents, in terms of development impacts or amenity considerations, it can not reasonably be considered to meet tests normally applicable to considerations of “antisocial behaviour” or “significant” noise, disturbance or distress. Such an incident whereby a child out in the street is shouted by a parent or guardian could occur and would not be abnormal in any residential area and could occur if the application property were occupied as a family home.
7.10 The response from Staffordshire Police confirms that actually incidents relate only to missing persons and one incident of damage to the home itself. There do not appear to have been any reported or documented incidents of criminal damage to anybody elses farm or property. With this proposal the applicant explains that there has been a change to management approach and personnel and a significant reduction in the age of the resident children and this change, on the evidence of Staffordshire Police, has coincided with a reduction in reported incidents. The younger children, more dependent on their care arrangements are less likely to roam free and potentially get into trouble. A planning condition can be used to limit the use in terms of both pupil numbers and their age. There would therefore be no future change in pupil numbers or their age without the control of the planning authority. Impacts on residential amenity can not reasonably be considered as a sustainable objection to the proposal
Effect on the character and appearance of the landscape
7.11 The proposal makes use of the existing facility of the old farmstead without the introduction of any alterations or development that would materially affect the external appearance of the dwelling or the premises as a whole.
7.12 The site has a sense of discrete enclosure surrounded and screened by bands of mature woodland. The site can not be seen readily from the road or the public footpath that for some extent coincides with the line of the access track. Use of the wider areas of hardstanding to park or provide recreation over and above as alternative to a working farm yard would be contained and confined within the existing arrangement of development without sprawling or encroaching into open areas of countryside beyond. There are limited provisions within the General Permitted Development Order that allows certain developments to be carried out by schools. A condition could be attached to any permission that would prevent these developments from occuring without the control and express consent of the Local Planning Authority.
7.13 The proposal would not impose any harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape. There would be no conflict with the Development Plan with regard to Policy DC3 of the Core Strategy which requires the Council to resist development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the landscape.
Highway Safety
7.14 The access track provides adequate to good visibility. It is used as an access by farm vehciles to a working farm and prior to that it was considered adequate as an access to a
Page 16 Road Transport and Lorry Repair Base. It is considered capable of providing safe and appropriate access, with no additional risk to users of the public footpath, for the relatively limited daily vechile movements associated with the proposal. The existing yard area provides ample parking and turning area within the grounds, there is not considered any particular need for parking specific areas to be dilineated or given any further control within this area. There are no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds or conflict with the Transport policies within the Core Strategy.
8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 The proposal does not present any conflict with the strategy or principles of the Development Plan, rather it provides for essential community need by making use of and repurposing existing rural buildings and premises. There are not considered to be any adverse impacts to residential amenity, character and appearance of the area, or highway safety that would outweigh those positive consideration in favour of the proposal.
9. RECOMMENDATION
A. That planning permission be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1) The use hereby permitted shall be limited to that of a ‘residential school’ for eight residential pupils aged between 6 and 13 only. There shall not be at any time changes or variations to this use, including any changes to another use that might otherwise fall within Class C2 of the Use Classess Order 1987, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure full planning control over any subsequnet change and potential amenity impact.
2) Notwithstanding the provisions at Class M & N, Part 7 at Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, there shall be no erection of any new buildings or structures on the site; extensions or alterations of any of the existing buildings on site; or any provision of any new surface, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority .
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure full planning control over any subsequnet change and potential impact to the character and appearance of the area.
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 17 Page 18 Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2017/0822 No: Location: Rose Cottage, Foxt Road, Foxt, ST10 2HN Proposal Proposed erection of 2 storey dwelling Applicant Mr Graham Swift Agent Malcolm Sales Parish/ward Foxt Date registered 08/12/2017 If you have a question about this report please contact: Lisa Howard at [email protected]
REFERRAL
This application is to be decided at Planning Applications Committee in the interests of consistency.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Approve with conditions
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The application site consists of a triangular plot located to the north of Rose Cottage and currently serves as the garden area to that property. Foxt Lane forms the north west boundary and residential properties ‘Riverside’ and ‘Hockley House’ bound the site to the north east and south east. The site is predominantly level with a steeply sloping / tiered bank which extends up to meet the eastern boundary. The site elevated above the highway and Rose Cottage to the south.
The site is located within Foxt village centre and falls within the recently designated Foxt Conservation Area.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 This application seeks to address the reasons for refusal of planning reference SMD/2017/0376 – Erection of dormer bungalow, which is detailed as follows:
“The proposed development by virtue of it’s design would appear out of keeping and would detract from the character and appearance of the area. This application therefore fails to accord with policy DC1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council Core Strategy.”
Page 21 3.2 The proposed scheme seeks approval for the subdivision of the existing planning unit known as Rose Cottage and for the erection of a two storey stone built dwellinghouse with associated access, on-site parking provision and outdoor amenity space. The proposed dwellinghouse has been designed to reflect the scale, proportions and appearance of a traditional cottage. The dwelling is to be orientated to face onto Foxt Lane and has been positioned to sit centrally within the site frontage. Vehicular access is proposed to the south of the dwellinghouse and sufficient manoeuvring space is to be provided to allow ingress and egress in forward gear. On-site parking is proposed for up to two vehicles and is to be located within the southern corner of the site. Landscaped gardens and a patio area are to be located to the north and east of the dwellinghouse.
External facing and roofing materials are stated to comprise of plain blue/black tiles to the roof and reconstituted stone with dressed stone corner quoins to the walls. Windows and doors are proposed to be Upvc. Materials are subject to Planning Officer approval.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SMD/2017/0376 Erection of dormer bungalow Refused
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 public consultation. The application site’s existing town boundary designation is proposed to be carried forward within the emerging Local Plan.
Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy DPD (26th March 2014)
5.3 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-
. SO1 Spatial Objectives . SS1 Development Principles . SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development . SS6b Smaller Villages Area Strategy . H1 New Housing Development . H2 Affordable and Local Needs Housing . R1 Rural Diversification . R2 Rural Housing . DC1 Design Considerations
Page 22 . DC2 The Historic Environment . DC3 Landscape and Settlement Transport . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport
National Planning Policy NPPF . Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes . Section 7 Requiring good design . Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment . Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Other Relevant Policy Documents . Foxt Conservation Area and Character Appraisal . National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site notice published Expiry date for comments: Expired. Press notice published N/A Neighbour Notification Expiry date for comments: 04.01.2018
6.1 A total of thirteen representations have been received, of which ten are in support of the proposal, two raise objection and one provides general comment. The points raised are summarized as follows:
Support . The proposal is for a modest sized cottage built in stone, with quoins and Staffordshire blue roof tiles to reflecting the surrounding properties; . Adequate vehicular visibility has been provided . The property has been sited to give privacy and ensure no overshadowing; . Provision of adequate amenity space of 320m²; . Infill development; . The village is in vital need of regeneration.
Object . Overdevelopment of the plot which will adversely affect properties surrounding the site; . Unneighbourly . Access and egress with create road traffic hazard; . Cramped – is this further addition to the village trying to bring us back to the “slum” conditions of the 1900’s?
General Comment . We have no objection to the erection of the dwelling. We’re all aware that additional houses need to be built, however no-one seems to want these houses in their locality. We must find additional housing plots within the existing boundary, the alternative being new estates, and as such fell this should be supported. The building is going to be built using stone, and as such would be in keeping with the rest of the area. Foxt, like other moorlands
Page 23 villages needs additional houses whether we like it or not and an infill build such as this is the ideal solution.
Ipstones Parish Council
Objection: Members of the parish Council voted against the revised application due to the change in position of the proposed dwelling. Members also consider the development in unneighbourly being close to other properties and have concerns over the access onto the narrow land, opposite another new access on the opposite side of the road.
Local Highways Authority
No objection: The visibility splay stated appears small but when extended into highway land, will provide visibility to the junction at the Malthouse. The visibility splay shown is stated as 10mx2.4m, however it is correctly shown on the plan as 2.4mx10m.
Severn Trent Water
No objection: I can confirm that we have no objection to the proposals subject to the inclusion of conditions that require the submission and approval of drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows.
Conservation Officer
No objection subject to: . All natural stone with a clay tile roof; . The incorporation of a low wall to the front of the house (along Foxt Lane) so that we can continue a traditional frontage; . The chimney should be set within the gable as external chimneys are not a feature of the vernacular.
7. OFFICER COMMENT AND PLANNING BALANCE
Planning Policies
7.1 The Local Planning Authority is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan unless material circumstances indicated 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) and the councils adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance documents.
7.2 Core Strategy policy SS1 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 Sustainable Development' as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. Planning applications that accord with policies within the Core Strategy
Page 24 will be approved without delay and where there are no relevant policies or the policies are out of date, the Council will grant planning permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise considering whether:
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 that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
Principle of Development
7.3 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires councils to identify a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land sites with a buffer of 5% to allow choice and competition in the market. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, as of 31st March 2017 the supply was 1.99 years and therefore in accordance with paragraph 49, '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 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. Recent case law has established that the application of the test in paragraph 14 is a ‘tilted balance’ which is predisposed in favour of granting planning permission unless there are ‘significant and demonstrable’ adverse effects of doing so.
7.4 Policies in the Core Strategy set out the spatial strategy for housing development in the District which adopts a hierarchy approach in order to direct the majority of development to the three towns of Leek, Cheadle and Biddulph. Within the rural areas the larger villages are identified as the being the most sustainable settlements and able to accommodate the bulk of rural development after the towns. Smaller villages, of which Foxt is one, are identified as having a poor range of services and facilities with local residents having to travel outside the village for most of their daily needs.
7.5 Limited infill development will be permitted within the smaller villages as set out in policy SS6 of the Core Strategy. Policy SS6b recognises that there is a need to strictly control new development and restrict it to limited infilling and redevelopment within the Infill Boundaries. However, the infill boundaries have yet to be defined although the plan explains that these will be drawn more tightly than the Development Boundaries around large settlements to accommodate infilling or redevelopment but to restrict peripheral expansion. Although the extent of the infill boundary is unknown, the application site would on any reasonable drawing of such a boundary the application site would be likely to fall within it being situated at the heart of the village between the properties known as Hockley House to the north east, Riverside Cottage to the east and Rose Cottage to the south.
7.6 Given the above, and view of the lack of a five year housing supply, it is considered that the principle of the development should be supported. However, it is necessary to consider whether or not the proposal complies with other relevant Core Strategy policies, the national policy framework and other material considerations in order to benefit from the presumption under Paragraph 14 of the Framework.
Page 25 Locational Sustainability
7.7 Smaller villages, of which Foxt is one, are identified as having a poor range of services and facilities with local residents having to travel outside the village for most of their daily needs. Notwithstanding this, the site itself is in a central location within the village within close proximity of a church and public house as well as local bus services and some limited infilling is envisaged within the village in the Core Strategy.
Impact on the character and appearance of the area
7.8 In accordance with Core Strategy policy DC1 the Council expects new development to be of a high quality and designed to add value to the local area. The Foxt Conservation Area was adopted in April 2018, during the course of the determination of this application and as such policy DC2 is applicable and indicates that development which would harm or be detrimental to the special character and historic heritage of the District’s towns and villages will be resisted.
7.9 The Applicant has responded positively to the design concerns raised by members following the assessment of refused application SMD/2017/0376. The submitted scheme proposes the construction of a detached two storey stone built dwellinghouse that has been designed to reflect the local vernacular which is one of stone built character cottages.
7.10 The application site is positioned within the village centre and forms part of an established ribbon of development that contributes to a cluster of residential units located within a wider rural setting. Representations have been received that consider the proposal to be overdevelopment and cramped. Properties within the locality vary in type, age, scale and density. The proposal reflects the prevailing character of the Foxt Conservation Area and would not appear at odds within the streetscene context. The Council’s Conservation Officer has considered this application and raised no objection subject to amendments to the positioning of the chimney, the use of appropriate materials and the incorporation of a boundary wall along the site frontage to reflect the existing stone boundary wall. Such details can be addressed by condition and therefore do not substantiate grounds for refusal.
Impact on residential amenity
7.11 In accordance with policy DC1 new development should protect residential amenity in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping. The application site is currently elevated above Foxt Lane and slopes steeply upwards to neighbouring properties to the north east and south east. The proposed dwelling is to sit on land 0.5m above the level of the highway at 9.55. The level of the garden and rear patio are to remain as existing at 11.25 and 13.10 respectively.
7.12 The proposed dwelling is to be positioned to front onto Foxt Lane. Accommodation within the property is to comprise of a kitchen/dining area and separate lounge to the ground floor and 3 no. bedrooms (one being en-suite) and a family shower room to the first floor. Rooms located on the ground floor are served
Page 26 by principal windows that are to be located within the front and rear elevations of the dwelling. A secondary window is to be located within the north elevation. Windows that are to serve bedroom 1, bedroom 3 and a landing / circulation area are to be located within the front elevation and windows that are to serve the family shower room, en-suite bathroom and bedroom 2 are to be located within the rear elevation. Windows serving the shower room and en-suite are to be obscure glazed and located on the southern side of the rear elevation.
7.13 The site is bound by Rose Cottage to the south, Riverside to the south east and Hockley House to the north east. The rear garage wall of Hockley House sits on the southern half of the shared site boundary. It is noted that habitable room windows are located within the northwest elevation of Rose Cottage and south west elevations of Riverside and Hockley House. Whilst the recommended minimum distance of 21m, as set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to space about dwellings would not be achieved between the principal windows in the rear elevation of the new property and those in the rear elevation of the neighbouring dwellings, the positioning of these windows sit on an oblique angle to those proposed and as such would not likely suffer a significant loss of privacy. The proposed development is positioned to the north and north west of these neighbouring properties and taking account of this relationship in addition to the site topography it is not considered that the development would result in a harmful degree of overshadowing or overbearing impact. Appropriate boundary treatment details should be conditioned, however, to minimise overlooking.
Impact on nearby roads and highway safety
7.14 In accordance with policies DC1 and T1, all new development should provide for the necessary car use arising from the development. A number of concerns have been raised in respect of highway safety. However Staffordshire County Council Highways have considered the proposal and has raised no objection. It is therefore considered that a refusal on such grounds could not be sustained.
8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraphs 18 to 219 taken as a whole constitute what this means in practice. In addition, paragraph 7 identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental. The Framework makes it clear that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation. The application proposal would provide some economic benefits, principally through the construction of the dwelling and some limited social benefits arising from the small increase in housing stock. The proposal would have no significant demonstrable harm on the visual amenities of the area, nearby residential amenity, highway safety or public rights of way. Whilst Foxt is not a very sustainable location, it does benefit from some local facilities within the village which are easily accessible from the site. Although infill boundary lines have not been drawn, the Local Plan does envisage some infilling within the village and on any reasonable drawing of such a boundary, this is likely to fall within it. Given the lack of a five year supply of housing in the District and the fact that some of the relevant development plan policies are out of date, it is considered that the benefits
Page 27 of the scheme outweigh any limited harm and the proposal represents a sustainable form of development.
8.2 The NPPF indicates that LPA’s should “look for solutions rather than problems” and “work pro-actively with applicants to secure development that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area”. It is considered that the applicant has responded positively to the concerns raised by committee at the assessment of planning reference SMD/217/0376 and sufficiently overcome the reason for refusal of that application.
8.3 Consideration has been given to the points raised by representations. However for the reasons outlined within this report the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the Development Plan and a recommendation of approval is provided.
9. RECOMMENDATION
A: That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason:- To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.
2. Prior to the commencement of development samples of the facing and roofing materials to be used in the construction of the dwelling hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the details approved. Reason:- in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
3. Prior to the commencement of development drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. Reason:- To ensure that the development is provided with satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce or exacerbate a flooding problem and to minimise risk of pollution.
4. Unless prior permission has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority, all noisy activities shall be restricted to the following times of operations. - 08:00 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); - 08:00 - 13:00 hours (Saturday) - No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. In this instance a noisy activity is defined as any activity (for instance, but not restricted to, building construction/demolition operations, refurbishing and landscaping) which generates noise that is audible at the site boundary.
Page 28 Reason:- In the interests of the amenity of nearby properties, in accordance with DC1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy.
5. No top 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:- To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the visibility splays of 2.4mx10m shown on plan 1703/03/03/B have been provided. The visibility splay shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 900mm above the adjacent carriageway level. Reason:- To comply with NPPF Paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy policy DC1; in the interests of highway safety.
7. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, parking and turning areas have been provided and completed in accordance with the approved plans. The parking, turning and servicing areas shall thereafter be retained unobstructed as parking, turning and servicing areas for the life of the development. Reason:- To comply with NPPF Paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy policy DC1; in the interests of highway safety.
8. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive rear of the public highway has been surfaced and thereafter maintained in a bound material for a minimum distance of 5m back from the carriageway edge. Reason:- To comply with NPPF Paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy policy DC1; in the interests of highway safety.
9. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until a surface water drainage interceptor, connected to a surface water outfall or drained to SUDS principles, has been provided across the access immediately to the rear of the highway boundary unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason:- To comply with NPPF Paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy policy DC1; in the interests of highway safety.
10. Nothwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, amended plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Page 29 Authority to show the chimney set within the gable prior to the commencement of development and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason:- Having regard to the prevailing character of the Foxt Conservation Area.
11. Prior to the commencement of development Eaves, verge, parapet, & rainwater goods 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 details Reason:- Having regard to the prevailing character of the Foxt Conservation Area.
12. Prior to commencement of development details of windows and doors including, material, colour, sections and reveals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved details which shall thereafter be retained. Reason:- Having regard to the prevailing character of the Foxt Conservation Area.
13. Prior to the commencement of development details of boundary treatments, which shall include a replacement stone wall to the site frontage, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved boundary treatment shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained. Reason:- Having regard to the prevailing character of the Foxt Conservation Area.
14. Prior to the commencement of development details of site levels, including sections and elevations and materials of any proposed retaining wall shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved details which shall thereafter be retained. Reason:- Having regard to the prevailing character of the Foxt Conservation Area.
15. No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping for the site indicating inter alia the positions of all existing trees and hedgerows within and around the site, indications of any to be retained together with measures for their protection during the course of development, also the number, species, heights on planting and positions of all additional trees, shrubs and bushes to be planted. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity
16. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the
Page 30 development whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the landscaping scheme die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
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 31 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0078 No: Location Building opposite Rue Hill House, Ashbourne Road, Rue Hill, Cauldon Low Proposal Erection of a dwelling Applicant Mr and Mrs S Little Agent Mrs Aida McManus, AM Planning Consultants Ltd Parish/ward Cotton Parish / Churnet Date registered 28/03/2018 Ward If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw tel: 01538 395400 ex 4921 [email protected]
REFERRAL
The application is referred to committee because it is a departure from the Development Plan
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Delegated Authority to APPROVE with conditions
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The application site relates to a former Dutch barn on the south side of Ashbourne Road (A52) opposite to Rue Hill House, Cauldon Low. The former agricultural building was clad with concrete blockwork at its lower level with corrugated sheeting above. Corrugated sheeting also covered the roof. The site has an established vehicular access onto Ashbourne Road. For the purposes of the Development Plan, the site is within the Open Countryside.
3. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 Full planning permission is sought for a detached, three bed dwelling identical in appearance to that approved under a previous application, ref. DET/2016/0029, for conversion of the Dutch barn to a single dwelling.
3.2 During implementation of the previous Prior Approval, works were undertaken on site which went beyond conversion and effectively constituted removal and re-build of the structure. During the course of works all of the external cladding to the upper walls and the concrete panels to the lower walls were removed along with the entire roof structure leaving only a number of upright steel posts. The legal position in such circumstances, confirmed in the
Page 33 courts in Hadfield v SOS 19/6/1996, is that any planning permission is thereby lost and a fresh permission is needed for any reconstruction. The Council’s Enforcement Team notified the Applicants that the works were unauthorised at which stage works ceased on the dwelling. This planning application therefore seeks to regularise the situation.
3.3 Vehicular access will be from the existing gated access point. Two parking spaces would be provided accessed from the access track which runs along the western site boundary.
3.4 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, 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/ApplicationSearchS ervlet?PKID=120639
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 DET/2016/0029 – Change of use of agricultural building to a single dwellinghouse including associated building operations – Prior Approval Granted 06/12/2016.
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) The Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 1999) Saved Policies 2007 Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (adopted March 2013)
5.2 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-
SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6c Other Rural Areas Strategy SD4 Pollution and Flood Risk H1 New Housing Development H2 Affordable and Local Needs Housing DC1 Design Considerations DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources R2 Rural Housing T1 Development and Sustainable Transport
Page 34 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Design Principles for Development in the Staffordshire Moorlands Space About Dwellings Landscape Character Strategy
National Planning Policy NPPF
Chapter 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development Chapter 4 - Promoting Sustainable Transport Chapter 6 - Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design Chapter 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Other Relevant Policy Documents National Planning Policy Guidance
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT Site notice published Expiry date for comments: 18/05/2018 Press notice published Expiry date for comments: 13/06/2018 Neighbour Notification Expiry date for comments: 16/05/2018
6.1 Public comments
None received.
6.2 Cotton Parish Council
No objections.
6.3 Highways Authority
No objection subject to conditions.
6.5 Environmental Health
No comments received.
6.6 SMDC Waste
No comments received.
6.7 SCC Minerals and Waste
No objection.
6.8 Severn Trent Water
No objection.
Page 35 7. OFFICER COMMENT
Planning Policy
7.1 The main issue in the consideration of this case is the acceptability, in principle, of the proposed development.
7.2 Policies in the Core Strategy set out the spatial strategy for housing development in the District and essentially adopts a hierarchy approach which seeks to concentrate the majority in the three main towns of Leek, Cheadle and Biddulph.
7.3 The proposal involves the creation of a new dwelling in an isolated location. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF advises that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances, none of which, as listed in in paragraph 55 apply to this proposal. Core Strategy Policy SS6c restricts new housing in the countryside to that which meets an essential local need, including affordable housing, which also does not apply in this case. The development is, therefore, contrary to policy and represents a departure from the Development Plan.
7.4 Consequently, there is a presumption against the proposal, under the provisions of sec.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications and appeals must be determined “in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise". The application turns, therefore, on whether there are any other material considerations, of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the Development Plan presumption against the development.
Material Considerations
7.5 It is the applicant’s case that they were under the impression that the works which they were carrying out were in accordance with the Prior Notification Approval which had previously been granted to them. According to the Planning Statement submitted with the application they “commenced work on site in June 2017 reliant upon the Prior Approval and attached conditions, along with building regulations requirements.
7.6 During the implementation of this approval it was established that due to no conditions restricting the removal of the existing external walls the applicant’s believed that they could rebuild these due to potential health risk reasons following the comments from the Structural Engineers for the Council, Martyn Barber’s (Civicance Structural Engineer) consultation response during the application process which stated that “ the existing perimeter dwarf walls are highly contaminated with farm waste and are very unlikely to have adequate foundations for domestic purposes and will probably need replacing….”.
Page 36 7.7 Under Class Q (i) development under Class Q (b) allows building operations to install or replace windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls including water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling, and my applicants believed that they were acting in full accordance with the approval.
7.8 Unfortunately, it has subsequently come to light that their builder erected the new external walls in places slightly outside of the existing footprint of the building in some areas i.e. a bricks width. He also recommended the removal of the roof trusses due to their poor condition and their replacement, which would constitute a general repair to the building….”
7.9 “This application has been submitted to regularise the proposed dwelling to provide the applicants with the confidence that the dwelling when completed will be lawful. The proposal will result in no difference to the finally constructed dwelling’s appearance to that which was approved under the prior approval, and will merely place them back in the position where they can complete and occupy the dwelling and sell their existing large family home”.
7.10 In considering the weight to be attached to the matters of exceptional circumstances and harm, regard should be given to previous Appeal cases where inspectors have considered similar issues.
7.11 Of relevance to this case is an appeal decision, dated 26 July 2004, which relates to a development in the Stockport Green Belt whereby planning permission had been granted for the conversion of an existing barn to a dwelling. When works began on the building they did not comply in all respects with the planning approval, and at the request of the Council work ceased on the property. The roof had been removed from the building and much of the rear wall. The Council was of the opinion therefore that the planning permission could not be implemented and what the appellants were proposing was tantamount to a new dwelling in the Green Belt. The Inspector opined that the appellant was seeking to provide a dwelling practically identical to that previously permitted and that the only material difference was that more reconstruction work would be required. The end result would still be a modest three bedroom cottage, built in stone and with a stone flagged roof and retaining some characteristic features of the original barn.
7.12 The appeal turned on whether the new scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so whether there were any very special circumstances which warranted an exception to the severely restrictive Green Belt Policies.
7.13 The Inspector acknowledged that the proposal as it stood did not accord with the requirements of PPG2 (the National Green Belt policy in force at the time) i.e. it would not be properly associated with agriculture or forestry nor would it be essential for outdoor sport, recreation or a cemetery or any other predominantly open use, nor could the development be classed as infilling as it did not lie within an existing village boundary or within an area where there was a ribbon form of development. Therefore, he opined that the scheme
Page 37 would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. However he then turned to consider whether or not there were very special circumstances which would override the strong policy objections.
7.14 He considered the relevance of the extant planning permission and whether, if permitted to continue, the ultimate development would be significantly different to that approved. He concluded that it would not because materials were to be re-used, it would be built in stone and have a stone flagged roof and retain some of the characteristic features of the original barn. The Inspector concluded that all of those matters constituted sufficiently special circumstances to warrant an exception to the severely restrictive Green Belt Policies.
7.15 A further appeal decision, whereby similarities may be drawn with this proposal relates to a site which lies in the North Cheshire Green Belt.
7.16 Planning permission had been refused for the conversion of the barn to residential accommodation in 1992. However, in 1993 planning permission was granted for the conversion. A subsequent application was approved to make alterations and additions to the barn.
7.17 When work commenced on the development, parts of the east wall collapsed. The applicant was advised by her agent that the end gable walls would have to be removed and rebuilt on the existing foundations. The Local Authority was of the opinion that these works would require a further planning approval. An application was subsequently withdrawn and work restarted on the building. Consequently an enforcement notice was issued together with a stop notice in 1994. The withdrawn application was re-submitted and an appeal was lodged against the enforcement notice. At appeal the enforcement notice was upheld and the Section 78 appeal was dismissed.
7.18 An amended application was submitted, this too was refused and dismissed at appeal. A further application was submitted and refused, a subsequent appeal was withdrawn.
7.19 In 2000 the Local Planning Authority resolved to use its powers to enter the site and undertake works of demolition in default. The applicant brought proceedings of judicial review against this decision claiming that demolition would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 and was an unjustified deprivation of property contrary to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention. Permission was initially refused by the High Court but subsequently granted by the Court of Appeal. Whilst the judicial review was pending a further application for the retention of the buildings was submitted. Although the Council considered the proposal to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt it resolved to approve the application, subject to it being referred to the Secretary of State as a possible call-in, on the basis of very special circumstances, these were identified as being:
Page 38 i) That planning permission had originally been granted for the conversion and change of use of a barn for residential use. There was therefore no objection to the use of the site for a dwelling. ii) There had been some technical breaches of policy and guidance in respect of the criteria for the re-use of the buildings in the countryside as set out in the development plan and government advice. The structural report accompanying the application had not been as comprehensive as would now be expected and to which appropriate planning conditions might have been attached. The likelihood of a similar situation arising had therefore been significantly reduced. iii) The principle of development on this site carried the support of the Parish Council and the local community.
7.21 The building is a possession as defined by the Human Rights Act 1998. The applicant is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of that possession. If planning permission were further refused then having regard to the history of this site including potential demolition of the building, there is a risk that the applicant’s Human Rights would be breached.
7.22 In deciding this application the Secretary of State upheld the very special circumstances. Members should note, however, that the development had already been carried out and the property was occupied; therefore in carrying out works to demolish the property the Local Planning Authority would have been depriving the occupiers of their home. This is not the same situation as that now under consideration. The Secretary of State also made the distinction between the monetary loss, which he did not consider sufficient to justify granting planning permission and the loss of a home, which he did.
7.23 In a further Appeal Decision from the Macclesfield area, which was also located in the Green Belt where the Inspector determined that the resulting building would not be materially different in size, position or appearance from the conversion. The building was found to form part of a traditional group of buildings with the adjacent farmhouse at a nearby road junction and there would be material harm if the integrity of the farmstead was lost. In addition, the landscaping proposed would also make a modest but positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. A structural survey and advice from the Council’s Building Control Officer indicated that the building was capable for conversion without major or complete rebuilding. Based on the above the inspector concluded that although a new dwelling had been created, its impact on the area was an improvement and sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt from inappropriate development.
7.24 In an example from Chlemsford, permission had been granted to convert two barns into a dwelling along with the construction of a link between the two. At the time permission was granted a structural engineer's report concluded that conversion was possible without complete demolition. However, as work progressed it was discovered that many of the beams were incapable of being re-used. The larger of the two barns was substantially
Page 39 demolished and the second was substantially altered. The appellant explained that the intention was to erect replica buildings allowing them to look exactly as if they had been converted in accordance with the permission. An inspector noted that even under the terms of the existing permission, the original barns required very substantial rebuilding including completely new cladding and roofs. The appellant's plan would ensure that they continued to make a positive contribution to the setting of the adjacent listed farmhouse and this weighed heavily in its favour of the scheme. Requiring the buildings’ demolition would leave a vacant site. This would be both undesirable and fail to make use of the buildings, which once converted would be put to beneficial use and contribute to economic growth
7.25 The Courts have also upheld this general approach. In Amber Valley DC v SoS 23/01/2009 permission for a barn conversion had been granted in 2006 but in 2007 an enforcement notice was issued alleging that the works undertaken had gone further than those authorised, and that partial demolition and rebuilding had occurred. An appeal against the enforcement notice succeeded, after an inspector concluded that the overall environmental effect of the changes was not that substantial and to grant planning permission would be preferable to leaving the barn unfinished and part-demolished. The High Court held that the reasons given by the inspector were entirely adequate and there had been no error in law.
7.26 However, Appeal decisions can also be found to support the opposite view that the structure constitutes a new dwelling in a location where one would not normally be permitted and should be refused in line with Development Plan Policy. For example, in a similar case at Vale Royal, an enforcement notice required the demolition and removal of materials for an unauthorised rebuilding of a former barn which had permission for conversion to a dwelling. Upon commencement of work the building became unstable and most of it had to be demolished. Permission to erect a new dwelling was refused and this was also appealed. The site lay within the Green Belt. Major rebuilding work involving more than 50% of the structure would be required and thus failed a local plan policy. Rebuilding was not justified on the basis that a barn had once existed on the site.
7.27 In Hinkley and Bosworth District an enforcement notice required the demolition of a new dwelling in the countryside. Permission had been granted for the conversion of a disused barn to a dwelling. However, an inspector was satisfied that what was done went substantially beyond the scope of the planning permission. Only 20% of the walls were original, significant lengths of new foundations had been provided and the whole roof had been replaced. The inspector gave only very limited weight to the fact that, if completed, it would look like either the previous building, now largely removed, or the previous building as it would have looked had the permission been properly implemented. He explained that current national and local policies were cautious about allowing new residential uses to be established in the open countryside, hence the preference for the re-use of existing buildings. The notice was upheld.
Page 40 7.28 The issue in question, therefore, is whether, in the light of the case law described above, the circumstances set out in the applicant’s supporting statement are sufficiently exceptional to justify a departure from development plan policy.
7.29 Whilst the current application site does not lie within the Green Belt, it does lie within the Open Countryside where there is a presumption against new residential development. Nevertheless policies relating to new development in the Open Countryside are less strict that those relating to Green Belt and yet as noted above Inspectors have permitted the replacement of barns even in Green Belt. The proposal is similar to the appeal cases in that it does not comply with any of the criteria for acceptable residential development in the Open Countryside / Green Belt as detailed in Local Plan policy. The dwellings would also be identical in external appearance to the previously approved conversion.
7.30 In Vallis v SoS19/03/2012, which considered a case involving the conversion of a 200-year old barn in a Green Belt and AONB into a dwelling, the High Court quashed a second inspector’s decision to refuse permission for unauthorised changes following a permission that had been granted by the council in 2002. The court held that the inspector had failed properly to take into account the preservation of the original internal features that remained in the building as ‘heritage assets’. He had also ignored the planning history of the site, by attaching no weight to it. This included the previous inspector’s conclusion that the reconstructed barn was “to all intents and purposes, identical to the building which it replaced and therefore identical to a building that had been on this site and in this position for 200 years”.
7.31 However, in the cases above it is noted that the applications related to a traditional stone barn which would have been in keeping with and contributed to the local vernacular and would have been considered “heritage assets” whereas the current case relates to a modern agricultural building which arguable detracts from it.
7.32 Prior to it being dismantled, it is unlikely that the original building would have been considered to be of particular merit in terms of being suitable for conversion had it been assessed under Core Strategy policies as part of a full planning application. However, conversion was nevertheless permitted though the Class Q Prior Approval route and therefore the principle of a new dwelling in this location has been previously granted, albeit the approval was for a building conversion rather than a new build dwelling.
7.33 Unlike the above cases a comprehensive structural report was not submitted with the initial application, and the applicant did engage a structural engineer prior to commencing work. Another notable difference is that in some of the decisions to approve, referred to above the loss of the integrity of the farmstead as a result of demolition of a barn was a material consideration. However, in this case the structure is a stand-alone field barn.
Page 41 7.34 There also appears to be a distinction in terms of where a barn collapses or has to be demolished as a result of severe storm or fire damage and cases where barns are deliberately demolished and rebuilt. In general, it is extremely difficult to convince local authorities that a re-erected or rebuilt barn is anything more than a new dwelling in the countryside. In this case the building was not weakened or damaged by circumstances such as extreme weather which were outside the Applicant’s control. It was deliberately dismantled. However, it is noted from the Applicant’s submissions that they did so in good faith, on the advice of their professional advisers believing that they were acting in accordance with the consent which they had previously received.
7.35 Nevertheless the Courts have held that the planning history of the site and the existence of the previous permission for conversion is a material consideration to which weight should be attached.
7.36 The Applicant’s agent argues that her clients have undergone a huge amount of stress due to this matter and Mrs Little is now taking medication to alleviate. They have already spent over £80,000 on the project to date, with the made to measure wooden barrel beams sitting in storage until the proposal can move forward, which will of course be useless if permission is not granted. This application has been submitted to regularise the proposed dwelling to provide the applicants with the confidence that the dwelling when completed will be lawful. The proposal will result in no difference to the finally constructed dwelling’s appearance to that which was approved under the prior approval, and will merely place them back in the position where they can complete and occupy the dwelling and sell their existing large family home.
7.37 Previous Appeal decisions have attached little weight, however, to financial loss or personal circumstances and hardship. In the Vale Royal case referred to above, the Inspector noted that the appellant had expended £165,000 to date but this did not constitute a very special circumstance to outweigh harm to openness. Either rebuilding or new-build constituted inappropriate development and permission was refused.
7.38 In a case from Stafford Borough in 2012, the inspector remarked that the dwelling for which permission was sought would not be a preserved building but effectively a copy of a building that previously occupied the site. It would not have the historic character of the barn. The appellant and her partner contended that they would suffer considerable financial hardship if the appeal were dismissed. They had paid a considerable sum for the barn and had later expended considerable further sums on work on the site. The inspector recorded, however, that no assessment had been provided as to the scale of the financial loss or of the effect of that loss on the overall finances of the appellant and her partner, although the latter had described it as their life savings. The inspector concluded that it had not been demonstrated that any financial hardship suffered outweighed the conflict with national and local policy that would arise from permitting a new dwelling in the open countryside.
Page 42 7.39 Consideration must also be given to the Human Rights Act. There are two Human Rights in prospect. a) Interference with the right to respect for family life and home (except in defined circumstances). Article 8 states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a Public Authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder and crime, for the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
b) Interference with the right not to be deprived of property (except in defined circumstances). Within the First Protocol Article 1 states: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
7.40 With regard to the former of the two provisions, in this instance the development is by a private individual for their own occupation. However, it is noted that it is not yet occupied and that the Applicants have not sold their existing home and continue to occupy it. Therefore, a decision to refuse this application would not result in the loss of any existing residential accommodation and would not represent an infringement of human rights under Article 8.
7.41 The level of interference with the latter is very limited. First Protocol Article 1 does not, in any way, prohibit the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. Whilst it may be argued that there would be a slight interference with Property Rights this would be by development control rather than by direct deprivation/demolition and the Council`s decision upon the planning application would not result directly in the destruction of an existing asset. In Young v SSE and Hinckley & Bosworth BC, the High Court decided that the doctrine of abandonment did not breach the Human Rights Act. Parts of that judgment are relevant by analogy. The Court considered that an Appeal Inspector`s refusal did not deprive the claimants of their possessions, merely of a prospect that planning permission might be granted.
7.42 The most important point to be drawn from the Stockport and two Macclesfield decisions quoted above is that in all three examples the Inspectors granted permission because the proposed dwellings were identical replicas of previously permitted development. No harm arose. This would also be case at the at the current application site. However, as can be seen from the Vale Royal case, other Inspectors have taken a different approach and held to the strictly policy based view, that the rebuilding constitutes inappropriate development. These decisions, therefore, are not binding
Page 43 precedents. They merely indicate an approach which another Inspector might take if a decision to refuse this application went to Appeal.
7.43 Another important material consideration is the matter of Housing Land Supply Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires the Council to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing land sites, including a 5% buffer to allow for choice and competition in the market for land increased to a 20% buffer where there is a persistent under-delivery in past years. Paragraph 49 requires all housing applications to 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.
7.44 The Council calculates its 5-year land supply on a district basis. As at 31st March 2016, it was 1.87 years (with a 20% buffer). The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Clearly, the under the provisions of paragraph 49 of the NPPG as set out above the Core Strategy Policies that regulate the supply and location of housing, which include open countryside policies, are out of date and the application must be determined in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 of the Framework. For decision taking this means granting permission unless the adverse effects substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits – the so called “tilted balance”.
7.45 The site is within a remote location and local facilities and services are not readily accessible on foot. There are local bus services but overall it is considered that future residents of the proposed dwelling will be mainly reliant upon car borne journeys. However, whilst the site is not in a highly sustainable location in accordance with the requirements of policy, it remains the case that a dwelling has been previously permitted on this site through the Prior Approval process.
7.46 The proposal would have some social and economic benefits, including a small contribution to the District’s housing supply, employment opportunities during the construction phase of development, and spending in the local economy by future occupants of the proposed dwelling. The proposal will utilise sustainable construction methods and materials to ensure energy efficiency. Contribution to economic growth was given weight in the Chelmsford case referred to above.
7.47 In summary, the proposal conflicts with Policies SS6c and R2, given the previous prior approval for a dwelling on the site and in view of the lack of a five year housing supply as discussed above, whereby the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date, the proposal must be considered in the light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and granted planning permission unless the harm significant and demonstrably outweighs the benefits – the tilted balance.
Page 44 7.48 The proposed dwelling has the form of a modern agricultural building which in terms of form and materials is not in keeping with the Staffordshire Moorlands vernacular and would do little to preserve and enhance local distinctiveness. It is in an isolated location, in a prominent open countryside roadside position, where it would detract from the openness of the countryside and would relate poorly to existing development. It is also remote from shops and services and is not in a location where, despite the lack of a 5 year land supply a new dwelling would normally be permitted.
7.49 However, the courts have established that the planning history of the site and permissions for conversions of buildings which previously existed on the site are a material planning consideration which must be given weight. There are numerous examples of Appeal decisions where Inspectors have granted consent for the rebuilding of barns which have collapsed or been demolished either accidentally or deliberately giving weight to the fact that they would appear identical to the barn conversions for which consent was previously granted and therefore there is an absence of actual “harm”. Examples can also be found, where Inspectors have adopted a stricter policy based approach and refused consent. Similarities, such as the identical appearance and contribution to economic growth can be identified between the current application and the previous Appeal cases but differences can also be identified for example the building currently under consideration is a modern building which is not part of a farmstead.
7.50 The previous Appeal decisions are not binding but they are an indication of how and Inspector might approach this case if it were refused and went to Appeal. Whilst this is an extremely finely balanced decision, overall it is considered that the harm identified above, in terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the area or generation of private car journeys would be not greater than that associated with the previously approved conversion and that it does not outweigh the benefits. Accordingly the balance remains tiled in favour of approval in principle.
Impact on the character and appearance of the area
7.51 CS 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 ‘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 …’.
7.52 CS Policy SS6c ‘Other Rural Areas Area Strategy’ comprises the other rural areas containing the countryside and the Green Belt outside of the development and infill boundaries of the towns and villages and therefore is directly relevant to the application site. It seeks to ‘Enhance and conserve the quality of the countryside by: Giving priority to the need to protect the quality and character of the area and requiring all development proposals to respect and respond sensitively to the distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape…’.
Page 45 7.53 CS Policy H1 ‘New Housing Development’ states ‘all development will be assessed according to the extent to which it provides for high quality, sustainable housing … and the strategy for the area having regard to the location of the development, 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 …’.
7.54 The specific design and conservation policies of the CS also seek to promote local distinctiveness by means of good design and the conservation, protection and enhancement of historic, environmental and cultural assets along with the District’s landscape and the setting of its settlements. Policy DC1 sets out design criteria relating to new development to reinforce local distinctiveness and positively contribute to the area. Policy DC3 sets out measures to protect and enhance the local landscape and setting of settlement. In detail, Policy DC3 ‘Landscape and Settlement Setting’ states ‘The Council will protect and, where possible, enhance local landscape and the setting of settlements in the Staffordshire Moorlands by: 1. Resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local and wider landscape or the setting of a settlement and important views into and out of the settlement as identified in the Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment; 2. Supporting development which respects and enhances local landscape character and which reinforces and enhances the setting of the settlement as identified in the Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment …’.
7.55 Other relevant landscape CS policies include Policy SS7 ‘Churnet Valley Area Strategy’ which stipulates ‘The consideration of landscape character will be paramount in all development proposals in order to protect and conserve locally distinctive qualities and sense of place and to maximise opportunities for restoring, strengthening and enhancing distinctive landscape features’.
7.56 Turning to the matter of character and appearance, other than the insertion of windows and doors to enable habitable use and re-cladding works the proposal will largely maintain the scale and appearance of the former Dutch barn, reflecting the previous agricultural building. The main part of the building would have a curved roof form, with a lean- to element to he sde, typical of many such agricultural sutrcutres. The proposal would be clad in timber boarding and render with zinc seamed corrugated roofing. These materials reflect the former appearance of the building.
7.57. However, it should be noted that in terms of visual impact, the design of the dwelling which has sought to replicate exactly that of the converted modern former agricultural building, is not a form of development which would be permitted if it were submitted as an application for a new residential property on a Greenfield site. The utilitarian form and materials such as zinc roofing and timber cladding which, whilst typical of many modern agricultural buildings are not characteristic of the Staffordshire Moorlands and whilst
Page 46 permissible out of necessity on a new agricultural building, where form follows function, would not be allowed on a new residential property. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural area and the locality.
7.58. Furthermore, it will stand in an isolated and prominent roadside location and as such does not relate well to existing patterns of development and is certainly in a position where a new dwelling would not be permitted if no structure or approved conversion had existed on the site previously. Nevertheless, this harm is no greater than that associated with the building which previously existed on the site or the previously approved conversion.
7.59 The curtilage is relatively tightly drawn around the site and there would be no significant incursion into the surrounding countryside. An appropriate soft landscaping scheme can be agreed by way of condition in order to soften the appearance of the development.
Impact on residential amenity
7.60 National planning policy dictates that at the heart of its core principles, planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. This is further re-iterated in CS Policy DC1, which seeks to protect residential amenity, in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping as informed by the Council’s ‘Space about Dwellings’ SPG.
7.61 Due to the separation distances involved with the nearest neighbouring property at Rue Hill House being on the other side of Ashbourne Road it is considered that the proposed development would not adversely affect the occupiers of the neighbouring property.
7.62 The proposed development can provide adequate amenity standards for the proposed occupants of the dwelling. The site is on the opposite side of the road to a haulage yard and there is the potential for noise impacts specifically from noise from vehicles repairs and early morning/night time vehicle movements. Subject to appropriate sound insulation to the building, it is considered that the amenity of future residents can be protected and the haulage company can continue to operate without complaint. The Noise Assessment submitted with the previous application, DET/2016/0029, predicts that the proposed dwelling would enjoy good amenity based on the mitigation proposed. The Environmental Health Officer recommended conditions requiring the mitigation measures set out in the Noise Assessment to be fully implemented.
7.63 In addition, the scheme would afford future residents with adequate private amenity space. In these circumstances, the proposal accords with the requirements of CS Policy DC1 and the NPPF.
Page 47 Access and Highway Safety
7.64 In accordance with policies DC1 and T1 all new development should provide for safe and satisfactory access and make a contribution to meeting the parking requirements arising from the development.
7.65 The proposed development would be served by the existing access point which currently serves the site. The Highways Authority have been consulted and raise no objections to the proposed development on highway grounds subject to conditions requiring submission of details of the parking and turning areas and subsequent implementation of those works; the height of vegetation on the verge on the site frontage being reduced and subsequently maintained at a maximum height of 600mm; and any gates being located 5m from the rear of the carriageway.
7.66 Therefore, taking the above into account, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Highway Authority, it is concluded that there would be no adverse, or ‘severe’, impact on the local road network and the proposals thereby comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Core Strategy policies.
Other Matters
7.67 With regard to the impact on biodiversity, the bat and bird survey submitted with the previous application demonstrated that the proposed development would not adversely affect protected species. A number of mitigation and enhancement measures were recommended in the report and a condition can be attached to require those measures, including bat roosting and bird nesting opportunities, to be incorporated. The proposal therefore accords with Policy NE1.
7.68 The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (the Zone at lowest risk of flooding). The use of the site for residential development accords with the general advice in section 10 the NPPF in that this is land with the lowest probability of flooding. Overall there is no objection to the proposed development on flood risk or drainage grounds.
8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 It is concluded that the proposed development does not represent the conversion of an existing building or meet the criteria any other form of acceptable new residential development in the Open Countryside. It is, therefore, contrary to Policy and represents a departure from the development plan. Nevertheless, Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 2004 requires Local Authorities to have regard to “any other material considerations”, which allows them to exercise their own planning judgment as to whether the facts of any particular application (for example the applicant’s belief that they were acting in accordance with the previous Prior Approval and any harm arising from the finished appearance of the building) amount to a sufficiently strong reason to permit a deviation from Local Plan Policy.
Page 48 8.2 Furthermore, as Members will be aware, the NPPF, is also an important material consideration to which significant weight must be attached. It states that where the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, as is the case in Staffordshire Moorlands, applications must be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means granting permission unless the harm arising from the development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits.
8.3 The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraphs 18 to 219 taken as a whole constitute what this means in practice. In addition, paragraph 7 identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental. The Framework makes it clear that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation
8.4 After considering the individual circumstances of this case, weighing in the balance the appeal decisions quoted, Members must consider whether the determination of this application should be in line with the normal restrictive policies which control new residential development in the open countryside, or whether the special circumstances put forward by the applicant and other material considerations, should override these policies. In this case the decision is very finely balanced.
8.5 The majority of Appeal Decisions which have considered similar cases support the view that as the completed development would be identical in terms of appearance to the previously approved conversion, no “harm” would result from the development.
8.6 It should be noted, however, that these Appeal cases all related to the reconstruction of traditional barns which added to or enhanced their settings and local distinctiveness of the area in which they were situated. By contrast the application before the committee relates to modern agricultural building of little architectural merit which was being converted under Permitted Development Rights and not following the grant of planning permission having been assessed against the Council’s barn conversion policy in it’s Core Strategy.
8.7 In terms of visual impact, the design of the dwelling which has sought to replicate exactly that of the converted modern former agricultural building, is not a form of development which would be permitted if it were submitted as an application for a new residential property on a Greenfield site. The utilitarian form and materials such as zinc roofing and timber cladding which, whilst typical of many modern agricultural buildings are not characteristic of the Staffordshire Moorlands and whilst permissible out of necessity on a new agricultural building, where form follows function, would not be allowed on a new residential property. Furthermore, it is in a prominent and isolated location which is poorly related to existing development and not a location where a new dwelling would normally be permitted. The proposal would
Page 49 therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural area and the locality. Nevertheless, this harm is no greater than that associated with the building which previously existed on the site or the previously approved conversion. . 8.8 The site is not a very sustainable location, and is isolated from other development, shops and services and is not in a location where a new dwelling would be allowed in normal circumstances, even where no 5 year supply exists. However, journeys to work, school or shops from the new dwelling would be no longer or more frequent than would have been the case from the previously approved conversion.
8.9 Furthermore, the application proposal would provide some economic benefits, principally through the construction of the dwelling and some limited social benefits arising from the small increase in housing stock. The proposal would have no significant demonstrable harm on nearby residential amenity, highway safety or public rights of way.
8.10 Nevertheless the “harm” which has been identified is considered to be limited relative to the benefits and no greater than that which would have occurred as a result of the previously approved conversion. In the light of the above it is considered that, on balance, a refusal of planning permission would be difficult to sustain and that in this case, the material considerations are sufficient to outweigh the provisions of the development plan policy and therefore planning permission should be granted.
8.11 As the press notice for the application does not expire until 13th June, delegated authority is sought to approve the application subject to no substantive comments or material considerations being raised that are not considered as part of this report.
9. RECOMMENDATION
A. It is recommended that authority is delegated to the Operations Manager – Development Services to APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason:- To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted specifications and plans as follows: drawings referenced below: Location Plan 1:1250 Proposed Plan Ground Floor Proposed Plan 1st Floor Proposed Elevations – East and South
Page 50 Proposed Elevations – West and North Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details, and samples if requested, of all roof tiles, facing materials, and details of the windows and doors and hard surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details as subsequently approved in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory.
4. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development. Reason:- In the interests of the visual appearance of the development and the amenities of the area.
5. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to a standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of British Standard [4428 : 1989]. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced with others of species, size and number as originally approved, by the end of the first available planting season thereafter. Reason:- To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.
6. No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of amenity.
7. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until details of the parking and turning areas have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be provided in
Page 51 accordance with the approved plans and retained for the life of the development. Reason:- To comply with NPPF paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy Policy DC1 and T1; in the interests of highway safety.
8. Before the proposed development is brought into use, the vegetation on the verge on the site frontage shall be reduced to a maximum height of 600 mm above the adjacent carriageway level. The vegetation shall thereafter be maintained at a maximum height of 600mm above the carriageway level for the life of the development. Reason:- To comply with NPPF paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy Policy DC1 and T1; in the interests of highway safety.
9. Any gates shall be located a minimum of 5m rear of the carriageway boundary and shall open away from the highway. Reason:- To comply with NPPF paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy Policy DC1 and T1; in the interests of highway safety.
10. Unless prior permission has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority, all noisy activities shall be restricted to the following times of operations. 08:00 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); 08:00 - 13:00 hours (Saturday) No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
In this instance a noisy activity is defined as any activity (for instance, but not restricted to, building construction/demolition operations, refurbishing and landscaping) which generates noise that is audible at the site boundary. Reason: To avoid the risk of disturbance to neighbouring dwellings from noise during unsocial hours.
11. The development shall incorporate in the construction the proposed bat roosting and bird nesting opportunity enhancements recommended at pages 15 to 17 of the Bat and Bird Survey by S. Christopher Smith dated 12th July 2016. Reason:- In the interests of enhancing biodiversity.
12.The construction and sound insulation of the property shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in section 9 of the submitted Noise Assessment (report ref. 20161102 7826 Cauldon Low 8233.docx) and shall have due regard for the British Standard BS8233:2014 Guidance on Sound Insulation for Buildings and be completed to achieve sound levels of less than 35 dB LAeq in bedrooms, less than 40 dBLAeq in living areas and 50dB LAeq in outside living areas. Reason:- To protect occupiers from noise and safeguard their residential amenities.
Page 52 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows or any other openings other than those shown on the approved plans shall be installed in any part of the development hereby permitted unless a further planning permission has first been granted on application to the Local Planning Authority. Reason:- To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area.
14. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no development as specified in Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H shall be carried out within the site unless a further planning permission has first been granted on application to the Local Planning Authority. Reason:- To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, and to ensure that adequate private open space is retained within the curtilage of the building.
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 Council has sought (negotiated) a sustainable form of development which complies with the provisions of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
Page 53 Site Plan
Page 54 Agenda Item 9
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0028 No: Location Land at Ball Green Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Brown Edge Proposal Proposed steel framed cubicle building Phase 1 200ft x 60ft main building Applicant Mr D Clement Agent M J Barrett (Construction) Staffs Ltd Parish/ward Brown Edge Date registered 15/03/2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw tel: 01538 395400 ext 4921 [email protected]
REFERRAL
This application is to be decided at Planning Applications Committee as requested by Cllr Jebb and Cllr Lea on the basis that it is locally controversial and to consider the impact on neighbour amenity.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 Ball Green Farm is a well established farm business comprising 173 acres and a further 125 acres rented. The site comprises part of a field located to the north east of Ball Green Farm and east of Gorsey Bank, Brown Edge. The site is located within the SMDC boundary, however, the farmhouse itself together with neighbouring residential properties within close proximity to the west / north west and Ball Green Assembly of God Church, are within the Stoke on Trent Council area.
2.2 The site is within the Green Belt and Countryside.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 The application is for the erection of a steel framed cubicle building Phase 1 for the housing of cattle.
3.2 The need for the building has been identified by the farm which requires additional space for heifers and milk cows. It is anticipated that the proposal will allow further development of the farming business.
Page 55 3.3 The proposal is a steel portal framed building. In total it will be 61.2 metres long and 36.6 metres wide consisting of three phases. It is to be 3.6 metres to the lowest eaves level and 8.4 metres to the ridge.
3.4 This application is for Phase 1, middle of the building which shall be 61.2 metres long x 18.3 metres wide. (Separate applications for Phases 2 and 3 which involve the addition of additional wings to either side of the building are considered elsewhere on this agenda). The roof is proposed to be clad in fibre cement sheets. Vertical cladding to the gable ends, with the exception of the doorways, is to be timber space boarding above 2m high concrete panels. The south west side nearest to Gorsey Bank road and the north east elevation shall be 0.5mm plastisol coated metal cladding.
3.5 There are no proposed landscape plans for this proposal.
3.6 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, 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/ApplicationSearchS ervlet?PKID=119998
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SMD/2018/0027 - Proposed steel framed cubicle building Phase 2 200ft x 300ft Lean to – Pending (also on this agenda).
SMD/2018/0029 – Proposed steel framed cubicle building. Phase 3 200ft x300ft lean to – Pending (also on this agenda).
5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
5.1 The Development Plan comprises:
- Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998). - Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) - The Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 1999) Saved Policies 2007 - Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (adopted March 2013)
5.2 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-
S01 Spatial Objectives SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6 Rural Areas SS6c Other Rural Areas Strategy DC1 Design Considerations
Page 56 DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting R1 Rural Diversification NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Chapter 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design Chapter 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land Chapter 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Other Relevant Policy Documents National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site notice published Expiry date for comments: 18/05/2018 Press notice published Expiry date for comments: 25/04/2018 Neighbour Notification Expiry date for comments: 14/05/2018
6.1 6 no. letters/emails of objection have been received. The main points raised can be summarised as follows: Adverse visual impact on countryside / Green Belt. Unacceptable size. Proposal creates an industrial sized farm. The farm is already large. Queries concerning silage tank position and numbers of additional animals. Will there be a need for another slurry tank? Increased noise pollution / smells in relation to neighbouring properties. Loss of privacy to neighbours. Encroachment onto neighbouring property. Overbearing impact. Light pollution. Increased mess on roads. The roads in this area are not suitable for proposed vehicles. Increased movement of farm machinery and related vehicles. The new roadway would require a change of ground level. The proposal will block views. Unauthorised hedgerow removal. Illegal tipping of trade waste. Increased vermin and flies. Adverse impact on wildlife. The proposal will affect the water course. Adverse impact on house prices. Increased black plastic litter. Work on foundations has already commenced.
Page 57 Inaccurate and misleading plans and supporting documents.
Brown Edge Parish Council
6.2 While Councillors had no objections, in principle, some concern was expressed regarding the building's appearance being prominent on a hilly site. Could some form of screening be stipulated to overcome the "stand out" nature of the building on the elevated site?
Coal Authority
6.3 No objection.
SCC Highways
6.4 No objection subject to the following condition:
The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access to the site has been relevelled, reconstructed and completed including damaged area in carriageway and gully relocated above the access in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The access shall thereafter be reconstructed and releved in accordance with the approved details.
Environmental Health
6.5 No comments at the time of preparing this report.
SCC Minerals and Waste
6.6 No objection.
Severn Trent Water
6.7 No objection.
Stoke on Trent City Council Planning
6.8 The site lies in close proximity to properties of Heather View and the proposed development/s are likely to have an adverse impact upon these dwellings; particularly in respect of amenity. We would ask that you consider the visual impacts of the development on these properties and in particular whether the siting is appropriate and if so whether additional landscaping could assist in screening the proposal. The additional buildings are also likely to lead to an intensification of the existing operations at the farm and this could also have an impact upon the local highway network. The roads that are likely to be impacted upon are the responsibility of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, as Local Highway Authority, and at present the application/s provide little information in respect of the likely impact upon the local highway.
Page 58 Stoke on Trent Highways
6.9 No objection in principle, however, the supporting information suggests that the business is under pressure to increase production and that the operation is growing, hence the need for the buildings. Anticipated that additional vehicular movements are therefore likely. Have these details been discussed as to what the impact will be on the local highway network?
7. OFFICER COMMENT
Planning Policy
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 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 Council’s Development Plan is formed of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) and the Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998) remains in force until the Council’s Development Plan Document is adopted.
7.2 Core Strategy Policy SS1a establishes a 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) 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 that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
Main Issues
7.3 The key issues for consideration in assessment of this application are the principle of the development in the Green Belt and countryside, the impact on rural character and appearance of this part of the countryside and wider landscape, the impact on nearby residential amenity and highway safety impact.
Principle of Development
7.4 The site is located within the Green Belt and Countryside. In accordance with paragraphs 87 to 89 of the NPPF, local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development unless it falls within one of a number of categories of exceptions. These include “buildings for agriculture and forestry”. The proposal is required and clearly designed for agricultural purposes and as such falls within a category
Page 59 of exceptional development in the Green Belt as set out in the Framework and therefore does not constitute ‘inappropriate development’.
7.5 Policy SS6c of the core strategy supports development in the countryside which meets an essential local need and supports the rural diversification and sustainability of the rural area. The policy aims to sustain the rural economy by supporting the diversification of existing farm enterprises in accordance with policy R1.
7.6 The erection of buildings for agricultural or equestrian purposes in the countryside is not unacceptable in principle providing the development does not harm the visual amenities of the area or the environment in general and complies with all other policies in the Core Strategy and NPPF.
7.7 The farm currently has a cubicle shed but the applicant has identified a need for additional space to house heifers and milk cows. The proposal will allow the farming business to develop. Given the extent of land ownership and plans to develop the farm business, it is considered that there is sufficient justification for the proposal and that it is consistent with the principles set out in Section 3 of the NPPF.
Impact on the character and appearance of the area.
7.8 In order to protect the open and rural character and appearance of the countryside, it is important that new buildings are not excessive in scale in relation to their purpose. Policy DC3 seeks to protect and, where possible, enhance local landscape by resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local or wider landscape or the setting of a settlement.
7.9 The proposed building would be located within close proximity of existing agricultural buildings to the south and residential properties to the west/north west. The proposal is a large industrial type building which would be built in three phases. The building will be constructed in timber space boarding above 2m high concrete panels with the south west elevation being in plastisol coated steel cladding. The roof would be clad in fibre cement sheets. It is considered that the proposed materials are in keeping with the existing buildings on the farmstead.
7.10 In total the proposal is of substantial scale and massing, having a length of approx. 61m, a width of 18.3m, and maximum height of 8.4m. The site is located towards the top of the hillside and exposed in views from the east, however, when viewed from long range vantage points to the east the proposal would be seen against the backcloth of existing built form and in the context of existing large agricultural buildings on the farm. The proposal would be dug down into the sloping site which will further reduce its impact on the character of the landscape. Appropriate planting along the eastern flank of the building would further soften the visual impact and this could be dealt with by way of a condition. The site is relatively well screened from Gorsey Bank and Bemersley Road to the west by existing buildings and mature hedgerows. The
Page 60 proposal would not be visible from Woodhouse Lane due to the steep embankment.
7.11 Subject to appropriate soft landscaping, it is concluded that the proposed building/s would not be significantly harmful to the character of the countryside and therefore accords with Policy DC1 and DC3 of the CS.
Residential Amenity
7.12 National planning policy dictates that at the heart of its core principles, planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. This is further re-iterated in CS Policy DC1, which seeks to protect residential amenity, in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping as informed by the Council’s ‘Space about Dwellings’ SPG.
7.13 The proposed development is within close proximity of residential occupiers to the north west at Farm Lea and Heather View. At the nearest point the proposed building would be approx. 27 metres from the rear gardens of properties on Heather View and approx. 36 metres from the rear elevations of the dwellings. A number of objections have been received raising concerns about the impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of odour, noise, loss of privacy, loss of outlook and other nuisances. Although there is some tree and hedge screening between the proposal and these neighbouring properties, given the close proximity of the building to these neighbours and the likely number of cattle housed in a building of this size, it is considered that there would be an adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring dwellings and garden areas due to noise from animals and farm machinery, odour nuisance and waste. Such impact would be particularly acute due to the presence of the large barn door openings on the north facing elevation of the building. Given the proximity of the building, its width and height, it is also considered that there is likely to be an adverse impact on the outlook of the neighbours. The proposal would therefore impact substantially on the amenities of the neighbours and the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
Highway Safety
7.14 In accordance with policies DC1 and T1 all new development should provide for safe and satisfactory access.
7.15 A number of objections have been received raising concerns about increased vehicle movements to and from the site and increased mud/muck on the road. However, it is noted that SCC Highways have raised no objections in this respect. The proposed development would be served by the existing access from Woodhouse Lane. Highways observe that, as the existing access is slightly lower than the carriageway at one end and the carriageway has become damaged, a scheme for works to the access is required. The access needs to be relevelled and reconstructed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed.
Page 61 7.16 Therefore, taking the above into account, and subject to the condition recommended by the Highway Authority, it is concluded that there would be no adverse, or ‘severe’, impact on the local road network and the proposals thereby comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Core Strategy policies.
Other Matters
7.17 With regard to pollution, there is no indication that the proposal will present a significant pollution risk and other legislative regimes would provide effective pollution controls.
7.18 The proposed development is not within a high flood risk area and the development does not raise any significant flood risk or drainage concerns.
7.19 The site forms part of an area of grazing land of no obvious ecological interest. This authority has no reason to believe that the development would impact upon any wildlife interest. As such the development would comply with Policy NE1.
8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 The proposal seeks planning permission for an agricultural building to serve the existing farm enterprise at Ball Green Farm. The site is within the countryside and Green Belt and therefore subject to policies SS6 and SS6c of the Core Strategy. The NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental. The Framework makes it clear that these roles should not be undertaken. The proposal would provide economic benefits to the rural economy. It is considered that the proposed development is necessary for the purposes of agriculture on the unit and will allow the existing agricultural business to grow. The proposal is not an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. Subject to appropriate conditions, there is unlikely to be any significant impact on landscape character, highway safety, ecological interests, pollution or flood risk. However, given the proximity of the proposal to nearby residential properties, it is considered that the development would adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy. In this instance, it is considered that the environmental harm identified outweighs the benefits of the scheme and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.
9. RECOMMENDATION
A. That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The siting of the proposed building in close proximity to neighbouring dwellings at Heather View and Farm Lea would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers due to overbearing impact, noise and general disturbance,
Page 62 odour and loss of outlook. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which states that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
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.
Site Plan
Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0027 No: Location Land at Ball Green Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Brown Edge Proposal Proposed steel framed cubicle building Phase 2 200ft x 300ft Lean to Applicant Mr D Clement Agent M J Barrett (Construction) Staffs Ltd Parish/ward Brown Edge Date registered 19/03/2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw tel: 01538 395400 ext 4921 [email protected]
REFERRAL
This application is to be decided at Planning Applications Committee as requested by Cllr Jebb and Cllr Lea on the basis that it is locally controversial and to consider the impact on neighbour amenity.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 Ball Green Farm is a well established farm business comprising 173 acres and a further 125 acres rented. The site comprises part of a field located to the north east of Ball Green Farm and east of Gorsey Bank, Brown Edge. The site is located within the SMDC boundary, however, the farmhouse itself together with neighbouring residential properties within close proximity to the west / north west and Ball Green Assembly of God Church, are within the Stoke on Trent Council area.
2.2 The site is within the Green Belt and Countryside.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 The application is for the erection of a steel framed cubicle building Phase 2 for the housing of cattle.
3.2 The need for the building has been identified by the farm which requires additional space for heifers and milk cows. It is anticipated that the proposal will allow further development of the farming business.
Page 65 3.3 The proposal is a steel portal framed building. In total it will be 61.2 metres long and 36.6 metres wide consisting of three phases. It is to be 3.6 metres to the lowest eaves level and 8.4 metres to the ridge.
3.4 This application is for Phase 2, one of the sides of the main building which shall be 61.2 metres long x 9.2 metres wide. (Separate applications for Phases 1 and 3 which involve the construction of the main building and a wing to either side of the building are considered elsewhere on this agenda). The roof is proposed to be clad in fibre cement sheets. Vertical cladding to the gable ends, with the exception of the doorways, is to be timber space boarding above 2m high concrete panels. The south west side nearest to Gorsey Bank road and the north east elevation shall be 0.5mm plastisol coated metal cladding.
3.5 There are no proposed landscape plans for this proposal.
3.6 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, 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/ApplicationSearchS ervlet?PKID=119997
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SMD/2018/0028 - Proposed steel framed cubicle building. Phase 1 200ft x 60ft main building – Pending (also on this agenda).
SMD/2018/0029 – Proposed steel framed cubicle building. Phase 3 200ft x300ft lean to – Pending (also on this agenda).
5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
5.1 The Development Plan comprises:
- Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998). - Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) - The Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 1999) Saved Policies 2007 - Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (adopted March 2013)
5.2 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-
S01 Spatial Objectives SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6 Rural Areas SS6c Other Rural Areas Strategy
Page 66 DC1 Design Considerations DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting R1 Rural Diversification NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Chapter 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design Chapter 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land Chapter 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Other Relevant Policy Documents National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site notice published Expiry date for comments: 18/05/2018 Press notice published N/A Neighbour Notification Expiry date for comments: 14/05/2018
6.1 28 letters/emails of objection have been received. The main points raised can be summarised as follows: Adverse visual impact on countryside / Green Belt. Unacceptable size. Proposal creates an industrial sized farm. The farm is already large. Queries concerning silage tank position and numbers of additional animals. Will there be a need for another slurry tank? Increased noise pollution / smells in relation to neighbouring properties. Loss of privacy to neighbours. Encroachment onto neighbouring property. Overbearing impact. Light pollution. Increased mess on roads. The roads in this area are not suitable for proposed vehicles. Increased movement of farm machinery and related vehicles. The new roadway would require a change of ground level. The proposal will block views. Unauthorised hedgerow removal. Illegal tipping of trade waste. Increased vermin and flies. Adverse impact on wildlife. The proposal will affect the water course. Adverse impact on house prices. Increased black plastic litter. Work on foundations has already commenced.
Page 67 Inaccurate and misleading plans and supporting documents.
6.2 1 no. email of support has also been received.
Brown Edge Parish Council
6.3 While Councillors had no objections, in principle, some concern was expressed regarding the building's appearance being prominent on a hilly site. Could some form of screening be stipulated to overcome the "stand out" nature of the building on the elevated site?
Coal Authority
6.4 No objection.
SCC Highways
6.5 No objection subject to the following condition:
The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access to the site has been relevelled, reconstructed and completed including damaged area in carriageway and gully relocated above the access in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The access shall thereafter be reconstructed and releved in accordance with the approved details.
Environmental Health
6.6 No comments at the time of preparing this report.
SCC Minerals and Waste
6.7 No objection.
Severn Trent Water
6.8 No objection.
Stoke on Trent City Council Planning
6.9 The site lies in close proximity to properties of Heather View and the proposed development/s are likely to have an adverse impact upon these dwellings; particularly in respect of amenity. We would ask that you consider the visual impacts of the development on these properties and in particular whether the siting is appropriate and if so whether additional landscaping could assist in screening the proposal. The additional buildings are also likely to lead to an intensification of the existing operations at the farm and this could also have an impact upon the local highway network. The roads that are likely to be impacted upon are the responsibility of Stoke-on-Trent City
Page 68 Council, as Local Highway Authority, and at present the application/s provide little information in respect of the likely impact upon the local highway.
Stoke on Trent Highways
6.10 No objection in principle, however, the supporting information suggests that the business is under pressure to increase production and that the operation is growing, hence the need for the buildings. Anticipated that additional vehicular movements are therefore likely. Have these details been discussed as to what the impact will be on the local highway network?
7. OFFICER COMMENT
Planning Policy
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 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 Council’s Development Plan is formed of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) and the Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998) remains in force until the Council’s Development Plan Document is adopted.
7.2 Core Strategy Policy SS1a establishes a 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) 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 that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
Main Issues
7.3 The key issues for consideration in assessment of this application are the principle of the development in the Green Belt and countryside, the impact on rural character and appearance of this part of the countryside and wider landscape, the impact on nearby residential amenity and highway safety impact.
Principle of Development
7.4 The site is located within the Green Belt and Countryside. In accordance with paragraphs 87 to 89 of the NPPF, local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development unless it falls within one of a number of categories of exceptions. These
Page 69 include “buildings for agriculture and forestry”. The proposal is required for agricultural purposes and as such falls within a category of exceptional development in the Green Belt as set out in the Framework and therefore does not constitute ‘inappropriate development’.
7.5 Policy SS6c of the core strategy supports development in the countryside which meets an essential local need and supports the rural diversification and sustainability of the rural area. The policy aims to sustain the rural economy by supporting the diversification of existing farm enterprises in accordance with policy R1.
7.6 The erection of buildings for agricultural or equestrian purposes in the countryside is not unacceptable in principle providing the development does not harm the visual amenities of the area or the environment in general and complies with all other policies in the Core Strategy and NPPF.
7.7 The farm currently has a cubicle shed but the applicant has identified a need for additional space to house heifers and milk cows. The proposal will allow the farming business to develop. Given the extent of land ownership and plans to develop the farm business, it is considered that there is sufficient justification for the proposal and that it is consistent with the principles set out in Section 3 of the NPPF.
Impact on the character and appearance of the area.
7.8 In order to protect the open and rural character and appearance of the countryside, it is important that new buildings are not excessive in scale in relation to their purpose. Policy DC3 seeks to protect and, where possible, enhance local landscape by resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local or wider landscape or the setting of a settlement.
7.9 The proposed building would be located within close proximity of existing agricultural buildings to the south and residential properties to the west/north west. The proposal is a large industrial type building which would be built in three phases. The building will be constructed in timber space boarding above 2m high concrete panels with the south west elevation being in plastisol coated steel cladding. The roof would be clad in fibre cement sheets. It is considered that the proposed materials are in keeping with the existing buildings on the farmstead.
7.10 In total the proposal is of substantial scale and massing, having a length of approx. 61m, a width of 36m, and maximum height of 8.4m. The site is located towards the top of the hillside and exposed in views from the east, however, when viewed from long range vantage points to the east the proposal would be seen against the backcloth of existing built form and in the context of existing large agricultural buildings on the farm. The proposal would be dug down into the sloping site which will further reduce its impact on the character of the landscape. Appropriate planting along the eastern flank of the building would further soften the visual impact and this could be dealt with by
Page 70 way of a condition. The site is relatively well screened from Gorsey Bank and Bemersley Road to the west by existing buildings and mature hedgerows. The proposal would not be visible from Woodhouse Lane due to the steep embankment.
7.11 Subject to appropriate soft landscaping, it is concluded that the proposed building/s would not be significantly harmful to the character of the countryside and therefore accords with Policy DC1 and DC3 of the CS.
Residential Amenity
7.12 National planning policy dictates that at the heart of its core principles, planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. This is further re-iterated in CS Policy DC1, which seeks to protect residential amenity, in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping as informed by the Council’s ‘Space about Dwellings’ SPG.
7.13 The proposed development is within close proximity of residential occupiers to the north west at Farm Lea and Heather View. At the nearest point the proposed building would be approx. 22 metres from the rear gardens of properties on Heather View and approx. 30 metres from the rear elevations of the dwellings. A number of objections have been received raising concerns about the impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of odour, noise, loss of privacy, loss of outlook and other nuisances. Although there is some tree and hedge screening between the proposal and these neighbouring properties, given the close proximity of the building to these neighbours and the likely number of cattle housed in a building of this size, it is considered that there would be an adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring dwellings and garden areas due to noise from animals and farm machinery, odour nuisance and waste. Such impact would be particularly acute due to the presence of the large barn door openings on the north facing elevation of the building. Given the proximity of the building, its width and height, it is also considered that there is likely to be an adverse impact on the outlook of the neighbours. The proposal would therefore impact substantially on the amenities of the neighbours and the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
Highway Safety
7.14 In accordance with policies DC1 and T1 all new development should provide for safe and satisfactory access.
7.15 A number of objections have been received raising concerns about increased vehicle movements to and from the site and increased mud/muck on the road. However, it is noted that SCC Highways have raised no objections in this respect. The proposed development would be served by the existing access from Woodhouse Lane. Highways observe that, as the existing access is slightly lower than the carriageway at one end and the carriageway has become damaged, a scheme for works to the access is
Page 71 required. The access needs to be relevelled and reconstructed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed.
7.16 Therefore, taking the above into account, and subject to the condition recommended by the Highway Authority, it is concluded that there would be no adverse, or ‘severe’, impact on the local road network and the proposals thereby comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Core Strategy policies.
Other Matters
7.17 With regard to pollution, there is no indication that the proposal will present a significant pollution risk and other legislative regimes would provide effective pollution controls.
7.18 The proposed development is not within a high flood risk area and the development does not raise any significant flood risk or drainage concerns.
7.19 The site forms part of an area of grazing land of no obvious ecological interest. This authority has no reason to believe that the development would impact upon any wildlife interest. As such the development would comply with Policy NE1.
8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 The proposal seeks planning permission for an agricultural building to serve the existing farm enterprise at Ball Green Farm. The site is within the countryside and Green Belt and therefore subject to policies SS6 and SS6c of the Core Strategy. The NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental. The Framework makes it clear that these roles should not be undertaken. The proposal would provide economic benefits to the rural economy. It is considered that the proposed development is necessary for the purposes of agriculture on the unit and will allow the existing agricultural business to grow. The proposal is not an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. Subject to appropriate conditions, there is unlikely to be any significant impact on landscape character, highway safety, ecological interests, pollution or flood risk. However, given the proximity of the proposal to nearby residential properties, it is considered that the development would adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy. In this instance, it is considered that the environmental harm identified outweighs the benefits of the scheme and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.
9. RECOMMENDATION
A. That the application be REFUSED for the following reason:
1. The siting of the proposed building in close proximity to neighbouring dwellings at Heather View and Farm Lea would result in
Page 72 unacceptable harm to the living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers due to overbearing impact, noise and general disturbance, odour and loss of outlook. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which states that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
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.
Site Plan
Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0029 No: Location Land at Ball Green Farm, Woodhouse Lane, Brown Edge Proposal Proposed steel framed cubicle building Phase 3 200ft x 300ft lean to Applicant Mr D Clement Agent M J Barrett (Construction) Staffs Ltd Parish/ward Brown Edge Date registered 15/03/2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw tel: 01538 395400 ext 4921 [email protected]
REFERRAL
This application is to be decided at Planning Applications Committee as requested by Cllr Jebb and Cllr Lea on the basis that it is locally controversial and to consider the impact on neighbour amenity.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 Ball Green Farm is a well established farm business comprising 173 acres and a further 125 acres rented. The site comprises part of a field located to the north east of Ball Green Farm and east of Gorsey Bank, Brown Edge. The site is located within the SMDC boundary, however, the farmhouse itself together with neighbouring residential properties within close proximity to the west / north west and Ball Green Assembly of God Church, are within the Stoke on Trent Council area.
2.2 The site is within the Green Belt and Countryside.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 The application is for the erection of a steel framed cubicle building Phase 3 for the housing of cattle.
3.2 The need for the building has been identified by the farm which requires additional space for heifers and milk cows. It is anticipated that the proposal will allow further development of the farming business.
Page 75 3.3 The proposal is a steel portal framed building. In total it will be 61.2 metres long and 36.6 metres wide consisting of three phases. It is to be 3.6 metres to the lowest eaves level and 8.4 metres to the ridge.
3.4 This application is for Phase 3, one of the sides of the building which shall be 61.2 metres long x 9.2 metres wide. (Separate applications for Phases 1 and 2 which involve the construction of the main building and addition of a wing to either side of the building are considered elsewhere on this agenda). The roof is proposed to be clad in fibre cement sheets. Vertical cladding to the gable ends, with the exception of the doorways, is to be timber space boarding above 2m high concrete panels. The south west side nearest to Gorsey Bank road and the north east elevation shall be 0.5mm plastisol coated metal cladding.
3.5 There are no proposed landscape plans for this proposal.
3.6 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, 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/ApplicationSearchS ervlet?PKID=120016
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SMD/2018/0027 - Proposed steel framed cubicle building Phase 2 200ft x 300ft Lean to – Pending (also on this agenda).
SMD/2018/0028 – Proposed steel framed cubicle building. Phase 1 200ft x 60ft main building –– Pending (also on this agenda).
5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
5.1 The Development Plan comprises:
- Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998). - Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) - The Minerals Local Plan (adopted December 1999) Saved Policies 2007 - Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (adopted March 2013)
5.2 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-
S01 Spatial Objectives SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6 Rural Areas SS6c Other Rural Areas Strategy
Page 76 DC1 Design Considerations DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting R1 Rural Diversification NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Chapter 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy Chapter 7 – Requiring Good Design Chapter 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land Chapter 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Other Relevant Policy Documents National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site notice published Expiry date for comments: 18/05/2018 Press notice published N/A Neighbour Notification Expiry date for comments: 14/05/2018
6.1 7 no. letters/emails of objection have been received. The main points raised can be summarised as follows: Adverse visual impact on countryside / Green Belt. Unacceptable size. Proposal creates an industrial sized farm. The farm is already large. Queries concerning silage tank position and numbers of additional animals. Will there be a need for another slurry tank? Increased noise pollution / smells in relation to neighbouring properties. Loss of privacy to neighbours. Encroachment onto neighbouring property. Overbearing impact. Light pollution. Increased mess on roads. The roads in this area are not suitable for proposed vehicles. Increased movement of farm machinery and related vehicles. The new roadway would require a change of ground level. The proposal will block views. Unauthorised hedgerow removal. Illegal tipping of trade waste. Increased vermin and flies. Adverse impact on wildlife. The proposal will affect the water course. Adverse impact on house prices. Increased black plastic litter. Work on foundations has already commenced.
Page 77 Inaccurate and misleading plans and supporting documents.
Brown Edge Parish Council
6.2 While Councillors had no objections, in principle, some concern was expressed regarding the building's appearance being prominent on a hilly site. Could some form of screening be stipulated to overcome the "stand out" nature of the building on the elevated site?
Coal Authority
6.3 No objection.
SCC Highways
6.4 No objection subject to the following condition:
The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access to the site has been relevelled, reconstructed and completed including damaged area in carriageway and gully relocated above the access in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The access shall thereafter be reconstructed and releved in accordance with the approved details.
Environmental Health
6.5 No comments at the time of preparing this report.
SCC Minerals and Waste
6.6 No objection.
Severn Trent Water
6.7 No objection.
Stoke on Trent City Council Planning
6.8 The site lies in close proximity to properties of Heather View and the proposed development/s are likely to have an adverse impact upon these dwellings; particularly in respect of amenity. We would ask that you consider the visual impacts of the development on these properties and in particular whether the siting is appropriate and if so whether additional landscaping could assist in screening the proposal. The additional buildings are also likely to lead to an intensification of the existing operations at the farm and this could also have an impact upon the local highway network. The roads that are likely to be impacted upon are the responsibility of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, as Local Highway Authority, and at present the application/s provide little information in respect of the likely impact upon the local highway.
Page 78 Stoke on Trent Highways
6.9 No objection in principle, however, the supporting information suggests that the business is under pressure to increase production and that the operation is growing, hence the need for the buildings. Anticipated that additional vehicular movements are therefore likely. Have these details been discussed as to what the impact will be on the local highway network?
7. OFFICER COMMENT
Planning Policy
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 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 Council’s Development Plan is formed of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) and the Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998) remains in force until the Council’s Development Plan Document is adopted.
7.2 Core Strategy Policy SS1a establishes a 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) 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 that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
Main Issues
7.3 The key issues for consideration in assessment of this application are the principle of the development in the Green Belt and countryside, the impact on rural character and appearance of this part of the countryside and wider landscape, the impact on nearby residential amenity and highway safety impact.
Principle of Development
7.4 The site is located within the Green Belt and Countryside. In accordance with paragraphs 87 to 89 of the NPPF, local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development unless it falls within one of a number of categories of exceptions. These include “buildings for agriculture and forestry”. The proposal is required for agricultural purposes and as such falls within a category of exceptional
Page 79 development in the Green Belt as set out in the Framework and therefore does not constitute ‘inappropriate development’.
7.5 Policy SS6c of the core strategy supports development in the countryside which meets an essential local need and supports the rural diversification and sustainability of the rural area. The policy aims to sustain the rural economy by supporting the diversification of existing farm enterprises in accordance with policy R1.
7.6 The erection of buildings for agricultural or equestrian purposes in the countryside is not unacceptable in principle providing the development does not harm the visual amenities of the area or the environment in general and complies with all other policies in the Core Strategy and NPPF.
7.7 The farm currently has a cubicle shed but the applicant has identified a need for additional space to house heifers and milk cows. The proposal will allow the farming business to develop. Given the extent of land ownership and plans to develop the farm business, it is considered that there is sufficient justification for the proposal and that it is consistent with the principles set out in Section 3 of the NPPF.
Impact on the character and appearance of the area.
7.8 In order to protect the open and rural character and appearance of the countryside, it is important that new buildings are not excessive in scale in relation to their purpose. Policy DC3 seeks to protect and, where possible, enhance local landscape by resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local or wider landscape or the setting of a settlement.
7.9 The proposed building would be located within close proximity of existing agricultural buildings to the south and residential properties to the west/north west. The proposal is a large industrial type building which would be built in three phases. The building will be constructed in timber space boarding above 2m high concrete panels with the south west elevation being in plastisol coated steel cladding. The roof would be clad in fibre cement sheets. It is considered that the proposed materials are in keeping with the existing buildings on the farmstead.
7.10 In total the proposal is of substantial scale and massing, having a length of approx. 61m, a combined width of 36m, and maximum height of 8.4m. The site is located towards the top of the hillside and exposed in views from the east, however, when viewed from long range vantage points to the east the proposal would be seen against the backcloth of existing built form and in the context of existing large agricultural buildings on the farm. The proposal would be dug down into the sloping site which will further reduce its impact on the character of the landscape. Appropriate planting along the eastern flank of the building would further soften the visual impact and this could be dealt with by way of a condition. The site is relatively well screened from Gorsey Bank and Bemersley Road to the west by existing buildings and
Page 80 mature hedgerows. The proposal would not be visible from Woodhouse Lane due to the steep embankment.
7.11 Subject to appropriate soft landscaping, it is concluded that the proposed building/s would not be significantly harmful to the character of the countryside and therefore accords with Policy DC1 and DC3 of the CS.
Residential Amenity
7.12 National planning policy dictates that at the heart of its core principles, planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. This is further re-iterated in CS Policy DC1, which seeks to protect residential amenity, in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping as informed by the Council’s ‘Space about Dwellings’ SPG.
7.13 The proposed building is to be constructed in 3 phases and it is considered necessary to consider the cumulative impact of the development as a whole. The proposed development is within close proximity of residential occupiers to the north west at Farm Lea and Heather View. At the nearest point the proposed building would be approx. 22 metres from the rear gardens of properties on Heather View and approx. 30 metres from the rear elevations of the dwellings. A number of objections have been received raising concerns about the impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of odour, noise, loss of privacy, loss of outlook and other nuisances. Although there is some tree and hedge screening between the proposal and these neighbouring properties, given the close proximity of the building to these neighbours and the likely number of cattle housed in a building of this size, it is considered that there would be an adverse impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring dwellings and garden areas due to noise from animals and farm machinery, odour nuisance and waste. Such impact would be particularly acute due to the presence of the large barn door openings on the north facing elevation of the building. Given the proximity of the building, its width and height, it is also considered that there is likely to be an adverse impact on the outlook of the neighbours. The proposal would therefore impact substantially on the amenities of the neighbours and the proposal is contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 17 of the NPPF.
Highway Safety
7.14 In accordance with policies DC1 and T1 all new development should provide for safe and satisfactory access.
7.15 A number of objections have been received raising concerns about increased vehicle movements to and from the site and increased mud/muck on the road. However, it is noted that SCC Highways have raised no objections in this respect. The proposed development would be served by the existing access from Woodhouse Lane. Highways observe that, as the existing access is slightly lower than the carriageway at one end and the carriageway has become damaged, a scheme for works to the access is
Page 81 required. The access needs to be relevelled and reconstructed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed.
7.16 Therefore, taking the above into account, and subject to the condition recommended by the Highway Authority, it is concluded that there would be no adverse, or ‘severe’, impact on the local road network and the proposals thereby comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF and Core Strategy policies.
Other Matters
7.17 With regard to pollution, there is no indication that the proposal will present a significant pollution risk and other legislative regimes would provide effective pollution controls.
7.18 The proposed development is not within a high flood risk area and the development does not raise any significant flood risk or drainage concerns.
7.19 The site forms part of an area of grazing land of no obvious ecological interest. This authority has no reason to believe that the development would impact upon any wildlife interest. As such the development would comply with Policy NE1.
8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 The proposal seeks planning permission for an agricultural building to serve the existing farm enterprise at Ball Green Farm. The site is within the countryside and Green Belt and therefore subject to policies SS6 and SS6c of the Core Strategy. The NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental. The Framework makes it clear that these roles should not be undertaken. The proposal would provide economic benefits to the rural economy. It is considered that the proposed development is necessary for the purposes of agriculture on the unit and will allow the existing agricultural business to grow. The proposal is not an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. Subject to appropriate conditions, there is unlikely to be any significant impact on landscape character, highway safety, ecological interests, pollution or flood risk. However, given the proximity of the proposal to nearby residential properties, it is considered that the development would adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy. In this instance, it is considered that the environmental harm identified outweighs the benefits of the scheme and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.
9. RECOMMENDATION
A. That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The siting of the proposed building in close proximity to neighbouring dwellings at Heather View and Farm Lea would result in
Page 82 unacceptable harm to the living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers due to overbearing impact, noise and general disturbance, odour and loss of outlook. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 17 of the NPPF, which states that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
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.
Site Plan
Page 83 Page 84 Agenda Item 12
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0165 No: Location 3 Woodhouse Green Farm, Woodhouse Green, Rushton Spencer Proposal Conversion of agricultural stables into single residential building – resubmission of SMD/2017/0481 Applicant C/O Agent Agent Matthew Lewis ARKHIbuild Ltd Parish/ward Horton Ward Date registered 27.03.2018 If you have a question about this report please contact: Lisa Howard, tel: 01538 395400 ex4923 or email: [email protected]
REFERRAL
This application has been ‘called-in’ to be determined at Planning Applications Committee by Councillor Heath.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
REFUSE
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The application site is located at the centre of the hamlet of Woodhouse Green and, it is understood, was formally used in connection with Woodhouse Green Farm located to the south of the site. Historically, the farm has been split and many of the former buildings have since been used for domestic purposes.
2.2 The application site is located immediately to the north of a two storey stone and tile former agricultural building that is associated with no.2 Woodhouse Green Farm. This building benefits from extant permission for conversion to ancillary residential use associated with the main farmhouse. Agricultural land bounds the site to the north and east. The highway defines the west site boundary, with agricultural land beyond.
2.3 The application site comprises of a blockwork and clad stable building which includes 5 no. stables and associated storage. The site benefits from existing vehicular access and a paddock which is found to the north of the existing structure.
Page 85 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 Planning approval is sought for the part demolition and change of use of the stable building to a dwellinghouse. The application is a resubmission of previously refused application SMD/2017/0481 which was refused on the following grounds:
1. It is not considered that the building is appropriate, suitable or worthy in physical, architectural and character terms for conversion. This application is therefore considered contrary to policy R1 and policy R2 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy and Chapter 7 of the National planning Policy Framework.
2. The proposal would result in the provision of an isolated dwelling in the countryside that would rely heavily on the private vehicle to access local amenities and services. Whilst the development would re-use a redundant or disused building, due to the poor quality of the existing building and inappropriate design it would not lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting, contrary to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. It is considered that the proposed design including the form of the additions and alterations, use of materials and other contemporary design features coupled with the introduction of glazing and associated domestic paraphernalia would lead to a visually intrusive form of development that would appear at odds with the prevailing character of the rural landscape and would fail to respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. The proposed development fails to achieve an acceptable form of development that would serve to respect or enhance the local landscape character, contrary to policies DC1, DC3, R1 and R2 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy and Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.2 The proposed development consists of the demolition of an existing canopy that connects the stable building to the rear elevation of a two storey stone and tile former agricultural building to the south; and for the conversion of the remaining structure to create a three bedroom dwellinghouse.
3.3 The resultant accommodation will comprise of an open plan kitchen, living and dining room, study, W.C., plant room, 3no. bedrooms (1no. en- suite) and a family bathroom. Access to the site is to be taken direct off the highway as existing and parking is to be provided within an integral double garage.
3.4 An existing opening on the east elevation is to be utilised and 4no. new windows are proposed within the north elevation. An external door and stairs are to be positioned on the north and west elevation and further window openings are proposed within a courtyard to the south. 7 no. rooflights are proposed to provide an additional source of light.
Page 86 3.5 External building materials are to comprise of blockwork to match existing and corrugated steel sheeting coloured Moorlands Green.
3.5 In the interests of clarification, in comparison to the previously refused scheme a proposed single storey extension and decked patio area have been removed and the level of glazing has been significantly reduced.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SMD/2017/0481 Proposal to change Refused (SMDC Planning existing agricultural Applications Committee) stable building to provide a private domestic residence
5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
5.1 The Development Plan comprises of: Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (adopted 1998) The Staffordshire Moorlands Local Development NPPF Core Strategy (Adopted March 2014) The Minerals Local Plan (Adopted December 1999) Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy (Adopted March 2013)
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. Public consultation on specific site allocations has now commenced.
Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Local Development NPPF (LDF) (26th March 2014)
5.3 The Staffordshire Moorlands Local Development NPPF (LDF) is a District wide development plan which replaces the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan to provide a framework for delivering development up to 2026. The Core Strategy is the key LDF document. It is a strategic District wide plan which influences how and where the Staffordshire Moorlands will develop in the future. It sets out what the Council would like to achieve in each of the main towns and the rural areas outside of the Peak District National Park. The Core Strategy provides the framework for future LDF documents which will then identify specific sites for development in the District (Site Allocations Development Plan Document) and provides detailed guidance to supplement the policies (Supplementary Planning Guidance).
Page 87 5.4 The following CS (Core Strategy) policies are relevant to the application:- SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6 Rural Areas SS6c Other Rural Areas Area Strategy DC1 Design Considerations DC3 Landscaping and Settlement Setting R1 Rural Diversification R2 Rural Housing C1 Creating Sustainable Communities
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Space About Dwellings
National Planning Policy NPPF Paragraphs 1 - 17 Chapter 3 Supporting a prosperous rural economy Chapter 7 Requiring good design Chapter 9 Protecting Green Belt Land Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
6.1 A site notice was displayed outside the site on 12th April 2018. Notification letters were sent to immediate neighbours of the site on 9th April 2018.
6.2 1 no. representation has been received from the occupiers of The Shippon, Woodhouse Green. The comments received are detailed as follows:
. ‘We have no objections to the development’
Environmental Health
6.3 No comments received at the time of preparing this report.
Staffordshire County Council Highways
6.4 No objection subject to condition.
Ecology
6.5 No objection subject to condition.
7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE
Page 88 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 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 consideration. The Council’s Development Plan is formed of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) and the Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998).
7.2 Core Strategy policy SS1 identifies that development should contribute positively to the social, economic and environmental improvements of the Staffordshire Moorlands. Policy SS1a establishes a ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’ in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 14 of the NPPF outlines that the presumption in favour of sustainable development ‘should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking’. Planning applications which accord with policies within the Core Strategy should be approved without delay.
Principle of Development
7.3 Policy SS6c relates to the ‘Other Rural Areas Area Strategy’ and states that these areas will provide only for development which meets an essential local need, supports the rural diversification and sustainability of the rural areas, promotes sustainable tourism or enhances the countryside. This policy goes on to state that the Council will meet essential local need by, amongst others, ‘allowing the conversion, extension or replacement of an existing rural building in accordance with policies R1 and R2’.
7.4 Policy SS6c also states that strict control will continue to be exercised over inappropriate development within the Green Belt, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
7.5 Paragraph 47 of the Framework requires the Council to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing land sites, including a 5% buffer to allow for choice and competition in the market for land, increased to a 20% buffer where there is a persistent under-delivery in past years. It remains the case that the Council can only demonstrate 1.99 years deliverable supply of housing land (calculated 31st March 2017) against its five year target, as is required by the NPPF. Paragraph 49 requires all housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that 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.
7.6 Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out the ‘Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development’ which means for decision taking, where policies are absent, silent or out of date, granting planning permission unless, any
Page 89 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, specific policies in within the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. These are set out at footnote 9 and include those relating to the Green Belt
7.7 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF outline certain forms of development that should be regarded as acceptable development in the Green Belt. This list includes, amongst others:
The extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; and
The re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction.
7.8 The proposed development would comprise the re-use of a building that is of permanent and substantial construction, and for alterations that would not result in any additional bulk and massing to the original building. This application therefore constitutes appropriate development in the Green Belt, in accordance with policies SS6c and R1 of the Core Strategy and Chapter 9 of the NPPF.
7.9 Policy R1 relates to ‘Rural Diversification’ and states that appropriate development should not harm the rural character and environmental quality of the area. Wherever possible development should be within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion, where new or replacement buildings are involved, development should have minimal impact on the countryside and be in close proximity to an existing settlement.
7.10 Policy R2 relates to ‘Rural Housing’ and states that the conversion of non-residential rural buildings for residential use will be acceptable where the building is suitable and worthy in physical, architectural and character terms for conversion and it can be demonstrated that agricultural or commercial use is not viable or suitable through a marketing exercise, or its conversion to residential use would enable a building of particular merit to be safeguarded.
7.11 The existing structure is characteristic of a typical modern rural building, which is not representative of the distinctive stone built barns found within the Staffordshire Moorlands. It remains to be the view that the building makes little or no contribution to the landscape character or local distinctiveness of the area. It is a purely functional building which is not “appropriate for conversion” and is “not suitable and worthy in physical, architectural and character terms for conversion” now that it has come to the end of its functional life as a stable. It is therefore still considered that the
Page 90 proposal fails to comply with Policies R1 and R2 of the Core Strategy and the grounds of refusal given at point 1 have not be sufficiently addressed.
Design
7.11 Policy DC1 relates to ‘Design Considerations’ and states that new development should be of a high quality and add value to the local area. Proposals should be designed to respect the site and its surroundings and promote a positive sense of place and identity through its scale, density, layout, siting, landscaping, character and appearance.
7.12 Policy DC3 relates to ‘Landscape and Settlement Setting’ and states that the Council will protect and where possible, enhance local landscape and the setting of settlements in the Staffordshire Moorlands by, amongst others:
Resisting development which would harm or be detrimental to the character of the local and wider landscape setting of a settlement and important views into and out of the settlement as identified in the Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment;
Supporting development which respects and enhances local landscape character and which reinforces and enhances the setting of the settlement as identified in the Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment;
Supporting development which respects and enhances local landscape character and which reinforces and enhances the setting of the settlement as identified in the Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment;
Supporting opportunities to positively manage the landscape and use sustainable building techniques and materials which are sympathetic to the landscape.
7.13 The concept of the proposed scheme is to retain the aesthetic of the existing building, which itself is a block and steel clad structure of a functional appearance and which as it stands is not a high quality building and does not add value to the local area and wider landscape character.
7.14 The revised proposal seeks to address concerns relating to the domestication of the building due the large expanses of glazing, an extension and domestic paraphernalia. These elements of the scheme have been removed and the current proposal now presents a scheme for the conversion of the building and introduction of limited glazing to the north and south elevations. Window proportions are more akin to those commonly found in a stable block and the external building materials of concrete blocks and corrugated sheeting coloured Moorlands Green would enable to be building to reflect the character and appearance of a modern agricultural building commonly found within the rural landscape.
Page 91
7.15 In accordance with policy DC3 the Council will seek to protect and where possible, enhance local landscape character.
7.15 The proposal has responded positively to the Councils concerns in this respect and presented a scheme that would enable the structure to retain a functional and utilitarian appearance. Though it is considered that sufficient steps have been taken by the applicant to address the ‘design’ grounds for refusal, the development nevertheless fails to preserve or enhance landscape character contrary to policy DC3.
7.14 By virtue of the aesthetic of the building and the degree of work required in order to achieve the desired dwellinghouse, the local planning authority does not consider the building to be suitable or worthy in physical, architectural and character terms for conversion. Therefore, though supporting information has been submitted to demonstrate that the building has been marketed for a period of twelve months, the revised scheme still fails to accord with policy R2 of the Core Strategy.
7.16 As stated at paragraph 55 of the NPPF, Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated dwellings. It is not considered that the re-use of the building would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. Furthermore, it is not considered that the ecological enhancements incorporated within the scheme and the contemporary design approach is of such an exceptional quality or innovative nature to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm caused by way of unsustainability. The NPPF defines sustainable development as economic, social and environmental. Whilst it is noted that the proposed scheme would offer some short term economic benefits during construction, it would result to the provision of an isolated dwelling that would relay heavily of the use of the private vehicle to access local amenities and services.
7.17 The application site is bound to the south by a characteristic stone built barn which is of some architectural merit and does, by contrast, contribute to local distinctiveness. It is acknowledged that the removal of a canopy that serves to connect the stable block and this neighbouring barn would lead to an enhancement. However, the proposal would retain a significant proportion of the existing structure, which would continue to restrict views of the barn from the north. The betterment that this would achieve is therefore offered limited weight in this assessment and arguably removal rather than conversion of the stable, now that it is redundant, would be a preferable solution as not only is it unworthy of retention but it detracts from the setting of the neighbouring building.
Amenity
7.18 Policy DC1 states that new development should protect residential amenity in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping.
Page 92 7.19 No.2 Woodhouse Green bounds the application site to the south. No habitable room windows are proposed within the south facing elevation of the proposed development and as such the impact on amenity would not likely be unduly significant.
Highways
7.20 In accordance with policies DC1 and T1 all new development should provide for safe and satisfactory access and make a contribution to meeting the parking requirements arising from the development.
7.21 Staffordshire County Council are satisfied that there are no objections on Highway grounds subject to appropriately worded conditions in respect of surfacing of the driveway and the provision of visibility splays. These conditions are considered necessary, directly related to the development, and fair and reasonable.
Ecology
7.22 This application has been supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal that has been carried out by Brindle & Green, dated July 2017. The conclusions of the survey are summarised as follows:
7.23 House Sparrows were recorded on the site. A disused Swallow’s nest was found in one of the stables. All the buildings surveyed within the site boundary supported suitable access points and internal features considered suitable for use by breeding birds although evidence of nesting activity was limited. A Nuthatch nest was recorded within the Silver Birch to the north of the site boundary. In addition to potential offered by the buildings, hedgerows and scattered trees in and around the site boundary all offer habitat suitable for breeding bids.
7.24 In respect of roosting bats. The buildings on site were subject to internal and external searches of bat presence alongside assessing the suitability of the buildings features as potential bat roosting habitat. No evidence of bat evidence was found within the stables, the open garage or the larger stable. The buildings on the site were considered to offer negligible suitability or low suitability for roosting bats.
7.25 Foraging and commuting activity was limited to scattered trees and a hedgerow along the northern boundary with connective linear features close by.
7.26 In respect of Great Crested Newts 3 ponds were located within 500m of the proposed development site. Habitat Suitability Index surveys were not carried out on these ponds on the day of the survey. Anecdotal evidence of ponds 1 and 2 implied that they were plastic lined but also contained smooth newts that would indicated that it may be suitable habitat for Great Crested Newts. These ponds are across a country road which is not considered to be a major barrier to species dispersal. Pond 3 is connected to the site boundary
Page 93 via a network of agricultural hedgerows to the south and south west. Within the site boundary there is a small area (0.04ha) of suitable terrestrial habitat in the form of a small paddock which is currently unmanaged.
7.27 The Council’s Ecologist has considered the details submitted and raises no objection subject to appropriately worded conditions to secure ecological enhancements.
8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. Therefore proposals for residential development should be considered in the light of the Presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at paragraph 14 of the Framework which, for decision making, means granting planning permission unless specific policies within the Framework indicate development should be restricted, footnote 9 of the NPPF clarifies that this includes Green Belt land.
8.2 The proposed development would comprise the re-use of a building that is of permanent and substantial construction. This application therefore constitutes appropriate development in the Green Belt, in accordance with policies SS6c and R1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy and Chapter 9 of the NPPF. Furthermore, the proposed development is not considered to result in likely harm to residential amenity or highway safety.
8.3 However, it remains to be the Council’s view that the existing structure is characteristic of a typical modern rural building, which is not representative of the distinctive stone built barns found within the Staffordshire Moorlands. It therefore makes little or no contribution to the landscape character or local distinctiveness of the area. It is a purely functional building which is not “appropriate for conversion” and is “not suitable and worthy in physical, architectural and character terms for conversion” now that it has come to the end of its functional life as a stable. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies R1 and R2 of the Core Strategy and would represent a substantial and demonstrable harm which carries significant weight in the overall planning balance.
8.5 As stated at paragraph 55 of the NPPF, Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated dwellings. For the reasons outlined within this assessment it is not considered that the re-use of the building would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. Furthermore, it is not considered that the ecological enhancements incorporated within the scheme and the contemporary design approach is of such an exceptional quality or innovative nature to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm caused by way of unsustainability. The NPPF defines sustainable development as economic, social and environmental. Whilst it is noted that the proposed scheme would offer some short term economic benefits during construction, it would result in the provision of an isolated dwelling which would not enhance it’s immediate setting.
Page 94 8.6 By virtue of the aesthetic of the building and the degree of work required in order to achieve the desired dwellinghouse, it is not considered that the building is suitable or worthy in physical, architectural and character terms for conversion. This application is therefore considered contrary to policies SS6c, R1, R2, DC1 and DC3 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy and Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. All of which amounts to substantial and demonstrable harm and conflict with specific policies in the NPPF and as a result the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged and the application is recommended for refusal.
9. RECOMMENDATION
A. REFUSE subject to the following reasons:
1. It is not considered that the building is appropriate, suitable or worthy in physical, architectural and character terms for conversion. This application is therefore considered contrary to policy R1 and policy R2 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy and Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. The proposal would result in the provision of an isolated dwelling in the countryside. Whilst the development would re-use a redundant or disused building, due to the poor quality of the existing building and inappropriate design it would not lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting, contrary to paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
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.
APPENDICES TO THE REPORT
9.1 The link 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 95 Page 96 Agenda Item 13
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0220 No: Location Garage Court, Land off Stockwell Street, Leek Proposal Erection of 3 No. terraced dwellings following demolition of existing garage court. Applicant Stockwell Mews Agent Sammons Architectural Parish/ward Leek Date registered 06/04/2018
If you have a question about this report please contact: Mrs L. Jackson tel: 01538 395400 x4125 or [email protected]
REFERRAL
The application is brought to Planning Committee as applications on the site have previously been considered by members.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Approve subject to conditions.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The application site lies to the north (rear) of The Foxlowe, forms part of the curtilage of The Foxlowe (Grade II Listed) and contains a number of disused, single storey, lock up garages. The garages are located at a much lower ground level than The Foxlowe. Vehicular access to the site is via a road linking the Staffordshire Moorlands District Council rear car park with Stockwell Street and there is pedestrian cobbled access through to Brough Park. There are trees within the site, a number of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. For the purposes of planning policy consideration the application site is locate within the Leek Town Development Boundary and also the Leek Conservation Area.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 The application site is currently occupied by a number of disused garages. This is a Full application in which the developer seeks to demolish the garage blocks and erect a terrace of 3 x two storey dwellings with their frontages facing the cobbled access road/footpath leading to Brough Park. Each of the
Page 97 dwellings would have a lounge, kitchen/dining room and WC on the ground floor with three bedrooms (master with ensuite) and bathroom at first floor level. The terrace would have a footprint of approximately 19m wide and a depth of approximately 12m (approximately 1.5m at the rear of the house would be single storey only). The terrace would be slightly staggered in order to break up the frontage wall and roof slopes, have chimney stacks, small ground floor lean-to additions to the rear elevations and feature porches above the front doors. The ridge height would be approximately 8m – 8.6m (variations due to dropping land levels and stepping down of roof ridges). Windows and doors would be within the front and rear elevations only. Each dwelling would have a path leading to its front door, there would be planting areas adjacent to the cobbled road/path and a parking area and bin store within the northern portion of the site.
3.2 Members will recall that an application for residential development on this site was refused in July 2017; this was for a terraced row of 4 dormer style bungalows, positioned at right angles to the cobbled road/footpath. Car parking space was proposed to the southern side of the bungalows and garden space to the north.
3.3 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, and comments made by residents/other interested parties and the responses of consultees can be found on the Council’s website at:-
http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchS ervlet?PKID=122159
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SMD/2016/0814 Erection of 4 No. bungalows following demolition of existing garage court. Refused.
08/00892/FUL Demolition of garages and erection of six terraced dwellings with associated gardens and parking. Refused. Dismissed on appeal (Reference APP/B3438/A/09/2097995.
05/00983/LBC Demolition of existing garage block, reduction in height of part of west boundary wall. Withdrawn.
05/00950/FUL_MJ Demolition of existing garage blocks, reduction in height of wall and construction of 14 flats and associated car parking. Refused.
04/01109/FUL_MJ Demolition of existing garage blocks and construction of 16 flats and associated car parking. Withdrawn.
02/00578/FUL Alteration to (rear) flat roof, demolition of garages and formation of car park. Refused.
Page 98 5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
5.1 The Development Plan comprises:-
. Saved Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan Proposals Map/Settlement Boundaries (Adopted 1998); . 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);
The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-
. SS1 Development Principles . SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development . SS4 Managing the release of Housing Land . SS5a Leek Area Strategy . H1 New Housing Development . H2 Affordable and Local Needs Housing . DC1 Design Considerations . DC2 The Historic Environment . C1 Creating Sustainable Communities . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport . T2 Other Sustainable Transport Measures
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
. Design Principles for Development in the Staffordshire Moorlands; . Housing for Local People and Affordable Housing . Space about Dwellings
Supplementary Planning Document
. Staffordshire Moorlands District council Design Guide
National Planning Policy NPPF
Paragraphs 1 to 17 Chapter 1 Delivering Sustainable Development; Chapter 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport; Chapter 6 Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes; Chapter 7 Requiring Good Design; Chapter 11 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment; Chapter 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment.
Page 99 Other Relevant Policy Documents
National Planning Policy Guidance
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
6.1 Two site notices have been displayed, the development advertised within the Leek Post and Times and neighbouring properties notified. To date (other than the consultations responses received below) no public comments have been received.
Site Notice Expires 4th May 2018
Press Notice Expires 16th May 2018 (Leek Post and Times)
Neighbour Notification 2nd May 2018. Expires
Consultee Comment
Leek Town Recommend approval. Council Ecology No objections subject to conditions. (SMDC)
Conservation Site within Leek Conservation Area and forms part of the Officer former garden area to The Foxlowe, Grade II Listed and (SMDC) alongside is a well established footway into Brough Park. The site is currently an area of unsightly garages and retaining boundary walls in various states of disrepair. This is a much improved proposal which presents an attractive terrace of three cottages stepping down the hillside and the detailing of which is derived from Leek’s surrounding historic buildings. I would suggest that each building is stepped back slightly to follow through the step-down in height just to help break up the massing of brickwork and give them a more vertical proportion – stepping back only by half a brick length from the top unit, splaying out towards the park. No objection to the addition of a lean-to extension at the rear but the lower unit needs it stepping in slightly to break up the gable, preventing it looking over-wide. Can the garden of Plot 1 be widened so that it doesn’t taper to a useless point? Where are the bins to be stored, we need this detail as part
Page 100 of the application as space needs to be found for all the bins and adequate screening provided. Officer Note: Amended plans have now been received which show the provision of a bin store.
Conservation No objections but suggested a slight set back to each Liaison Panel property to break up the building massing and relate to the stepping down.
Environmental No objections subject to conditions. Health (SMDC) Arboricultural No objections subject to conditions. Officer (SMDC) Public Rights The attention of the applicant should be drawn to the of Way (SCC) existence of the path and to the requirement that any planning permission given does not construe the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path. If the path does need diverting as part of these proposals the applicant would need to apply to your council under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert the footpath to allow the development to commence. The applicants should be reminded that the granting of planning permission does not constitute authority for interference with the right of way or its closure or diversion. For further information the applicant should be advised to read section 7 of DEFRA's Rights of Way Circular (1/09).
It is important that users of the path are still able to exercise their public rights safely and that the path is reinstated if any damage to the surface occurs as a result of the proposed development. The surface of the footpath must be kept in a state of repair such that the public right to use it can be exercised safely and at all times. Heavy vehicular use can cause the way to become unsuitable for use and in some instances dangerous. Some attention needs to be drawn to this and that surface works may be required.
The County Council has not received any application under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add or modify the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way, which affects the land in question. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a right of way at common law, or by virtue of a presumed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It may, therefore, be necessary to make further local enquiries and seek legal advice in respect of any physically evident route affecting the land, or the apparent exercise of a right of
Page 101 way by members of the public.
Archaeology The Staffordshire Historic Environment Record does not (SCC) record the presence of designated or undesignated heritage assets within the area of the scheme. However, the Leek Extensive Urban Survey (EUS) (available at www.staffordhsire.gov.uk/ search under EUS) does record that the site lies within Historic Urban Character Area (HUCA) 1: Historic Core. This area is considered in the EUS to have high evidential (archaeological), historical, aesthetic and communal value. It lies within the core of the medieval planned town which was laid out by the Earl of Chester in the 13th century and close to the Grade I Listed Church of St. Edwards. Two Scheduled early medieval crosses sit within the churchyard of St. Edwards and while it is difficult to say whether they originated at Leek or were moved here from elsewhere, the EUS does raise the potential for early medieval activity within the northern portion of the town. As such there is considerable potential for the medieval, post medieval and possibly even early medieval archaeological remains within the area of the current scheme. It is advised that a staged archaeological evaluation be undertaken. The results of this work will inform the need for and scope of any further archaeological mitigation (such as a watching brief or excavation). This approach is supported by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 128 states that ‘…local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation’ in order to inform our understanding of significance. All phases of work should be undertaken by a suitably experienced archaeological organisation working to the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) Code of Conduct and their standards and guidance for ‘Archaeological Evaluations’ (2014). This work should also make contingencies for the sampling and processing of palaeoenvironmental remains (and the use of appropriate dating techniques) should suitable deposits be identified during groundworks. This work would most appropriately be secured via a condition.
Bearing in mind the proximity of the development to the eastern-most Scheduled cross within the churchyard works liable to impact upon the setting of a scheduled heritage asset may require Scheduled Monument Consent; the Secretary of state is advised in such matters by Historic England. It is therefore advised that the applicant may wish to discuss the scheme with the Inspector of Ancient Monument for Staffordshire in the first instance to obtain a view on the scheme.
Page 102 Severn Trent The proposal has minimal impact on the public sewerage Water system therefore there are no objections to the proposals and no drainage condition is required.
Highways No objections on highways grounds however the officer Officer (SCC) comments that;
It may be appropriate to include a wheel wash condition to prevent mud being deposited onto the public car park and the cobbles leading to Brough Park. Signage or access restrictions may be appropriate to make it clear that the parking bays for this development do not form part of the public car park.
7. 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 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.
7.2 Core Strategy Policy SS1a establishes a 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' as contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (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 that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
7.3 Paragraph 47 requires the Council to identify a five-year supply of deliverable housing land sites, including a 5% buffer to allow for choice and competition in the market for land, increased to a 20% buffer where there is a persistent under-delivery in past years. It remains the case that the Council can only demonstrate a 1.99 year deliverable supply of housing (calculated 31st March 2017) against its five year target, as is required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
7.4 Paragraph 49 requires all housing applications to 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
Page 103 Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
8. OFFICER COMMENT
Main Issues
8.1 The key issues for consideration in the assessment of this application are the principle of development, whether the application site is in a sustainable location for the proposed development with particular regard to the proximity of services and facilities, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the wider surrounding area (including the Conservation Area of which the site forms a part), potential impact on the adjacent Listed building and its setting, impact upon residential amenity and on the living conditions of future occupants, highway safety, biodiversity and Environmental Health matters. Amended plans have been received in response to officer’s comments and those of consultees. Amendments include the provision of bin stores, the staggering of the terrace to provide visual breaks in the front wall and roof slopes, re-shaping of the gardens and additional planting at the front of the houses.
Principle of Development
8.2 For the purposes of planning policy consideration, the application site constitutes a brownfield site which lies within the Leek Town Development boundary where there is a general presumption in favour of development. The site is within a highly sustainable location, in close proximity to the town centre which offers a wide range of facilities and services. The scheme would make a small, but valuable contribution to housing delivery within the Staffordshire Moorlands. It is considered that the proposal would contribute to enhancing the economy by the creation of jobs associated with the construction phase and it is highly likely that any future residents would contribute to/support existing local services and businesses within Leek and the surrounding area. The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with all other relevant development plan policies and material planning considerations.
Impact on the character/appearance/setting of the area including Conservation Area and adjacent Listed Building.
8.3 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 ‘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 …’
8.4 Core Strategy policy H1 ‘New Housing Development’ states that ‘all development will be assessed according to the extent to which it provides for
Page 104 high quality, sustainable housing … and the strategy for the area having regard to the location of the development, 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 …’.
8.5 The specific design and conservation policies of the Core Strategy also seek to promote local distinctiveness by means of good design and the conservation, protection and enhancement of historic, environmental and cultural assets along with the District’s landscape and the setting of its settlements. Policy DC1 sets out design criteria relating to new development to reinforce local distinctiveness and positively contribute to the area. Policy DC2 states that the Council will restrict development which would harm, or be detrimental to, the special character and historic heritage of the District’s towns and villages and those interests of acknowledged importance.
8.6 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF advises that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Paragraphs 63 and 64 go on to comment that in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help to raise the standard of design more generally within the area. 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.
8.7 The removal of the garage blocks is welcomed and it is acknowledged that the site is in need of redevelopment for both visual and safety reasons. It is noted however that the site is significantly constrained not only physically due to its topography and presence of protected trees but also in terms of its neighbouring land uses with The Foxlowe and its associated curtilage, the cemetery, Brough Park to the north and the adjacent public footpaths.
8.8 Policy DC2 of the Core Strategy ‘Historic Environment’ states: ‘The Council will safeguard and, where possible, enhance the historic environment, areas of historic landscape character and interests of acknowledged importance, including scheduled ancient monuments, significant buildings (both statutory listed and on a local register), the settings of designated assets and Conservation Areas.
8.9 Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ is also highly relevant to the assessment of the scheme in view of the Conservation Area setting and location to the adjacent Grade II Listed Building (The Foxlowe). Regard should be had to paragraph 132 of the NPPF which states that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’. Special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Paragraph 134 (NPPF) states that ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’.
Page 105 8.10 A three dwelling terrace fronting the cobbled path/access road is proposed. The ridge line would be orientated to run in a north-west to south- east direction; this is different and preferable to the previous scheme where the dwellings were situated at roughly right angles to the road. The road fronting orientation ensures that detailed elevations play a visually prominent and active part of the street scene. The scheme proposes an attractive terrace which steps down the hillside. The elevation plans have been amended to stagger the terrace which breaks up what may otherwise have been a lengthy expanse of brickwork and roof slope. The visual break now ensures that the dwellings have some visual relief and clearly read as three individual properties, each with a vertical proportion. Specific design details can be achieved by appropriately worded conditions and will include joinery, cills, lintels, positioning of windows and doors within their openings, porches, materials, eaves, verges, chimneys, retaining walls and landscaping.
8.11 The eastern boundary to the site (adjacent to the car park) is made up of retaining walls, has verges (partially overgrown and deep in places), raised kerb lines, a series of concrete bollards and a line of trees leading downwards towards Brough Park. Cars are frequently parked at the side of the road, within the application site access or, where space allows, between bollards. The scheme offers the potential to retain and enhance planting on the site frontage to maintain and enhance the green approach to the park.
8.12 The treatment of all retaining walls and boundaries is also crucial and a high quality stone retaining wall should be secured below The Foxlowe. The Conservation officer has previously noted that the cemetery wall would be more exposed as a result of the development and a repair schedule should be sought. All building materials could be conditioned and Permitted Development Rights could be removed to prevent any unacceptable alterations/extensions to the dwellings or any inappropriate outbuildings.
8.13 The application site is much lower in level than the land to the south and therefore it is highly unlikely that the development would have any harmful visual impact upon The Foxlowe. The scheme does not raise any concerns in respect of impact upon the Listed Building or its settings.
8.14 Staffordshire County Council has advised that whilst the Staffordshire Historic Environment Record does not record any designated or undesignated heritage assets within the application site, the Leek Extensive Urban Survey (EUS) does show that the site lies within a Historic Urban Character Area. The application site lies within the medieval planned town and in close proximity to the church yard of St Edwards Church (Grade I Listed). There is potential for early medieval activity in the northern part of the town and for medieval archaeological remains within the application site. If Members were minded to approve the application then a suitably worded condition could be added to secure a staged archaeological evaluation/archaeological investigation. It is considered therefore that, subject to the condition, the application would raise no objections in terms of potential impacts upon archaeological remains.
Page 106 Impact upon Residential Amenity
8.15 The National Planning Policy Framework (Chapter 7) emphasises that good design is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. The NPPF also states that developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area. Core Strategy policy DC1 requires that all development proposals should ‘protect the amenity of the area, including residential amenity, in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight, outlook, privacy and soft landscaping.’ The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Space About Dwellings’ standards should also be taken into consideration to secure privacy and satisfactory amenity for existing and proposed residents.
8.16 Adverse impact upon residential amenity formed part of the previous reason for refusal (SMD/2016/0814), in particular overshadowing which would occur by the presence of protected trees. The council’s Arboricultural officer commented that the proposal would have inevitably led to strong and recurring pressure for felling and/or substantial reduction of the protected trees. The footprint of the terrace has been specifically agreed with the Arboricultural officer so as not to cause detrimental encroachment to the root system and tree canopies. The trees and embankments are still constraints to any residential development but the rotating of the terrace has allowed for the rear principal windows to be moved further away from the site boundary and has created a more open and useable amenity/rear garden space (previously proposed to be located underneath the tree canopies at the northern end of the site). The gardens would have a length of roughly between 18m and 21m which is well in excess of the Space About Dwellings standards. However, the trees and embankments will have an amenity impact so the garden lengths are crucial to allow for as pleasant an area as possible. Plots 1 and 2 would have rectangular shaped gardens; Plot 3 would have a larger domestic curtilage. Whilst part of the Plot 3 curtilage would be directly underneath the tree canopies, the plot as a whole is large enough to provide satisfactory amenity space. The proposed layout of the site is considered to be the best possible arrangement to satisfactorily achieve the residential re-use of the site.
Highway Safety
8.17 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states: ‘Plans and decisions should take account of whether: the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ The NPPF requirements are replicated within the Core Strategy via policy T1 which advocates sustainable travel modes and secures new development
Page 107 within locations where the traffic levels can easily be accommodated by the surrounding highway network.
8.18 The application site is located within a highly sustainable area. Public car parks are very close by and any future occupants of the dwellings would be able to easily access public transport and/or walk to a range of social and commercial facilities. The access to the site is via the road leading to the car park at the rear of Moorlands House. No alterations are proposed to the Stockwell Street access and it is noted that the County Highways officer raises no objection to the development. Three parking spaces would be provided within the northern part of the site and it is borne in mind that, although not currently used as such, the site is occupied by garages and has the potential to generate more vehicle comings and goings than that which is likely should this development be allowed.
8.19 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of impact upon the local road network. Public rights of way cross close to the application site and as such the applicant/developer should be made aware of this and can be done via an informative on the decision notice should members be minded to approve the application. It is important that users of the path network are still able to exercise their public rights safely and that the paths are reinstated if any damage to their surface occurs as a result of the proposed development.
Biodiversity
8.20 Planning policies require the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment. Trees within the site are protected by means of designated Tree Preservation Orders and by virtue of the site being located within a Conservation Area. The proposal would require the removal of a mature Sycamore immediately adjacent to the eastern end of the middle row of existing garages and the adjacent line of Hollies along the edge of the cobbled path into the park. The Arboricultural officer confirms that the Sycamore is significantly unbalanced, with a weak main union and the Hollies have various decaying cavities to the stems. On balance, and with regard to their form/condition and other trees to be retained, it is considered that the loss of these trees to accommodate the best compromise development for the site is acceptable. The Arboricultural officer notes that the crown spread of the 5 major trees to the Brough Park boundary have not been accurately shown on the plan and gives a misleading impression of the extent to which the trees affect the plots and/or the extent of crown reduction which may be required. However numerous site visits have revealed that a combination of reasonable crown lifting and careful reduction of lateral growth (subject to TPO consent) would be acceptable to achieve a balance between tree and residential amenity. 8.21 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been submitted alongside the application. The Council’s Ecology advisor has confirmed that the garage buildings have very low potential to provide roost sites for bats. The Ecology report recommends the adoption of reasonable avoidance measures which
Page 108 can be controlled by condition(s). The survey identifies that two of the trees have moderate potential to provide habitat for bats and in the event that work needs to be undertaken to these trees such as pruning, further assessment for bats should first be undertaken to determine appropriate safeguards, again this matter can be controlled by a condition.
Other Matters
8.22 The Environmental Health officer (SMDC) raises no objections to the application subject to a number of conditions. The proposed dwellings would be located close to the Foxlowe Public House, a public car park and the Council offices so consideration should be given for noise protection. The potential noise impacts include entertainment, beer garden, car park noise and Council building plant noise which would be likely to cause significant noise intrusion if not suitably accounted for in the building design. The former use of the application site may mean that there is some land contamination present therefore a contamination risk assessment condition is considered reasonable.
Section 106 Matters
8.23 The scheme for 3 dwellings does not trigger the requirement for any S106 contributions.
9. CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE
9.1 Planning policies set 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. The removal of the existing dilapidated garage block is welcomed and the revised scheme would enhance the character and appearance of the area. Approval of residential development in this location would constitute a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and provide a small but extremely valuable contribution towards the Council’s 5 year housing land supply.
9.2 Moreover the redevelopment of the site would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and would not harm the setting of the adjacent listed building. The proposals do not raise any concerns with respect to residential, highway matters, trees, biodiversity and archaeological matters.
10.RECOMMENDATION
A. That Full Planning Permission is approved subject to the following condition(s) and Informative(s).
Page 109 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason:- To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no development as specified in Part 1 Class(es) A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H and/or Part 2 Class(es) A, B and C, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be carried out without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason:- To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, and to ensure that adequate private open space is retained within the curtilage of the buildings.
3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following submitted plans and subject to the following conditions and/or modifications:-
2016-2194-02 Rev A; 2016-2194-05; 2016-2194-06 Rev C; 2016-2194-13 Rev F; 2016-2194-15 Rev B; Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt, in the interests of proper planning and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. 4. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until samples and details of the types and colours of all roof tiles, facing materials and hard surfaces including paths, patios and parking areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, completed prior to first occupation of the development and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory.
5. Prior to the commencement of development details of all pointing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained for the lifetime of development. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity and good design.
6. Prior to the commencement of development joinery details for all windows and doors, details of cills and lintels and the position of
Page 110 windows and doors within their openings shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity and good design.
7. Prior to the commencement of development joinery details and facing materials for the porch canopies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, completed prior to first occupation of the development and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity and good design.
8. Prior to the commencement of development design details including brick type for the eaves, verges and chimneys shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity and good design.
9. No external lighting shall form part of the development unless the details have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include lighting type, location within the plot and luminance levels and shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason:- In the interests of amenity.
10.The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of all proposed and existing walls, fences and other means of enclosure including any hedgerows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include materials samples, appearance, heights, locations and any necessary maintenance. The approved details shall be completed prior to the occupation of any of the buildings on the site and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- To provide adequate privacy and an acceptable external appearance. 11.Prior to the commencement of development details of all rainwater goods and any vents and ducts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, completed prior to first occupation and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- In the interests of good design and visual amenity.
12.The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the existing and proposed levels across the site and relative to adjoining land, together with the finished floor levels of the proposed
Page 111 building(s), have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:- In order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development within this visually prominent site.
13.There shall be no removal of any trees, shrubs or hedgerows during the bird nesting season (nominally March to August inclusive), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority 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. 14.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. 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 protected species.
15.Before the commencement of development (including any demolition, site clearance, site stripping or site establishment) temporary protective fencing and advisory notices for the protection of the existing trees to be retained shall be erected in accordance with guidance in British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations, and as set out in the Tree Heritage Arboricultural Report reference THR16-140 submitted with the planning application, and shall be retained in position for the duration of the period that development takes place, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within the fenced areas there shall be no excavation, changes in ground levels, installation of underground services, provision of hard surfacing, passage of vehicles, storage of materials, equipment or site huts, tipping of chemicals, waste or cement, or lighting of fires unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason:- In the interests of trees to be protected. 16.Before the commencement of development (including any demolition, site clearance, site stripping or site establishment) full details of all tree protection measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include full construction specification for a no-dig cellular confinement system for the proposed parking and turning areas, together with an arboricultural method
Page 112 statement setting out working methods and special protection measures for the avoidance of harm to existing trees on and adjacent to the application site during demolition and construction. Such method statement and protection measures shall specifically include details and timescales to ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to protect tree roots, stems and crowns from the initial outset of any demolition or construction activity. Thereafter, the development shall be constructed only in full accordance with details approved under this condition. Reason:- In the interests of trees to be protected.
17.Before the commencement of development (including any demolition, site clearance, site stripping or site establishment) a landscaping scheme for the entire site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include full details of all new trees, shrubs, hedging and any other planting, giving specification for species, positions, planting sizes and numbers/densities of all new planting. The landscaping scheme so approved shall be fully implemented before the end of the first available dormant season (November to February inclusive) following completion of the development hereby approved. The trees and shrubs planted in accordance with this landscaping scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years following planting. Any plants which within this period are damaged, become diseased, die, are removed or otherwise fail to establish shall be replaced during the next suitable season. Reason:- In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.
18.Prior to the commencement of development details of any signage and/or access restrictions to the on-site parking area hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details, completed prior to first occupation and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- To ensure that the parking spaces hereby permitted are retained for the sole use of the occupants of and/or visitors to the approved dwellings.
19.Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the above approved plans, details of the proposed bin store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include location, size, design, materials, elevations and method of securing the store to the ground. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, completed in full prior to first occupation of the development and retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- In the interests of visual appearance, to provide satisfactory waste storage space and to control the impact of the development upon protected trees.
Page 113 20.The development, including demolition hereby permitted shall not take place until a Construction and Environmental Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Method statement should include the following details:- I. A scheme to minimise dust emissions arising from demolition/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. II. Details of wheel washing facilities. All demolition/construction vehicles shall have their wheels cleaned before leaving the site; III. a scheme for recycling/disposal of waste resulting from the demolition/construction works; IV. the responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint;
Once approved, all relevant activities on the site should be carried out in accordance with Construction and Environmental Method Statement throughout the course of the development. Any alteration to this Plan shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the alteration. Reason:- To protect the amenities of the area. 21.No development, shall take place until a site risk assessment has been undertaken to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once completed, a written report of the findings and recommendations shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
If the site risk assessment indicates that potential risks exist, development shall not commence until a detailed remediation strategy to mitigate the identified risks and ensure the site is remediated to a condition suitable for the intended use has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed remediation strategy shall be adhered to throughout the development.
Following completion of the site remediation and prior to bringing the development into first use, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been identified in the site investigation, additional measures for the remediation of this source of contamination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures.
Page 114 Reason:- 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. 22.No top 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 should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the soils being imported onto site. The methodology should 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:- 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. 23.Any waste material associated with the demolition or construction shall not be burnt on site but shall be kept securely for removal to prevent escape into the environment. Reason: To protect the amenities of the area.
24.Development shall not commence until a site specific scheme for protecting the proposed residential units from noise, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall have due regard for the British Standard BS8233:2014 Guidance on Sound Insulation for Buildings and be designed to achieve noise levels of less than 35 dB LAeq in bedrooms, less than 40 dBLAeq in living areas and 55dB LAeq in outside living areas. A report shall be produced containing all raw data and showing how calculations have been made. A copy of such report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, implemented in full prior to first occupation and be retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason:- To protect occupiers from noise and safeguard their residential amenities.
25.Unless prior permission has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority, all noisy activities shall be restricted to the following times of operations. . 08:00 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); . 08:00 - 13:00 hours (Saturday) . No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Page 115 In this instance a noisy activity is defined as any activity (for instance, but not restricted to, building construction/demolition operations, refurbishing and landscaping) which generates noise that is audible at the site boundary. Reason:- To avoid the risk of disturbance to neighbouring dwellings from noise during unsocial hours. 26.Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a written scheme of archaeological investigation (‘the Scheme’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within the site, including post-excavation reporting and appropriate publication and interpretation. The Scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details. Reason:- In the interests of archaeology and historic landscape character.
27.The recommendations and mitigation including precautionary working methods set out in the submitted ecological report (Eyebright Ecology December 2016) at section 5.3 shall be followed and applied during the course of the development. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and proper safeguard for protected species.
28.Prior to the commencement of development details of at least two integral bat roost boxes incorporated into the fabric of the built structures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, completed prior to first occupation of the dwellings and be retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: in the interests of biodiversity.
Informatives
1. During the course of the consideration of the application the Council sought amendments to the proposals to ensure that the proposed development was planning policy compliant in particular in respect of good design for a Conservation Area location, amenity and impact upon protected trees. It is therefore considered that the proposals meet the provisions of paragraphs 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. This Permission does not confer on the Applicant the right to build on or over land owned by a third party without the third party's consent. You should therefore seek the prior agreement of your neighbour(s) before entering their land.
Page 116 3. Attention is drawn to condition number 2 of this approval, the effect of which is to withdraw permitted development rights in respect of development which would otherwise not require planning permission. You are advised to contact the Local Planning Authority Development Control Section telephone 0345 6053013 before undertaking any other development in the future in order to ascertain whether planning permission is required.
4. Users of the public footpath network should be able to exercise their public rights safely and paths should be reinstated if any damage to their surface occurs as a result of the development. The County Council is responsible only for the surface of the footpath for pedestrians and not vehicles. The developer and any subsequent landowners are informed that the maintenance of hedges/trees is their responsibility.
5. It should be noted that all trees within the application site boundary, and also those off-site beyond the western boundary, are protected either by Tree Preservation Order or by virtue of their location within a Conservation Area. Other than where indicated for removal on the plans hereby approved, the planning permission hereby granted does not authorise any work (felling or pruning) to any trees, and specific consent following separate application to the Local Planning Authority under the terms of the Tree Preservation Order would be required to carry out any such work other than where specified as exempt under the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012.
6. The attention of the developer should be drawn to the existence of the Public Rights of Way and to the requirement that any planning permission given does not construe the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path network. If the paths do need diverting as part of these proposals the developer would need to apply to Staffordshire Moorlands District Council under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert the footpaths to allow the development to commence. The applicant(s) should be reminded that the granting of planning permission does not constitute authority for interference with the right of way or its closure or diversion. For further information the applicant should be advised to read section 7 of DEFRA’s Rights of Way Circular (1/09).
7. All wild birds including their nests and eggs are protected by law. It is an offence, with certain exceptions, to kill, injure or take wild birds or to take, damage, or destroy their nests or take or destroy their eggs. Site clearance and/or demolition cannot therefore take place where there are birds nesting. Typically this will be in the period 1st March to 31st July of any year. As this development involves vegetation clearance and/or demolition and/or other activities where bird nesting is likely and which would be damaging to any nesting birds present the work should
Page 117 avoid the bird nesting season so far as possible. If such work is to take place in the nesting season an ecologist experienced in bird nesting habits should first be engaged to advise on and ensure that the intended work can legally take place.
8. Bats are protected by law and in the event that bats or bat droppings are encountered during the development work, all operations should be immediately ceased and advice obtained from an ecologically qualified bat specialist. Work should then continue only in accordance with the specialist advice obtained and with due reference to the law including the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
In respect of condition number 28, information on the installation of an integral bat roost box can be found by reference to the Bat Conservation Trust website at http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bat_boxes.html#Integrated bat boxes. 9. Please be aware that the responsibility for safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.
A Demolition or refurbishment asbestos survey and risk assessment should be carried out prior to the demolition of the existing buildings. The enforcing authority for this type of work is the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and it is recommended that you contact them directly to discuss their requirements: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ Any approved noise scheme and measurements should pay due regard to British Standard BS8233: Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings (Code of Practice), BS4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial or commercial sound and/or the Building Regulations 2010 Document E or other appropriate guidance. Information on Coal Mining Risk Assessment can be found on the UK government Website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning- applications-coal-mining-risk-assessments Any approved foul drainage system should meet the British Standard 6297:2007+A1:2008: Code of practice for the design and installation of drainage fields for use in wastewater treatment http://www.bsigroup.com Advice on controlling flies and light can be found in: Statutory Nuisance from Insects and Artificial Light (defra 2005) available as a free download http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/legislation/cnea/do cuments/statnuisance.pdf During any demolition and construction activities (including landscaping) the contractor shall take all reasonable steps to prevent dust formation and prevent any dust formed from leaving the site boundary. The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition Best Practice Guidance, produced by the greater London councils
Page 118 http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/BPGcontrolofdustandemissi ons.pdf Building Research Establishment Guidance Document ‘Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities’ (BR456) If required, contamination risk assessments shall be carried out in accordance with UK policy and with the procedural guidance relating to the contaminated land regime, and should be in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 and the CLR Report Series 1-12. Submission of reports should also be made to the Environment Agency for comment with regard to their remit to protect ground and surface waters from pollution and their obligations relating to contaminated land. The Local Planning Authority will determine the acceptability of reports on the basis of the information made available to it. Please be aware that should a risk of harm from contamination remain post development, where the applicant had prior knowledge of the contamination, the applicant is likely to be liable under Part II (a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and as such become and “appropriate person”. In this event the applicant will be lawfully responsible to remove the risk posed by the contamination. Equally if during any site works a pathway for any contaminant on site is created and humans, waters, property or ecological systems are exposed to this, the applicant or those acting on behalf of the applicant will be liable under part II (a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if the risks are not adequately addressed during the site redevelopment. During investigation and remediation works the applicant and those acting on behalf of the applicant must ensure that site workers, public property and the environment are protected against noise, dust, odour and fumes. The applicant is advised that should there be a requirement as part of the Remediation Strategy to treat, reuse or remove contaminated material on the site, the Environment Agency must be consulted, as these activities may need to be licensed or permitted. Contaminated materials identified for removal off site must be disposed of in an appropriately licensed landfill site. Staffordshire Moorlands District Council is keen to liaise with all stakeholders involved in this application. As such, we recommend that a proposed scope of works is forwarded to the Environmental Protection Department and agreed in principle prior to site investigation works being undertaken. The Environmental Protection Department is also prepared to review draft copies of reports prior to final submission to the Planning Department in order to ensure that works undertaken are sufficient to discharge the contaminated land conditions.
2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for
Page 119 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 120 Agenda Item 14
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2017/0771 and SMD/2018/0089 No: Location Well Street Mill, Well Street, Leek Proposal Conversion of Mill to from 14 apartments. Demolition of two storey mill annexe Applicant Caldene properties Ltd. Agent DBD Architectural Consultancy Ltd. Parish/ward Leek Date registered 19/01/18 If you have a question about this report please contact: Jane Curley tel: 01538 395400 ex 4124 [email protected]
REFERRAL
This is a major application which includes the demolition of a curtilage Listed building.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO APPROVE subject to the satisfactory outcome from the further bat survey and securing any required mitigation
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 Well Street Mill forms part of the Cross Street Mill complex which is Grade II Listed and within the Leek Conservation Area. The site has a close visual relationship with London Road Mill which is also separately Listed. Well Street Mill was built in the 19th century as a physically separate building to the rest of the Cross Street Mill complex and historic maps show that it is one of the early buildings on the site. The later Well Street frontage building (annex) was in place by 1899 and is probably of a similar date to the curved Cross Street frontage buildings as they share the same bricks and common detailing, although clearly the Cross Street buildings were designed to impress.
2.2 The Well Street building was formerly a silk mill. Historically the building would have been largely undivided internally with exposed trusses on the upper floor and an internal stone staircase. The historic stone staircase survives at the southern end. The building has been divided internally to create 28 bedsit units and the walls dry- lined as part of a permission for Alton Towers staff - see history below. Originally the windows would have been cast iron but many have been changed over the years
Page 121 with poor quality timber replacements and fabricated mild steel frames. Only 6 original windows have been identified in the building.
2.3 A further structure within the application site is a two-storey building to the south which is currently only accessed via the Cross Street Mill buildings (Cross Street Mill link) currently occupied by Qarma on the ground floor and empty studio units on the first floor. No historic analysis has been undertaken of this structure.
2.4 The other main aspects of the conversion are: Insulating internal walls using metal stud framing Existing steel fabricated windows to be replaced with modern steel Crittall windows and double glazed thin glazing bars or aluminium frame with thin glazing bars and small panes to match the existing sub-division with inward hopper opening. The communal corridors shall be fitted with the remaining cast iron windows. The fire escape will be removed Creating a new access to the Cross Street Mill link by blocking access from Cross Street Mill and installing a new stair access from the Well Street Yard and insertion of windows to the east and south elevation. Extant cast iron columns will be refurbished and exposed where possible. Two additional internal flights of stairs will be required to serve the second and third floors. Landscaping: Tarmac surfacing. The front wall to be lowered to form a boundary wall using reclaimed cills to form copings.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 This report considers two applications:-
a) A Full application for the demolition of the Well Street annex and link and for the conversion of the retained Well Street Mill into 12 apartments in the main building (3 per floor) and 2 apartments in the first floor of the Cross Street Mill link b) Listed Building Consent application for the i) demolition of the annex and link and ii) internal and external alterations to the retained Listed structure. The Listed building application considers demolition and physical alterations to the building only. The relevant section in the report can be found under the heading ‘Impact on the Listed building, its setting and the wider Conservation Area’.
3.2 The apartments consist of 9 x two bedroom units and 5 x one bedroomed units. 16 car parking spaces are provided on site.
3.3 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement, Bat survey and Drainage Strategy which Members are advised to consider before the meeting.
Page 122 4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
07/00392- LBC Demolition of chimney at Well Street Mill. Approved
07/00394/FUL-MJ Conversion and extension to create staff accommodation for Alton Towers comprising 39 bedrooms and associated community facilities. Approved
07/00393 LBC Listed building consent for above. Approved
07/00401- FUL Change if use of land to car park in conjunction with Well Street Mill for Amos investments Ltd.
07/00113/LBC Demolition of building and adjoining chimney. Withdrawn
07/00105/FUL-MJ Conversion and extension to provide staff accommodation comprising 41 bedrooms and associated communal facilities. Withdrawn
07/00105/FUL-MJ Conversion and extension to provide staff accommodation for Alton Towers and associated facilities. Withdrawn
01/00747/FUL Change of use/ratification of use to B1 (Business use) B8 (Storage and distribution) D1 (non residential) and D2 (Assembly and leisure). Approved. Although this application related to Cross Street Mills, the plans accompanying the application confirm that Well Street Mill formed part of the package.
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
Page 123 . SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources . SD3 Carbon-saving Measures in Development . SD4 Pollution and Flood Risk . SS6C Rural area strategy . DC1 Design Considerations . DC2 Heritage . C1 Creating Sustainable Communities . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport . T2 Other Sustainable Transport Measures
National Planning Policy NPPF
National Planning Policy Guidance
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Press Notice expiry date: 28/2/18 Site Notice expiry date: 20/2/18
Local residents/businesses have been notified by letter.
One letter of representation has been received raising the following main issues:- 1. Pleased to see any development which improves the area however concerned about the provision of bin store at the site frontage – it is opposite a lounge window and in the past there has been a fly tipping problem. Request that the bin store is suitably screened and better moved to a less conspicuous position on the site 2. Consider the provision of only 12 spaces for potentially 56 people plus visitors is inadequate.
Town Council Recommend approval
Conservation Officer No objection subject to conditions
Conservation Liaison Panel No objections. High quality boundary wall and retention of historic windows are crucial to the success of the scheme
Ecology Officer Objects. Advises that application can not be determined until the further surveys recommended in the Ecology Report have been undertaken to determine the impact on protected species and in particular bats.
Environmental Health Officer Comments awaited
Page 124 Local Highway Authority Comments awaited
County Archeologist Comments awaited
Historic England Do not wish to offer any comments and suggest the views of the Councils specialist Conservation Officer are sought.
Council for British Archaeology The CBA welcomes the proposal to convert elements of the Listed Grade II Cross Street Mills to residential. Also welcome the proposal to replace the existing windows with Crittall frames and glazing. However, object to the proposed demolition of the Cross Street frontage building which they believe makes an important contribution to the Well Street frontage, the Leek Conservation Area, and to the overall significance of the Cross Street Mill complex. Having regard to advice in the NPPF that “…As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional…” The CBA does not believe “clear and convincing justification” has been provided.
Severn Trent Water No objection subject to drainage condition
County Education No education contribution will be requested as it is not current policy of SCC to request a contribution from developments purely consisting of 1 or 2 bed apartments.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer Queries the level of parking (12 spaces) for the number of apartments (14) and potential for congestion and conflict with existing residents and businesses. Breathing fresh life into a redundant mill can only have a positive impact upon the town. The demolition of the annexe building and removal of the fire escape would be beneficial in terms of crime prevention. The frontage of the mill would be opened up and the hidden space between the two existing buildings exposed. There would be good natural surveillance from the apartments outwards over the parking provision, and from the street towards the mill. Recommends good access control, visitor and postal receipt arrangements and robust physical security should be provided.
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.
Page 125 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 of development
7.3 The site lies within the town centre of Leek. Policy SS5A provides the development strategy for Leek which seeks to consolidate its role as the principal service centre of the District and a market town and support its regeneration. The policy sets out a number of ways in which this will be achieved including meeting housing needs. There is specific reverence to mill buildings and encouraging mixed use developments. Both national and local planning policy (DC2) positively encourages the bringing back of heritage assets such as this into viable uses consistent with their conservation.
7.4 The adopted Masterplan for Leek is also a material consideration in this application. It shows the site to be part of a larger area known as the Eastern Mill Quarter where positive support and encouragement is given to refurbishing and regenerating this important historic area, much of which it says remains intact, in a mix of uses. The Masterplan recognises that there are a number of mills in this area which are vacant, disused and deteriorating and detracting from the areas potential to act as a key and attractive gateway into the town centre from the East.
7.5 On the basis of these polices, no objection is raised in principle to the conversion of this Mill building to apartments. The main issues to consider include impact on the Listed building, the Conservation Area, residential amenity, access and parking and biodiversity. These matters are considered under the various sub headings below
Impact on the Listed building, its setting and the wider Conservation Area.
7.6 Policy DC 2 seeks to protect and enhance the heritage environment. The NPPF similarly seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Paragraph 132 refers to designated heritage assets. It says that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. It goes on to say that as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. The NPPF considers three levels of harm to designated heritage assets; substantial harm, less than substantial harm and no harm. It then describes how the decision maker must consider each of these scenarios. This matter is returned to later in this section. In addition to these national and local planning policy consideration, the LPA
Page 126 has a statutory duty under Section 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving Listed buildings, their setting and features of interest and of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.
7.7 Against this statutory and policy background the Conservation Officer has carefully considered the application. She advises that the main historic significance of the buildings derives from the external envelope of Well Street Mill and the integrity of the internal structure (iron columns, roof trusses and stone staircase). She says that the building is early and an important structure in the Well Street Mill Complex. The Well Street annex which is proposed for demolition, is important in marking a later phase of the site’s development (it was in place by 1899) but she comments is of lesser significance, being an architecturally pared-back version of the corner Cross Mill building. Well Street Mill was built in the 19th century as a physically separate building to rest of the Cross Street Mill complex and historic maps show that it is one of the early buildings on the site and is probably of a similar date to the curved Cross Street frontage buildings as they share the same bricks and common detailing, although clearly the Cross Street buildings were designed to impress.
7.8 The CBA have welcomed the proposal to convert elements of the Listed Grade II Cross Street Mills to residential and the offer to replace the existing windows with Crittall frames and glazing. However, they object to the proposed demolition of the Annexe. They consider that it makes an important contribution to the Well Street frontage, the Leek Conservation Area, and to the overall significance of the Cross Street Mill complex. In terms of the requirements of the NPPF they do not believe that “clear and convincing justification” for the demolition has been forthcoming.
7.9 In response to this the applicant has provided further justification for the proposed demolition. This was received as an update to the Design, Access and Heritage Statement and puts forward the following points:- The close proximity of the annexe to the main mill makes the rooms dark and oppressive with a ‘brick wall’ outlook. Its removal will significantly improve the natural light and outlook The Annexe does not possess any particular architectural merit. It has been altered and former doorways and windows infilled leaving scarring where mis matched bricks are used. The removal of the Annexe will make Well Street mill a much more prominent feature in the area and this building has greater historic significance. It is one of the older buildings on the site. It will improve its visual presence and better reveal it The Annexe building is not mentioned in the List description The removal of the Annexe will open up the vista to the decorative rear of the Cross Street Mill which has the most historic importance on the site and the subject to the original Grade II Listed. Removal of the Annexe will better reveal this building It will release land for parking and bin storage
7.10 The Conservation Officer has considered the additional justification put forward by the applicant and the continuing objection from the CBA. She makes the point
Page 127 that regression maps and photographic evidence show that the annex building proposed to be demolished has evolved over time, being substantially rebuilt between the 1st edition OS map in 1877 and 2nd edition in 1899. She says that it is noteworthy that Well Street Mill in 1877 commanded a much more central and isolated position in the site than it does today and that the annex building has encroached upon it, finally becoming attached. Whilst the annex building does play a role in the evolution and significance of this industrial site, in the Conservation Officers view the unaltered and earlier Well Street Mill is of greater historic/architectural significance and to some extent she says it has become detrimentally impacted by development of the annex building. She also points to the fact that the southern gable of the annex building and the rear have been substantially altered and rebuilt, the roof is a replacement and the interior is substantially altered. She says that the future of Leek’s industrial mill heritage is under threat with London Mill and Big Mill both Listed and standing empty, with the latter being a building at risk in severe neglect. The Conservation Officer adds that this application is an opportunity to conserve and re-use Well Street Mill and the developer has a track record of undertaking high quality residential mill apartments as demonstrated by the nearby scheme at Alexandra Mill, Earl Street. Three out of the four floors of Well Street Mill, facing east are substantially compromised by the close proximity of the annex building in terms of natural light and outlook, and the opportunity to provide additional parking will also add to the viability of the scheme. It will also allow the most significant mill buildings to be better revealed.
7.11 Having regard to all of the above the Conservation Officer concludes that, in terms of the NPPF assessment, the demolition of the annex building would constitute less than substantial harm to the significance of this complex of Listed Buildings and the character and appearance of the Leek Conservation Area. Paragraph 134 requires this harm to be ‘weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use’. In the light of the surrounding context of many unoccupied mill buildings in Leek, the residential development of this site may not proceed if the annex building is retained because it would so constrain the habitability of Well Street Mill apartments. Its demolition would be for the benefit of a Listed structure of greater historic and architectural significance and help it achieve its optimum viable use. She points to the lack of objection from Heritage England support from the Conservation Liaison Panel.
7.12 The Conservation Officer raised issues with the external treatment of the Cross Street link building (which provides access to Units 13 and 14) and particularly the proposed new external flight of stairs and insertion of windows on the front elevation. The concern was that although this utilitarian structure is not visually attractive, its plain and windowless front elevation means that it does not draw attention to the eye. Puncturing windows into this front elevation and erecting a staircase would have the opposite effect of drawing attention to it resulting in it appearing more dominant. Amended plans have been received which have relocated the staircase to the side. It is shown as a contemporary stainless steel structure. One window has been inserted centrally on the front elevation and six in the side elevation. The Conservation Officers comments to these amendments are awaited.
7.13 The design of the external envelope will be crucial to the success of the scheme. Windows and doors will be key elements of the scheme. The plans confirm
Page 128 that the windows in the Cross Street link will be powder coated aluminium frames with inward opening hopper double glazed panes. The applicant confirms that windows in the main mill will be steel Crittall frames and glazing bars/panes to match the existing. Window and door details are critical in this scheme and a condition to secure this is recommended.
7.14 Boundary treatments are also important. The amended plans show the boundary wall is to be rebuilt on the existing foundation using reclaimed bricks to approx 1.2m in height with a stone capping. The existing redundant pedestrian access is to be blocked off. The bin store has been relocated further into the site form its original position at the front of the site. Details of the bin store and enclosure of the sub station will need to be conditioned as will the wall. The applicant has been asked to provide some street trees to add to the quality of the setting. Members will be updated on this at the meeting.
7.15 The conclusion is that the harm arising from the loss of this curtilage Listed building is considered to be less than substantial. The amended plans have addressed concerns raised. The scheme is now considered to be acceptable subject to conditions to secure material and detailing where required. Para 134 of the NPPF says that where less than substantial harm to a heritage asset is identified, as in this case, this harm must be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal including securing it optimum use. In this case the scheme will bring back into beneficial use a Grade II Listed building, better reveal a heritage asset, it will support the local economy and provide additional housing in circumstances of a significant undersupply. It is considered that these factors are outweighing in this case. No objection is raised and the scheme is considered to be in accordance with DC1 and DC2 which seek to protect the heritage environment and secure good design.
Residential Amenity
7.16 The scheme provides 14 apartments comprising 9 x 2 bed units and 5 x 1 bed units. The rear ground floor wall adjoins a single storey extension to Cross Street Mill and consequently there are no windows within this elevation. There was concern that Units 1 and 2 provided a poor level of amenity for future occupiers owing to the lack of natural light entering these units. Amended plans have been provided showing a revised internal layout for Unit 2, reducing this to a 1 bed unit and optimising as far as is possible natural light into the apartment. It is improved and whilst not ideal it is considered to be acceptable. Unit 1 remains unaltered. It is not ideal either as it relies on light from glazing in the door to the main living/kitchen area. However it is not considered to be so poor as to warrant refusal of a scheme which in all other respects is acceptable.
7.17 The properties most affected by this application are the terraces on the opposite side of Well Street. In many respects the amenity of these properties will be improved by the demolition of the frontage Annex building because it will open up the site and therefore allow more light into the street and houses. The main Mill building will be revealed as a result of this and of course the windows on the front elevation which are currently largely obscured by the Annex will be exposed but there will be an interface distance of over 20 metres between the two which is much greater than the current relationship with the Annex windows and the terraced properties are
Page 129 angled away from the Mill. No undue loss of amenity from overlooking or the perception of overlooking is anticipated.
7.18 The bin store was originally proposed at the front of the site on Well Street. This has now ben moved to a less conspicuous location further in the site as mentioned above. This is acceptable. Details of this need to be conditioned.
7.19 Subject to any comments the Environmental Health Officer may raise (his response is awaited) the scheme is considered to comply with Policy DC1 and the NPPF which seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future occupiers of land and buildings.
Parking and Access
7.20 The loss of the Annex building also has the benefit of releasing additional land for car parking at the front of the Mill. Parking is often at a premium on Mill buildings so on site provision is considered to be a benefit of this proposal. 16 spaces are provided. Following concerns expressed by the LHA the point of access has been changed and the parking spaces re arranged to provide a more efficient layout and better visibility onto Well Street. The comments of the LHA to the revised plans are awaited and will be reported at the meeting.
Biodiversity
7.21 The application is supported by an Ecology survey. This confirms that the building has moderate potential to support bats and that further dawn and dusk emergent surveys are required. At the time of drafting this report one further dusk survey has been carried out and this identified no bats emerging. A further survey is to be carried out shortly and before the Committee Meeting. Advice to LPA’s is that where a development has the potential to impact on bats, or their roosts, the size of any bat population should be quantified before a planning application is determine to enable proportionate avoidance, mitigation or compensation to be agreed and secured. The Ecology Officer endorses this and advises that until the further survey has been carried out it is not possible to define what those impacts may be and thus any mitigation measures required. He objects to the application because of this. A decision cannot therefore be made until the recommended further survey has been carried out. This will have been undertaken and the result known before the Committee Meeting and therefore a full Update will be provided to Members as part of the consideration of this application and before a decision is made.
Other Matters
7.22 Given that the CBA has objected to the scheme, under the provisions of the Arrangements for handling heritage applications Direction 2015 the LPA is required to Notify the Secretary of State of it’s intention to grant Listed Building Consent to determine whether he wishes to call the application in for determination.
Page 130 8. CONCLUSION & PLANNING BALANCE
8.1 The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraphs 18 to 219 taken as a whole constitute what this means in practice. In addition, paragraph 7 identifies three dimensions to sustainable development i.e. economic, social and environmental. The Framework makes it clear that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation.
8.2 The Council can not currently demonstrate a 5 year deliverable supply of housing land and in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF polices in the Core Strategy relating to the supply of housing are out of date. Paragraph 14, the ‘tilted balance’ as it has become known, is therefore triggered in this case unless policies indicate that development should be restricted. There are no such policies in this case. Paragraph 14 therefore says that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the polices in the Framework taken as a whole.
8.3 Bringing this Mill into use will bring economic benefits both during construction and in increased spending power in the local economy once occupied. Significant weight is attached to this. Significant weight is also given to the social benefits that providing additional housing in a sustainable location will bring. It will contribute to the Districts chronic housing shortfall where the supply still remains at less than 2 years. In environmental terms the bringing back into beneficial use of this Listed building weighs in favour of the application. As discussed above the issue of bats is outstanding as a further survey has been recommended to define any potential bat population and determine what mitigation/compensation may be required. The result of this survey and mitigation will be known by the time this application is presented to members and will be provided in a detailed Update. The loss of a curtilage Listed building is regrettable and harmful. Full weight must be given to this harm. As analysed in detail above the harm is considered to be less than substantial and therefore in accordance with policy this has to be weighed against the public benefits which as described above are considered to be outweighing in this case.
8.4 For all of these reasons the proposal is considered to be acceptable. It will deliver sustainable development and the recommendation is therefore to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent.
9. RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 1
GRANT DELEGATED AUTHORITY to the Operations Manager – Development Services to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory outcome from the further bat survey and securing any required mitigation, notification to the Secretary of State & subject to the following conditions:-
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason:- To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country
Page 131 Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TO BE UPDATED. Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. Reason:- This is to ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to prevent or to avoid exacerbating any flooding issues and to minimise the risk of pollution.
4. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall commence until the following detail has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a) Full details of all new window and external doors including surrounds b) Details of all vents, cowls and ducts. c) rainwater goods to be painted cast iron Soil pipes shall be internal only d) sample pointing panel provided for inspection to remain on site during the period of construction e) Scheme of making good for scarring left behind by removal of frontage building and fire escape f) detail of front boundary wall including height, materials and finish g) details of the new external staircase serving units 13 and 14 h) Landscaping – street trees i) Rooflights j) Schedule of internal historic features and proposals for their retention/ removal (including staircases, cast iron columns, roof trusses and windows) k)Scheme of recording of Well Street Mill frontage building and Well Street Mill once stripped out. l)Scheme of works to convert the historic fabric of the building including floors, walls, ceilings and roof. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and all works agreed herein shall be completed prior to first use of the building. Reason:- To protect the character and integrity of this Listed building and in the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
5. No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed bin store and enclosure of the substation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. Reason:- To protect the character and integrity of the setting of this Listed building and in the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
Page 132 6. Unless prior permission has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority, all noisy activities shall be restricted to the following times of operations.
. 08:00 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); . 08:00 - 13:00 hours (Saturday) . No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
In this instance a noisy activity is defined as any activity (for instance, but not restricted to, building construction/demolition operations, refurbishing and landscaping) which generates noise that is audible at the site boundary. Reason: To avoid the risk of disturbance to neighbouring dwellings from noise during unsocial hours.
7. None of the units hereby approved shall be occupied until such time that the access and car parking as shown on the approved plans has been constructed, surfaced, laid out and made available for use in accordance with a scheme which shall first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason:- In the interests of highway safety
Recommendation 2
GRANT DELEGATED AUTHORITY to the Operations Manager – Development Services to grant Listed Building Consent subject to the satisfactory outcome from the further bat survey and securing any required mitigation, notification to the Secretary of State & subject to the following conditions:-
1.The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Not later than 3 days after development/works first begin on site written notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority of the date on which development/works first commenced. Reason:- To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and to ensure the Local Planning Authority is informed of the commencement of the first works on the site.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ADD HERE Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall commence until the following detail has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a) Full details of all new window and external doors including surrounds b) Details of all vents, cowls and ducts. c) rainwater goods to be painted cast iron Soil pipes shall be internal only d) sample pointing panel provided for inspection to remain on site during the period of construction
Page 133 e) Scheme of making good for scarring left behind by removal of frontage building and fire escape f) detail of front boundary wall – height, materials, finish g) details of the new external staircase serving units 13 and 14 h) Landscaping – street trees i) Rooflights j) Schedule of internal historic features and proposals for their retention/ removal (including staircases, cast iron columns, roof trusses and windows) k)Scheme of recording of Well Street Mill frontage building and Well Street Mill once stripped out. l)Scheme of works to convert the historic fabric of the building including floors, walls, ceilings and roof. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and all works agreed herein shall be completed prior to first use of the building. Reason:- To protect the character and integrity of this Listed building and in the interests of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
Recommendation 3
In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager - Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Informatives
1.The Council has sought negotiated a sustainable form of development which complies with the provisions of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF.
Page 134
Page 135 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
7 June 2018
Application SMD/2018/0141 No: Location Alton Towers Proposal 102 accommodation pods, shower and toilet facility building entrance feature, hard and soft landscaping and parking and drainage works. Applicant Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd Agent Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Parish/ward Alton Date registered 1/3/18 If you have a question about this report please contact: Jane Curley tel: 01538 395400 ex 4124 [email protected]
1. REASON FOR REFERAL
This is a major application. The previous application on the site for lodges was determined by the Planning Applications Committee.
2. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE subject to conditions
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
3.1 The site lies within the south eastern corner of the Alton Towers Resort. It is within the Alton/Farley Conservation Area. The site extends to approximately 1.88 hectares and is currently open grassland which is occasionally used for overflow car parking. It is close to but outside of the Registered Park and Garden to the south from which it is separated by the recently constructed Phase 1 lodge development. To the north, separated by an established tree belt is Car Park J. A small part of this car park which is currently landscaped and some of the tree belt are included in the application. To the west of the site is the existing hotel/ spa and to the east the site adjoins Phase 1 beyond which is established woodland. There are three individual parkland trees within the application site. Land within the application site falls in a southerly direction from a contour level of 168 AOD to 160 AOD along the southern boundary. Two public footpaths run close the North West and south eastern boundaries of the site.
Page 137 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
4.1 This is known as Phase 2 of the lodge development at Alton Towers. The proposal is for 102 pods with a shower/toilet facilities building, an entrance feature and area for tipis to the east. Amended plans show the pods sited towards the outer boundaries of the site in a double row enclosing a central area of open space with a footpath linking through which connects into existing footpaths beyond the application site including routes to Car park J where the guests will park.
4.2 The applicant says that this proposal is in line with the long term plan at Alton Towers to increase multi day visits. Since the opening of the Phase 1 lodge development (Enchanted Village) in spring 2015, the applicant says that market research has shown that there remains a demand for additional lodge style accommodation but that this demand is for smaller, more basic accommodation units which this proposal is intended to meet.
4.3 The pods have dimensions of 2.4m by 4.8m with a small decked area outside the entrance doors. Each pod is designed to sleep up to 4 people with one double bed and two singles. The pods will be 2.6m high. They are designed to be an integral part of the Phase 1 lodges so they will be finished in Siberian larch with galvanised brimet roof tiles and timber windows and doors (see DAS for images/visuals).
4.4 Also proposed is a Facilities block to the south of the site (240sqm GEA). It has dimensions of approx. 11.4m by 22.5m and a maximum height of just under 4.5m. This new building will contain all facilities required to serve the guests staying within the pod development – toilets, changing areas, washbasins and showers. This building is shown to be finished in Wayney Edge timber with a synthetic grass roof (see DAS for images/visuals).
4.5 Three tipis are proposed within the application site to the east. They are of timber construction with canopy over. The maximum height to tip is 7.4m. The tipis will be used for children’s entertainment for the visitors. The entertainments team will be hosting the events in the tipis, with a curfew of 6pm to limit potential noise. At the pedestrian entrance to the site from the west is a themed entrance portal and wireless access point. It is shown to have dimensions of
4.6 A 1.1m post and rope fence is shown enclosing the site. The SUDS feature is enclosed by a 1.1m post and rail fence. A number of thematic star planters and telescopic positions are shown within the open space Access to the site is proposed via the main entrance on Farley Lane. Guests will park in the existing Car park J check in at the reception building and then walk to their pod with their luggage. A small area of existing landscaping within Car park J is to be re surfaced to proivde hardstanding for 16 additional car parking spaces.
4.7 The application is accompanied by the following documents which Members are encouraged to read prior to the meeting:-
Page 138 Design and access Statement, Ecological Assessment, Arboricultural Assessment, Flood Risk/SUDS/Foul drainage strategy, Services and Energy Statement, Transport Assessment, Operations Assumptions, Noise Assessment, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Heritage Statement.
Amended plans 2nd May 2018
4.8 During the processing of the application the applicant submitted amended plans. The nature of these was such that a full re consultation exercise was put in hand. The key changes proposed are as follows:-
1. Alteration of the layout of the pods to form one circular arrangement with a central green space. 102 pods continue to be proposed and no changes are proposed to the pod design or proposed pod building areas and appearance.
2. Removal of the following proposed buildings: Reception building – check-in will now be undertaken using existing reception facilities, service buildings, Staff Locker room, Arcade, Staff changing block and one of the changing facilities buildings.
3. The repositioning of and creation of a larger new changing facilities block to the south of the site (240sqm GEA), and the relocation of the water tank to be located within this building. This new building will contain all facilities required to serve the guests staying within the pod development.
4. Revised landscaping scheme to include landscaped mounds to the east and west of the site to assist with screening and additional landscaping integrated around the new proposed lodge layout. Within the central area there will be clusters of low level star shaped planters with thematic floral displays and three telescopes are also proposed to allow guests to view the night sky. The proposed landscaping schedule is set out within drawing 373/99-6A
4.9 The revised scheme seeks a reduction in the overall built footprint compared to the approved scheme and that originally submitted as part of this application.
4.10 The revisions were accompanied by an amended Landscape and Visual Impact assessment, revised Arboriculture Assessment and updated Flood Risk, SUDS and Drainage Assessment.
5. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
SMD/2016/0040 35 double lodges Approved SMD/2014/0107 61 double lodges, 10 Approved tree houses restaurant, service buildings, play
Page 139 areas, hard and soft landscaping , parking and drainage works 12/00998/FUL 150 lodges and Withdrawn associated facilities
6. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
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)
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 to be consulted on in late Spring 2016.
Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy DPD (26th March 2014)
The following CS (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 . SS7 Churnet valley Area Strategy . E3 Tourism and Cultural development . DC1 Design Considerations . DC2 The Historic Environment . DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting . NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources . T1 Development and Sustainable Transport . T2 Other Sustainable Transport Measures
National Planning Policy NPPF
National Planning Policy Guidance
7. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site Notice Posted Expiry date for comments: 5th June 2018 Press Notice Published Expiry date for comments: 6th June 2018
Page 140 Letters of representation raise the following issues:- 102 additional accommodation pods will put intolerable burden on the local road system and infrastructure. No further development should be permitted without highway improvements This will increase CO2 levels
Farley Parish Council – No objection
Alton Parish Council - No objection subject to low level lighting to prevent light pollution
Local Highway Authority – No objection to amended plans subject to conditions
Historic England - Comments awaited
Conservation Officer – No objection. Considers this to be a much less intensive scheme than the approved lodges which will enable the pods to integrate more successfully with the landscape, and be a more open approach to the existing cabins beyond. All materials are largely rustic.
Comments that the facilities block will be a large flat-roofed structure clad in timber with artificial grass roof. It will look large and very box-like in comparison to the small, arched pods and will look stark without an active frontage or interest to the elevations. Subject to some design amendments to the facilities block there will be no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Ecology Officer – No objection to amended plans subject to condition
Trees and Woodland Officer – No objection to amended plans subject to conditions.
Environmental Health Officer – No objection to amended plans subject to conditions
Local Lead Flood Authority – No objection to original submission. Comments awaited on amended plans
8. OFFICER COMMENT
Principle of Development
8.1 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.
Page 141 8.2 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 whether:-
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.
8.3 This is a greenfield site within the Alton Towers estate. It lies immediately north of the recently completed Phase 1 lodge development. It is close to the Registered Park and Garden and within the Alton and Farley Conservation Area. Although there are a number of Listed buildings with the Alton Towers resort, none are visible from or would be seen in context with this development.
8.4 Policy SS7 of the adopted Core Strategy identifies the Churnet Valley as an area for sustainable tourism and rural regeneration. Alton Towers falls within this area. SS7 refers to support within the Churnet Valley for short and long stay visitor accommodation, for the expansion of existing tourist attractions and facilities and for the provision of compatible new tourist attractions and facilities. It requires all development to conserve and enhance the landscape and biodiversity of the area and it confirms that the consideration of landscape character will be paramount in all development proposals. Policy E3 provides support for development which helps the local economy, promotes the distinctive character and quality of the District and enhances the role of Staffordshire Moorlands as a tourism and leisure destination. It requires good connectivity with other tourist destinations and amenities, particularly by public transport, walking and cycling. In the case of new build, as here, the policy requires evidence that the development will support or complement existing accommodation, facilities or attractions and there is an identified need which cannot be met in other ways.
8.5 Alton Towers Resort is also identified in the adopted Churnet Valley Master Plan which provides more detailed guidance for the development of the Resort and is a material consideration of weight in this application. Alton Towers is identified as an Opportunity site and a gateway site. The application site falls within Zone 10, New Development Area, wherein suitable uses include improved car parking, hotel and lodge developments. It states that consideration should be had for tree coverage and particularly the screening that existing trees offer along the southern and eastern edge. It also refers to trees on the northern edge providing an important break in views from the north. It further notes that regard should be had for the heritage asset of the Deer Park wall. The Master plan also contains a set of
Page 142 Development and Management Principles which set out key principles and guidance for the development and management of the whole of the Churnet Valley Master plan area to ensure that future development proposals reflect the aims of the Master plan and delivers the strategy.
8.6 These policies in the Core Strategy reflect more general advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Of particular relevance to this application is the support for sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments (Chapter 3), the promotion of sustainable transport (Chapter 4), the promotion of good design (Chapter 7) and the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environments (Chapter 11& 12))
8.7 Having regard to this policy background, the conclusion is that the development of this site for holiday accommodation is supported in principle. As always in considering applications for the expansion of Alton Towers, there is a need to balance the competing interests on the one hand of the economic benefits that this national attraction undoubtedly brings to the District and on the other hand the protection of the Conservation Area, the Registered Park and Garden (RPG), the wider landscape and the amenity of local residents. These matters and others are considered under various sub headings below.
Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the RPG
8.8 LPA’s have a statutory duty in decision making under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to consider the desirabilty of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. A Heritage Assessent is submitted (dated May/December 2015). This was the one used to support the lodge application in 2016. A letter dated 8th February 2018 from ARC Ltd provides a heritage update for the current application. The applicant’s conclusion is that the proposed development is likely to have a neutral or slight impact on the Conservation Area. They attribute this to the fact that the significance of the Conservation Area is its asthetic value and that the application site is located wthin an area characterised by theme park developments. They also point to minimal visual impact on views from the RPG. The heritage update considers that on the basis that the footprint of the proposed development is reduced in size, that the pods are much smaller in size than the individual lodges and that there are less support buildings, the Heritage report produced in 2015 is still ‘fit for purpose’ and that the conclusions that it reached remain valid.
8.9 Notwithstanding the fact that this site lies within an area identified in the Churnet Valley Master plan for development, in isolation it is considered that the development of this open park land with a pod development will clearly cause some harm, albeit very limited, to the character and appearance of the Alton and Farley Conservation Area. However when considered in context, this site is only part of a much larger Conservation Area and other more visually open parts of the medieval deer park remain free of development. The deer park wall is unaffected by the development, historic routeways are
Page 143 respected and as the applicants state, this part of the Conservation Area is already characterised by a theme park development. Furthermore the development is low height and small scale such that views across the site are maintained. Parkland trees and surrounding mature woodland are generally retained and this tree coverage together with the site topography results in a relatively contained site with very limited wider views (see submitted site sections and also discussion on the submitted LIVIA below). It is for these reasons and a lack of objection previously from Heritage England that the judgement is that the identified harm to the Conservation Area is less than substantial in terms of para 134 of the Framework and in these circumstances this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimum viable use. The conclusion in this case, endorsed by the Conservation Officer who raises no objection to the scheme is that the public benefits arising from the scheme (i.e. employment, sustaining an important attraction which brings significant economic benefits to the area including substantial investment by the owners in the built heritage at Alton Towers) are outweighed by the harm. Subject to some design amendments (see discussion elsewhere) the conclusion is that there will be no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and RPG and as such there is compliance with Policy DC2 and the NPPF.
Landscape and visual impact including impact on trees.
8.10 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Arboricultural report is submitted with the application. These have been updated to take account of the amended plans. The Trees and Woodland Officer has considered the application and reports/assessments. He advises that the proposed pods, tipis, facilities building and new access paths would be located outside the Root Protection Areas of existing trees, and construction and use of these elements would have no harmful impact on roots given suitable temporary protection during construction which can be conditioned. He advises that some minor lower crown pruning may be required where low branches currently obstruct potential construction access routes; this could be readily and acceptably dealt with by simple crown lifting pruning operations where required in accordance with routine arboricultural practice and standards.
8.11Of the 95 trees listed on the application tree survey, three are recommended for removal due to poor/declining and/or dangerous condition (i.e. their removal is not required to accommodate the proposed development, but for general arboricultural safety management reasons); these are not notable individual specimens but located within the peripheral woodland belts, and their loss would not be significant and would be readily mitigated through the proposed development landscaping scheme.
8.12Additional car parking is proposed on a grassed island within Car park J as described above. This island was previously occupied by a mature parkland Sycamore tree which had to be removed due to decline and unsafe condition. This tree could also be readily and appropriately replaced by new planting within the main pod site.
Page 144 8.13There are no objections on tree grounds therefore subject to a tree protection condition
8.14In terms of visual impact, the proposed pods are of smaller size than the previously approved lodges, and would be completely screened from external viewpoints by existing trees/woodlands. The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment shows that from one viewpoint (Viewpoint 12, “Town Head 1” from the public right of way along Wheel Lane) the tops of the tipis would be partly visible in a filtered view in winter through intervening tree canopies until new planting establishes. Initially, the significance of this visual impact is considered to be very minor adverse, seasonal and short term; then becoming negligible to no impact after a relatively short period of perhaps 5 – 10 years. Member’s attention is also drawn to the long and cross sections provided which also demonstrate the low key nature of the development and how it will sit acceptably in context. Visual impact arising from the proposed development is considered to be acceptable.
8.15The application includes a fully specified planting scheme which would provide for a peripheral woodland-type planting area around the pods site comprising some 816 trees (virtually all native species) and understorey native shrubs, together with a further 27 individual standard trees. This planting scheme is considered appropriate and acceptable.
8.16It is for all these reasons that the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area and on existing trees. No objection is raised and subject to the imposition of conditions there is considered to be compliance with Polices DC 3, SS7 and E3 of the Core Strategy and advice in the CVMP and NPPD relating to landscape protection.
Design
8.17 The proposal is intended follow the themed approach of Phase 1, the Enchanted Village in terms of design and materials as described above. Facing materials are thus generally wayney edge timber with timber doors and windows. The roofs of the pods are a ‘tile’ effect and that of the Facility building is shown to have a synthetic grass roof. The DAS provides images/visuals of these buildings which are helpful in appreciating the intended ‘look’. The rustic appearance and materials used for Phase 1 are considered to have worked well and no objection is therefore raised to the approach in this application. The applicants have been asked to look to break up the rather bland long elevations on the Facility Building, a concern also raised by the Conservation Officers. Members will be updated on this at the meeting. Overall the application is considered to comply with Policy DC 1 of the Core Strategy and advice in the CVMP and NPPF both of which seek good quality design in all new development.
Page 145 Residential amenity
8.18 A Noise Assessment (NA) accompanies the application and is an update to the NA which supported the lodge application in 2016. The nearest noise sensitive receptors are defined as Crump Wood Farm approx. 550m to the south and Lower Ground Farm off Wootton Lane, approx. 670m to the north. The amenity of nearby residents is a material planning consideration. The NA considers noise during construction and once operational (guest activity, cars etc) and concludes that there would be no significant impact from noise arising from the proposal.
8.19 The Environmental Health Officer has considered the application. He agrees with the conclusions it reaches and raises no objection subject to conditions. Policies SD4 and DC1 are satisfied.
Access
8.20 Access to the site is proposed via the main entrance on Farley Lane. Guests will park in Car park J check in at the reception building and then walk to their pod with their luggage. A pedestrain link to the pods from Car park J is shown.
8.21The application is supported by a Transport Assessment (TA). The overall conclusion of the TA is that the main users of the proposed pods will be resort guests whose arrival and departures will be spread across the day and therefore having little or no conflict with day visitors to the theme park. It goes on to say that experience/analysis suggests that staying guests generally arrive during the afternoon or evening on the day before their visit to the Park. This is the opposite of the Park visitor peaks and in fact reduces the peak traffic movements on the local highway.
8.22 The Transport Assessment predicts that at peak times based on 90% occupancy (that being the experience at the hotels during the Parks peak opening period), the proposed development would generate 92 vehicles per day, based on one car per occupied pod unit.. However given that 85% of these vehicles are already resort visitors, the TA predicts that this proposal will result in 14 additional vehicles per day.
8.23The TA confirms that the existing Alton Towers Resort Employees Travel Plan is to be updated to include this development. A condition would be needed to secure this.
8.24 The Local Highway Authority has carefully considered the TA. It accepts the conclusions reached and raises no objection subject to conditions. It advises that whilst additional traffic will be generated by the proposal, it will be of low percentage impact. The LHA also accepts that some of the arrivals and departures will be outside of the theme park peak arrival and departure hours. They also agree with the applicants that a number of pod residents would have visited the theme park anyway and by staying in the pods over at least one night will spread the vehicle trips with a consequent benefit to the
Page 146 highway. The LHA also point to the fact that through the Alton Towers 10 year plan annual payments are made by the applicant to the County Council to help mitigate traffic impact from Alton Towers on the wider highway network.
8.25 It is for these reasons that no objection is raised on traffic grounds and that with conditions the application is considered to comply with Policy T1 of the Core Strategy and advice in the NPPF.
Archaeology
8.26The Heritage Assessment considers it possible that buried archaeological remains relating to the former Alton Park Farm (now known as Nicklin’s Farm) or earlier activity survive below ground. Whilst the County Archaeologist agreed in the previous application that the possibility is low, he advised an archaeological watching brief during groundwork’s. This, he said would adequately mitigate potential impacts upon heritage assets encountered during work. An appropriate condition is therefore recommended again for this application.
Drainage and Flood Risk
8.27 The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement. The site lies within Flood Zone 1 which is land with the least probability of flooding. It is therefore at low risk of flooding although the new development has the potential to generate additional volumes of surface water run off.
8.28 The approved Phase 1 surface water drainage network was designed to accommodate run off from both phases via two attenuation swales before naturally infiltrating into the ground. The surface water drainage strategy has been designed which includes the use of filter drains and a SUDS basin which will ensure that there will be no increase to the rate or volume of surface water run off. This SUDs feature takes the form of a small depression in the ground of only 0.5m overall depth. It acts as an overflow facility, hence will be dry all the time unless following a storm period of intense rainfall in excess of a 1 in 1 year event, thus allowing it to be a useable space. A section provided through the outfall illustrates it`s low depth which comprises of a maximum water depth of approx. 0.35m during a 1 in 100 year event plus 40% future climate change.
8.29 The existing foul drainage system serving the remainder of the Resort has spare capacity for flows from Phase 1 and 2 lodges. It is therefore proposed to gravity drain foul water from Phase 2 via a spur through Phase 1 connecting to the existing system
8.30 The Lead Flood Authority previously raised no objection to the application subject to a condition to a secure the details of a foul and surface water drainage scheme. Their comments on the amended plans which replace the below ground attenuation tank with the above ground SUDS feature described above are awaited and will be reported at the meeting,
Page 147 albeit that no adverse comment is anticipated. With conditions in place to secure the drainage scheme proposed, the proposal complies with Policy SD4 and the NPPF.
Ecology
8.31 An Ecology Report is submitted with the application which confirms that the proposal will lead to the loss of 1.88 hectares of amenity and poor semi- improved grassland. It notes evidence of badgers using the site and also a number of bat species. Four species of common wax cap fungi were also found and the more uncommon splendid waxcap which is characteristic of nutrient poor soils.
8.32The Ecology Officer accepts the reports findings and conclusions and raises no objection to the application. He advises that the site is not sufficiently important to be designated as a site of biological importance due to its fungi. He recommends a condition to a)control timing of works to avoid impacts on breeding birds, b)avoid impact from open trenches/excavations on badgers, c) secure an appropriate lighting scheme to mitigate impacts on foraging or commuting bats and d)provide bat and bird boxes within the development. With this in place the proposal is considered to comply with Policy NE1 and the NPPF.
Public rights of way
8.33The County Public Rights of Way Officer advised that the proposal will directly impact on public footpath 6a). There are two public footpaths in the vicinity; Footpath 6a) to the west of the application site and Footpath 45 to the east. Both ‘clip’ the application site for a short stretch (see 373/99 3A).However no development is proposed in either location. The footpath would be unaffected. Notwithstanding this an informative reminding the application that public footpaths must remain free from obstruction at all times is recommended.
Economic growth
8.34The Regeneration Officer refers to the creation of 45 additional part time jobs and also refers to the additional jobs which will be provided during the construction stage and in the supply chain. The proposal she says will encourage overnight stays in the area. Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor (STEAM) data for 2015 has identified that there were 4.6m day visitors to the Staffordshire Moorlands who spent on average £35.11 per day. In contrast, the 0.49m staying visitors spent £202.81 per visit (or £65.42 per day based on an average 3.1 days). Therefore, assuming there is no overall increase in visitor numbers, the conversion of a day visitor to a staying visitor – through the investment in accommodation or attractions which encourage people to stay longer, will have an average boost to the local economy of £167.70 per visitor.
Page 148 9. PLANNING BALANCE & CONCLUSION
9.01 There is an extant permission on this site for 61 double lodges with associated infrastructure. This proposal represents a reduced scale of development – the pods are much smaller in size and height, there are considerably less ‘support’ buildings and less road/footpath infrastructure.
9.02 Alton Towers is an important generator of tourism both locally and nationally and a major employer offering a range of permanent and seasonal contracts. It is, according to the appicants the UK’s most popular and largest theme park. It is accepted that continually refreshing and extending the offer at the Resort is key to maintaining the site’s visitor offer. In return the owners invest quite substantially in the built heritage.
9.03 This proposal would clearly bring economic activity on implementation of the development to which weight is attributed. The development would also have a positive effect on the local visitor economy by extending the accommodation offer and encouraging visitors to stay for longer. The development in these ways would contribute to the local economy through direct and indirect spending. The creation of jobs will benefit the local community and this brings both social and economic benefits. The investment in the built heritage at Alton Towers has both social and environmental benefits. Some very limited harm is identified to the Conservation Area and whilst significant weight must be given to this harm, the harm is judged to be less than substantial. In weighing the public benefits arising from the proposal as described above, the judgement is that the balance falls firmly in favour of a grant of planning permission.
10.RECOMMENDATION
A. Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason:- To comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Town and Country Planning, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: to be advised. Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
Drainage 3.The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)/Drainage Strategy and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
Page 149 Limiting the surface water run-off generated by Phase 2 to a maximum of 43l/s into the Phase 1 drainage system and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. Provision of an appropriate calculated volume of attenuation flood storage on the site to a 100year + climate change standard. Confirm which responsible body will maintain the surface water system over the lifetime of the development according to an acceptable maintenance schedule and that is achievable. Reason To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. To ensure lifetime maintenance of the system to prevent flooding issues.
Ecology 4.Prior to the commencement of development an Ecological Construction Management plan (ECMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The ECMP shall include the following detail:- a) Measures to avoid adverse impacts on badgers from trenches or other excavations left open for more than 12 hours should be provided. This could take the form of an escape ramp (simply a plank of wood with no step at the base, reaching up to ground level or slightly above) for any wildlife to be able to escape. b) Timing of works relative to the bird nestingWorks shall be timed outside the bird nesting season between 1st March and 31st August inclusive. If this is not possible before works are undertaken a check for breeding birds shall be carried out by a suitably qualified ecological consultant. If nesting birds are located work shall cease until nesting is completed and fledged young have departed the site. c) All vegetation removal and landscaping shall form part of a detailed landscaping plan at the reserved matters/ full application stage. Landscaping shall advocate the use of native species that will have positive biodiversity benefits. Tree and planting within the Alton Towers site along access drives should be considered to compensate for the loss of species rich grassland. d). Hedge plants should be 40-60cm transplants of locally common native species and of British provenance (preferably local) and should comply to British Standard 3936. Hedgerows should be planted with 6 plants per metre in two staggered rows, about 25cm apart with plants at approximately 45cm in each row. Hedgerow plants should be protected with a hedge guard and secured by a cane or stake. Full details including methods of, establishment, remedial replacements, weed control, plus long-term aftercare should be provided. e) Provision of multiple new bat roosting opportunities in the northern tree belt. Full details of the design of boxes and the proposed locations shall be provided. f) Details of provision of nest boxes for use by nesting house sparrows (Red listed RSPB species of conservation concern). g) A lighting scheme which shall be endorsed by a suitably qualified ecologist to demonstrate that lighting will not impact on foraging or
Page 150 commuting bats or trees with potential bat roosting features and minimise disturbance to other wildlife. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved ECMP Reason:- In the interests of protected species and biodiversity enhancement
Access 5.Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Method Statement detailing the times and routes of construction traffic so to avoid peak traffic times from the park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction shall thereafter proceed fully in accordance with the agreed details Reason:- To comply with NPPF paragraph 32; to comply with SMDC Core Strategy Policy T1; in the interests of highway safety; in the interests of the efficient use of the highway; in the interests of pedestrian safety.
6.No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the Alton Towers Employee Travel Plan dated June 2014 has been extended and updated to include the development hereby approved and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority Reason:- To comply with NPPF Policies and in the interests of the efficient use of the highway
Materials 7. Prior to the commencement of development samples of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:-
-Proposed roofing material for the pods -Proposed roofing material for the Facility building -Proposed materials for the entrance arch
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason:- To ensure an acceptable external finish and to protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Trees and Landscaping 8.Before the commencement of development (including any site clearance, site stripping, site establishment or access improvement) temporary protective fencing and advisory notices for the protection of the existing trees to be retained shall be erected in accordance with guidance in British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction –
Page 151 Recommendations, and as set out in the Tree Heritage Arboricultural Report reference THR18-15 submitted with the planning application, and shall be retained in position for the duration of the period that development takes place, unless otherwise agreed by the LPA. Within the fenced areas there shall be no excavation, changes in ground levels, installation of underground services, provision of hard surfacing, passage of vehicles, storage of materials, equipment or site huts, tipping of chemicals, waste or cement, or lighting of fires unless otherwise agreed by the LPA. Reason:-
9.The planting scheme shown on Nichols Brown Webber “Site Plan Proposed” Drg. No. 373/99/6 Rev A shall be fully implemented before the end of the first available dormant season (November to February inclusive) following completion of the development hereby approved. The trees and shrubs planted in accordance with this landscaping scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years following planting. Any plants which within this period are damaged, become diseased, die, are removed or otherwise fail to establish shall be replaced during the next suitable season. Reason:-
Archaeology 10. No development shall be commenced until a written scheme of archaeological investigation (‘the scheme’) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme shall provide details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within that phase, including post-excavation reporting and appropriate publication and on site interpretation. The Scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details Reason:- To protect archaeological interests.
Noise/residential amenity 11.Unless prior permission has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority, all noisy activities shall be restricted to the following times of operations.
. 08:00 - 18:00 hours (Monday to Friday); . 08:00 - 13:00 hours (Saturday) . No working is permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
In this instance a noisy activity is defined as any activity (for instance,
Page 152 but not restricted to, building construction/demolition operations, refurbishing and landscaping) which generates noise that is audible at the site boundary.
Reason: To avoid the risk of disturbance to neighbouring dwellings from noise during unsocial hours.
12.The machinery, plant or equipment including air condition and ventilation, pumping systems ("machinery") installed or operated in connection with the carrying out of this permission shall be so enclosed and/or attenuated that the noise generated by the operation of the machinery shall not increase the background noise levels during day time expressed as LA90 [1hour] (day time 07:00-23:00 hours) and/or (b) LA90 [5 mins] during night time (night time 23:00-07:00 hours) at any adjoining noise sensitive locations or premises in separate occupation above that prevailing when the machinery is not operating. Noise measurements for the purpose of this condition shall be pursuant to BS 4142:1997.
Reason: To protect the local amenities from noise.
13. Any amplified sound system used in connection with this permission shall be installed with a suitably calibrated noise limiter so as to prevent the transmission of noise and vibration into any neighbouring premises. The details of the noise limiter should first have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This noise limiter should be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.
Reason: To ensure that the reasonable residential amenities of adjoining properties are adequately protected from noise pollution.
14. No amplified music shall be played outside buildings or entertainment structures (Tipis) as set out in the application and No music and/or any amplified sound shall be audible at the boundary of any (noise sensitive) (occupied) premises either attached to or in the vicinity of the premises to which this application refers.
Reason: To ensure that the reasonable residential amenities of adjoining properties are adequately protected from noise pollution.
Lighting 15. No development shall be brought into use until full details of the proposed lighting scheme (including floodlighting, street lighting, lighting to the entrance arch and security lighting) has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be based on guidance set out in the Institute of lighting Engineers (Reduction of Light Pollution) and be accompanied by evidence that it is approved by a qualified ecologist in relation to its impact on bats. Reason:- In the interests of residential amenity, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and protected species in
Page 153 accordance with Policies NC1, DC1, DC3 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework
Contamination 16.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. Development should not commence further until an initial investigation and risk assessment has been completed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. If the initial site risk assessment indicates that potential risks exists to any identified receptors, development shall not commence until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors
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.
INFORMATIVE
1. The scheme is considered to be a sustainable form of development to conform to the provisions of the NPPF.
2. The County Councils Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way shows Public Footpath No 6A Farley and Footpath 45 running within part adjacent to the proposed application site. Any planning permission given does not construe the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path. It is important that users of the path are still able to exercise their Public Rights safely and that the path is reinstated if any damage to the surface occurs as a result of the proposed development. The applicant is advised to contact the Rights of way team at Staffordshire County Council to ensure that the route does not become obstructed. The contact is [email protected] 10. APPENDICES TO THE REPORT
Page 154 9.1 The link below to the Council’s website is where the detail of this application can be viewed. http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchS ervlet?PKID=121348
Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 16
STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL
Report to Planning Applications Committee
7 June 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
Appeals submitted but no Start Letter received from PINS
Application Location Proposal Appeal Reference Submission Received SMD/2017/0710 40 Fairview, Grange Retrospective 2nd April 2018 Road, Biddulph, application for Staffordshire, ST8 construction of a lean to tractor and trailer shed
SMD/2017/0513 Heather Hills Erection of single 9th April 2018 Birchall Lane dormer bungalow Leek and detached Staffordshire garage in part ST13 5RA former garden
Page 157 SMD/2018/0116 Land Adjacent 2 Proposed detached 7th May 2018 Canal Cottages dwelling STANLEY MOSS ROAD STANLEY STAFFORDSHIRE SMD/2017/0268 1 Proposed 22nd May 2018 Royal Cottages conversion and Troughstones Road alteration of Biddulph Common existing redundant Staffordshire outbuilding to ST8 7SL dwelling
Appeals with Start Letters Received.
Application Location Proposal Appeal Appeal Reference Submission Start Received Date SMD/2017/0516 Highfield House Erection of 20th March 2nd May School Lane detached 2018 2018 Longsdon dwelling Staffordshire ST9 9QS SMD/2017/0705 The Stable Conversion 6th February 10th MOLLATTS of existing 2018 April WOOD ROAD redundant 2018 LEEK stable into 1 STAFFORDSHIRE bedroom single storey dwelling with extension
4. APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED
Application No. SMD/2017/0191
Location: Little Blythe Farm, Leek Road, Weston Coyney, Staffordshire, ST13 5BD
Proposal: change of use of a domestic outbuilding to a three bedroom residential dwelling
Level and Date of Decision: Delegated 23rd June 2017
Recommendation: Refuse
Page 158 Decision: Refused
Appeal Decision and Date: Allowed 3rd May 2018
Method of Decision: Written Representations
Major / minor: Minor
Inspector: Mike Worden BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
Costs awarded: No
Main Issues:
whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework and development plan policy; whether the proposed development is in a suitable location having particular regard to national and local planning policy designed to promote sustainable development and restrict new housing in the countryside;.
Conclusions:
The Inspector concluded:
the proposed change of use would not have any significantly greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than its current established use as ancillary to the main house, nor have any greater conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. A condition could be imposed to prevent otherwise permitted development which could have a harmful impact on openness. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. the Council has issued planning permission for the use of the appeal building for purposes incidental to the residential use of the main dwelling. This permission includes a condition restricting the building to be used as a separate unit of accommodation to the main house. The use of the appeal building as ancillary accommodation would generate the need for travel by its occupants. Consequently the proposal would only represent a marginal increase in the reliance on the use of a private motor car compared to the existing permitted position. the Council cannot currently demonstrate that it has a five year supply of deliverable housing land, I consider that moderate weight should be given to this benefit
Page 159 the proposed development would not lead to an unacceptable level of vehicle based traffic movements and would not lead to undue harm to the objectives of sustainable development and restricting new development in the countryside
Officer Comment:
This is another somewhat inconsistent decision from the planning inspectorate as there is a previous appeal decision relating to this site where the Inspector also dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the site was not in a sustainable location, noting that although public transport links and a number of services existed in Weston Coyney, around a ten minute walk from the site, residents would be discouraged from walking along the main road particularly in inclement weather or in the hours or darkness. This had informed the officer decision to refuse on the grounds of sustainability.
Application No. SMD/2017/0218
Location: 5 Draycott Old Road, Forsbrook.
Proposal: single residential unit
Level and Date of Decision: Delegated 14th December 2017
Recommendation: Refuse
Decision: Refused
Appeal Decision and Date: Dismissed 29th May 2018
Method of Decision: Written Representations
Major / minor: Minor
Inspector: Beverley Wilders BA(Hons) PgDurp MRTPI
Costs awarded: No
Main Issues:
the effect of the proposal on highway and pedestrian safety; the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties having regard to privacy; whether future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would have satisfactory living conditions having regard to outlook and outdoor amenity space.
Page 160 Conclusions:
The Inspector concluded:
the inadequate parking and turning facilities means that a safe and suitable access would not be provided and the proposal would be likely to have a severe and significant adverse effect on highway sand pedestrian safety Whilst the dwelling would not be located centrally within the plot and whilst it would be on the highest part of the site and some elevations would be close to the site boundaries, I do not consider that the proposal would appear cramped, overdeveloped or out of character with the area particularly given that it would not be prominent from Cheadle Road. As stated, the character and appearance of the immediate surrounding area is mixed and I note that there are a number of nearby dwellings which are positioned adjacent to site boundaries, are not centrally positioned within their plots and have a higher density than the proposal. the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area Any overlooking from the windows would be at an oblique angle and would limit any perceived or actual overlooking. having regard to the design and position of the proposed dwelling I am satisfied that there would be no significant overlooking of any other nearby properties. Whilst the proposed outdoor amenity space is fragmented and has an irregular shape, the Council accepts that the amount of amenity space meets the Council’s guidelines and I am satisfied that future occupiers of the dwelling would be provided with satisfactory outdoor amenity space.
Officer Comment:
This Appeal was won only on the highway grounds. Whilst highways reasons for refusal are notoriously difficult to defend in this case the Council had the support of the County Highway Authority who had objected to the scheme.
Page 161 This page is intentionally left blank