HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 11th July 2016

Application HPK/2014/0573 No: Location Hawkshead Mill, Hawkshead Road, Glossop Proposal Outline planning permission for proposed demolition of all remaining buildings and redevelopment of site to provide up to 31 dwellings Applicant Kamani Commercial Property, C/o Lambert Smith Hampton Agent Lambert Smith Hampton, Claire Norris Parish/ward Glossop/Old Glossop Date registered: 26.11.2014 Ward If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood, [email protected] 01538 395400 extension 4924

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

DELEGATED POWERS TO APPROVE – subject to Section 106 Agreement and conditions,

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The site to which the application relates is the site of an old mill on the Blackshaw Clough dating back to 1784. It was in use for cotton spinning until the late 19th Century and replaced in the early 20th Century by a new mill manufacturing nuts and bolts, used for munitions during the First World War. The site is part of the history of the industrial development of Old Glossop and is considered to be an undesignated heritage asset (Section 12, ‘conserving and enhancing the historic environment’, NPPF). However, there are no Listed Buildings on the site and the site is located outside of the Old Glossop Conservation area, as defined in the Local Plan.

2.2 The site is located approx. 1-1.5 miles north-east of Glossop Town Centre and has been vacant for a number of years and many of the buildings on site reached a dilapidated state. The site lies within the built up area boundary of Glossop. Immediately to the east and north of the site is Green Belt (and an area of landscape value) and to the west is Countryside; the Peak District National Park is located a little further beyond the eastern and northern boundaries of the site. There are some trees within and around the site (though none are protected by a Tree Preservation Order). The site sits in a valley bottom and a culvert runs through the site.

2.3 The site is currently accessed from Hawkshead Road at the southern tip of the site. There are a small number of residential properties 6.1

located beyond the south-western boundary and south-eastern tip of the site.

2.4 An application for demolition of most of the buildings on the site was approved in February 2015 (HPK/2014/0431); some conditions attached to the approved application have since been discharged (DOC/2015/0055) and demolition is currently well under way.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application is an outline application (with all matters reserved) for demolition of all remaining buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide up to 31 dwellings. The remaining buildings to be demolished are located in the south-eastern corner of the site and include the industrial chimney.

3.2 It is noted that revisions to the site edged red have been submitted during the course of the application in order to ensure that the site does not encroach into either the Green Belt or land belonging to a neighbouring land owner.

3.3 Two illustrative site layouts have been submitted with the application depicting 29 and 30 dwellings respectively. However, these were submitted for illustrative purposes only; permission is not being sought for any of the details illustrated on these plans.

3.4 The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:-

• Bat Survey Report • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Survey • Tree Survey Report • Flood Risk Assessment • Design and Access Statement • Planning Supporting Statement • Structural Survey Report • Transport Statement • Phase 1 Geo-environmental Desk Study Report • Drainage Assessment • Rainfall Runoff Survey • Statement of Consultation • Financial Viability Appraisal

3.5 The application and details attached to it - including the plans, supporting documents, representations and consultee responses - can be found on the Council’s website at:

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKI D=177364

6.2

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DOC/2015/0049 Discharge of condition 8 relating to application HPK/2014/0431

DOC/2015/0055 Discharge of conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 & 12 attached to application HPK/2014/0431. Approved 20/07/2015

HPK/2014/0431 Demolition of Hawkshead Mill and ancillary buildings to clear site. Approved 25/02/2015

HPK/2012/0537 Demolition of Hawkshead Mill and the erection of 34 dwellings. Refused 08/04/2013

HPK/0001/4659 Redevelopment of existing premises. Approved 17/08/1981

HPK/0001/4658 Demolition of existing works and erection of new factory. Approved 19/02/1982

HPK/0000/6736 Redevelopment of existing industrial premises – demolition of existing works and development of new factory. Approved 20/03/1978

HPK/0000/7250 Redevelopment of existing industrial premises – new factory followed by demolition of existing works (outline). Approved 13/03/1978

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak Local Plan –Adopted April 2016

Policy S1 Sustainable Development Principles Policy S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy Policy S3 Strategic Housing Development Policy S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy Policy EQ1 Climate Change Policy EQ2 Landscape Character Policy EQ5 Biodiversity Policy EQ6 Design and Place Making Policy EQ7 Built and Historic Environment Policy EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and hedgerows Policy EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land Policy EQ11 Flood Risk Management Policy H1 Location of Housing Development 6.3

Policy H2 Housing Allocations Policy H4 New Housing Development Policy H5 Affordable Housing Policy CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision Policy CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities Policy CF6 Accessibility and Transport Policy CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

Ministerial Foreword Introduction Achieving Sustainable Development Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 8 Promoting healthy communities Section 10 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6. CONSULTATIONS

Site notice Expiry date for comments: x 28/11/14 Press notice Expiry date for comments: x 08/01/15 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: x 19/12/14

Neighbours

14 No. representations have been received, details of which can be read on file. The following is a summary of the issues raised:

• Chimney should be kept. It is the last mill chimney and part of Glossops Heritage • No mention of the war memorial • Right of way to adjoining property not shown / would be blocked. • Too large for the small hamlet • Flood report is inaccurate in relation to the location of the oil trap • Tree report shows trees not in site ownership to be cut down. • Need to ensure that demolition does not damage water courses / culverts • Need to deal with contaminants on site • Need to remove knotweed safely • Support the proposals for redevelopment of vacant brownfield site and removal of source of antisocial behaviour. • Traffic generation will have a big impact on existing Roads (Manor Rd, A57, A624) which are struggling. • Traffic lights, road widening, new roads and services will be needed and the applicant should cover the costs. • Building will cause a great deal of noise disturbance and obstruction. 6.4

• 68 Hawkeshead Road (one of only 3 cottages adjacent to the site) will be seriously affected. May prevent access to gates and drive by car due to the tight corner from Hawkeshead to Hope St. • Demolition of the stone buildings adjacent to the entrance is unnecessary and will destroy a valuable part of Glossop’s industrial heritage. They should be retained • The original mill is believed to have been built in 1783 • The ancillary buildings date back at least to the first half of the 19th century. • Expert evidence to support the significance of the buildings has been submitted by Jean Fildes an expert in cotton mills of the period. • Jean Fildes concludes: • It is a classic example of a small / medium firm of cotton spinning and weaving. • The detailed history would repay further investigation, but the pattern of development closure is a classic example of this period and scale. • From the north west the site is surrounded by a water course and by a brickwall of unusual appearance for a mill site • The buildings are of a sturdy, vernacular appearance, enhanced by the traditional stone setted road, and make a positive contribution to the historical character and appearance of the area. • The survival of ancillary buildings (offices, stables) on historic mill sites is increasingly rare and as such, careful and thorough consideration should be given to the future management of these buildings.” • The mill stands within sight of the mill-owners house, Hawkeshead House (although the office range is domestic in character and may be a former mill- owners house) the former Glossop Union Workhouse, cottages and workers terraced housing .it still presents, visually, a microcomsm of Victorian mill town society, an understanding of these elements to the local community is of high value. • Concerns are raised about the lack of a Heritage Statement with the application, which draws upon information submitted in a separate demolition application (now approved.) • The significance of buildings B5 and B8 has been missed. They were agricultural buildings that were later incorporated into the mill when it expanded post 1857. This means that B5 and B8 may be earlier than the suggested period of 1800 – 1850 and may even predate the first mill in the `1780’s/ • In view of the structural report indicating both extensive modification for industrial use and poor condition it is accepted that there are probably insufficient grounds for listing or retention but they should be carefully recorded before demolition • Reservations about the quality of the Flood Risk Assessment. It contains insufficient detail of surface water flood risk. • Concern about impact downstream from the site. 6.5

• Run-off will into and unmaintained section of Blackshaw Brook which is Flood Zone 2 and runs parallel to some of the most historic properties in the conservation area of Old Glossop along Hope St and Wesley St. before discharging into Flood Zone 3. • A culvert in Hawkeshead Close, adjacent to the site, recently collapsed. • No work should take place until an intrusive archaeological investigation has taken place.

Consultees

Consultee Comment Officer response Arboricultural The condition of the trees will need to be x Officer reassessed following demolition particularly with regards to the structural stability and any damage that may have been caused. The updated tree survey and arboricultural implication plan will also need to be submitted.

Also I note the comments about Japanese knotweed, is there a more detailed plan for dealing with this? Any areas of knotweed should be fence off with a buffer of 7m to there nearest plant whilst it is treated.

Environmental The land has historically been the site of a Health textile, metal fastenings and ammunition factory which may have resulted in it becoming contaminated. In view of this conditions are recommended to identify and remediate any potential land contamination on the site.

It is likely that asbestos containing materials were used on site, and as such to protect the health of the public conditions recommended.

The demolition could lead to an increase of noise and dust experienced at sensitive premises and subsequent loss of amenity, for this reason conditions are suggested HPBC Housing The appraisal submitted by the developer and the comments provided by our consultants demonstrate that based on the information provided a 13% affordable housing contribution is viable.

Keppie Massie have urged caution with these figures though: 6.6

It should be noted that there is very little information available about the final form of development at this stage, and hence this assessment has been undertaken at a fairly high level based on the LSH illustrative layout and hypothetical dwelling mix and sizes. A more exact viability assessment can only really be undertaken at detailed application stage when more information is available and the final form and layout of the development is known. As a result it may be appropriate to undertake a re- appraisal of the development at detailed application stage, and also in the event that there is any significant delay in commencing the development on site.

I would suggest that we proceed and secure a minimum 13% affordable housing contribution with a reappraisal mechanism at reserved matters stage. I can’t agreed to a reduction in the policy H9 30% affordable housing contribution based on a high level appraisal DCC Archaeologist The archaeological and historic buildings interest on the site could be addressed through conditions, in line with NPPF para 141. This would comprise:

1) Historic building recording of the remaining buildings, in line with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) approved in advance by the local planning authority 2) A phased archaeological scheme following demolition to slab level, to be carried out to an approved WSI and to include evaluation trenching to assess significance followed by area excavation and recording of archaeological significant areas.

DCC Flood Risk A review of Derbyshire County Council Management Team (DCC) surface water model outputs indicate that the proposed site is likely to be subject to surface water flooding during the critical storm duration in the 1 in 100 year return period event. The model shows some surface water flooding which is thought to be fluvial flooding associated with the watercourse however, in addition to this there is a large area of surface water

6.7

shown in the north west area of the proposed site. When considering designing drainage systems for exceedence, the developer should consider rainfall events in excess of the 1 in 100 year return period to allow for extreme events. An analysis of the DCC surface water model outputs for the 1 in 1000 year critical storm duration rainfall event indicate a similar yet extended pattern to that of the 1 in 100 year storm duration with surface water flooding modelled in the south west area of the proposed development. DCC strongly promote Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to be incorporated within the design of a drainage strategy for any proposed development. Historical accounts suggest that approximately 350m downstream of the proposed site there have been 5 incidents of flooding recorded by High Peak Borough Council. The flood events occur where the Blackshaw Brook meets Shelf Brook downstream of the proposed development site. Blackshaw Brook runs through the centre of the proposed development site, the watercourse is open where it enters the site at the northern boundary, it becomes culverted across the centre of the site before becoming open again on the southern boundary. According to DCC data the overflow to the reservoir flows along the western boundary of the site. The Blackshaw Brook is not currently assessed under the WFD (Water Framework Directive, 2000); Shelf Brook is currently assessed as having a poor ecological status. No activities or works should deteriorate the status of these watercourses as the main objectives for the WFD is to prevent deterioration in ‘status’ for all waterbodies. All waterbodies should reach ‘good ecological status’ by 2015 according to the directive. A brief review of the county ecological information shows that there have been no reported ecological records within close proximity of the site. An analysis of the British Geological Survey (BGS) data is summarised below: 6.8

* The groundwater may be vulnerable to contamination therefore infiltrating water should be free of contaminants, * Groundwater is likely to be less than 3m below the ground surface for at least part of the year, * The subsurface is potentially suitable for infiltration SuDS, and * Increased infiltration is unlikely to result in ground instability. It is recommended that a site specific ground investigation is undertaken for the site based on the review of the BGS data. Environment No objection subject to conditions. Agency - Submission, approval and implementation of scheme to manage overland flow. - Submission, approval and implementation of finished floor levels and ground levels - Submission, approval and implementation of detailed design for new channel and culvert. - Submission, approval and implementation of scheme to attenuate surface water runoff. - Contaminated land investigation and remediation. - Piling method statement. DCC Planning • £441.75 (£14.25 x 31 dwellings) Policy towards the expansion of Glossop Household Waste Recycling Centre to provide waste management capacity; • Access to high speed broadband services for future residents (in conjunction with service providers); • £68,394.06 for 6 primary school places via the adaptation of a classroom (classroom project A) at The Duke of Norfolk CE Primary School, and; • New homes designed to Lifetime Homes standards. Natural England - Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection - Protected landscapes – does not wish to comment - Protected Species – has not assessed the application. Please refer to in-house advice and

6.9

Standing Advice. - If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local site, e.g. Local Wildlife Site, Regionally Important - Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should - ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the application. - This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are - beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of - bird nest boxes. - This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring - benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. United Utilities No objection subject to the following conditions: - A scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters for the entire site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Conservation/Listed There has previously been an application to Buildings demolish most of the buildings on the site and this was approved ref HPK/2014/0431. The application however, retained a collection of small ancillary buildings forming part of the historical entrance to the mill complex (eastern side) and the mill chimney (western side). There was no redevelopment plans submitted with this application.

A revised application HPK/2014/0573 for the demolition of the remaining buildings has been submitted. The application is

6.10

outline only and the applicant has submitted two draft layouts (one for 29 houses and one for 31 houses).

The site is a former cotton mill originally established in the 1780’s. It was remodelled in the early 20th century for the manufacture of nuts and bolts. The buildings, that are the subject of this application, consist of a range of small ancillary buildings of stone construction with pitched roofs. Some of these form part of the earliest development of the site (being pre 1857). The application also includes the demolition of the chimney stack (built between 1898 - 1921). It has always been my desire to try and retain and convert as many buildings on the site as possible. This is particularly important when considering the retention of the industrial buildings that enhance the entrance to the former mill site. The retention and conversion of these would really add to the character and distinctiveness of the redevelopment of the site.

The Council has approved the demolition of the buildings that formed the western side of the site and flanked the historical entrance to the site. Without these the significance of the remaining buildings, especially the chimney is diminished. The loss of these buildings therefore may be acceptable providing that the layout and design of any new development enhances the character and local distinctiveness of the site.

From the two draft site layouts, it is clear that either scheme fails to respect the character of the former mill complex and proposes a series of detached and semi detached development, which in form appears very urban in context. I do not feel that there is sufficient merit in either layout to justify the demolition of the remaining buildings.

The site has previously been identified as a non-designated heritage asset by virtue of the standing and potential below ground industrial buildings and archaeology. As 6.11

such, the application needs to be assessed against paragraph 135 of the NPPF . This states that

The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

In view of the above statement I feel it would be difficult to come to a balanced judgement given the lack of information submitted to illustrate how the site will be redeveloped. So how can we balance this against the loss of remaining industrial buildings? Previously I have always recommended that any application for the site should be a full application rather than outline, especially as the redevelopment of the site has the potential to impact upon the setting of the conservation area.

In summary:

1. Demolition may prove acceptable subject to agreeing a scheme that reflects the former industrial character of the site. 2. Submitted schemes fail to meet this and propose very standard urban house type and layout. 3. This cannot be assessed adequately without a full application rather than outline. Open Space With regard to the Play and POS contributions arising from this proposed development, we would not require any on site provision. The current High Peak and Derbyshire Dales Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy 2011 states that investment should be targeted towards improving the quality of existing play and open spaces across the borough. Manor Park is well within walking distance and is a key destination site which provides play, open space and a variety of other facilities for the community, it does however, require investment to make improvements to the park. We would suggest that an off site 6.12

contribution is requested for both play and open space provision to be targeted towards Manor Park.

To be able to calculate the exact contribution I would need to know how many bedrooms are proposed and this is not clear from the application form. Once we know this it can be slotted into the formula below. I have provided this as information if required for the developer.

Open Space and outdoor sport contribution Fields in Trust recommended standard provision of outdoor sport and play space is 1.6ha per 1,000 people, or 16m2 space to be provided per person. The 2014/15 figure for development and maintenance of one square metre of formal recreational space is £5.50

Therefore commuted sum required is: X ( occupants) x 16 x £5.50

Children’s outdoor playing space contribution Fields in Trust recommended standard provision of outdoor children’s playing space is 0.8ha per 1,000 people, or 8m2 space to be provided per person. The 2014/15 figure for development and maintenance of one square metre of children’s play space is £14.00.

Therefore commuted sum required is: X (occupants) x 8 x £14.00

The number of occupants per dwelling is taken from figures derived from the Office of National Statistics (NOMIS) - Tenure by Household Size by Number of Bedrooms, Highways Recommend securing of funding for investigation/ implementation of traffic restrictions on the link between Hawkshead Road and Charles Street as well as inclusion of the following Conditions within the Consent:- 1. Submission, approval and implementation of construction method statement 2. Internal layout to be in accordance 6.13

with the 6C’s Design Guide 3. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme of highway improvement works for the provision of pedestrian facilities on Hawkshead Road together with a programme for the implementation 4. Submission of details of the residential estate road(s) and footway(s) (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage) 5. Carriageway to be constructed up to and including at least road base level, prior to the commencement of the erection of any dwelling intended to take access from that road. 6. No dwelling to be occupied until space has been provided for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. 7. Remove PD rights for garage conversions 8. No gates or other barriers within 6.0m of the nearside highway boundary and any gates shall open inwards only 9. Roads to be not steeper than an 1 in 14 for the first 6.0m from the nearside highway boundary and 1 in 14 thereafter. 10. Submission, approval and implementation of bin storage 11. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme to prevent discharge of water onto highway 12. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme of stormwater drainage 13. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development

And the inclusion of informative notes. Derbyshire Wildlife • At the current time there is insufficient Trust information on a number of biodiversity issues for the LPA to adequately determine the proposal. A number of biodiversity issues have not

6.14

been addressed and/or there are recommendations for further work in the submitted reports; − Great crested newt of two waterbodies − Bats in trees cross referenced with Tree Survey − Bat potential in culverts subject to LPA view either required at RM application or prior to this determination − Reptile survey targeted at suitable semi-natural habitat and refugia • The current proposal has now provided sufficient information on the status of the buildings on site to support roosting bats. − Buildings 1 & 2 are identified as bat roosting sites (numerous locations) and an European Protected Species Licence will be required to demolish these buildings − The LPA are required to demonstrate that they have considered the 3 Habitat Regulation tests in the determination of the application. − All other buildings can now be cleared for demolition without the need for an EPSL, but may require some precautionary measures to ensure demolition does not disturb existing roosts elsewhere or injure bats − A condition is suggested which should encompass all the detail necessary to undertake the work on the buildings within the scope of the legislation. • Conditions have been recommended to deal with Japanese knotweed • Clarification should be sought on the Tree Report and the trees to be lost as identified on the Preapplication Plan • A number of other conditions have been recommended to guide the RM application and/or to ensure that any future development is implemented in a manner to protect and enhance biodiversity

6.15

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Planning Policy Context

7.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

7.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations."

7.3 The new Local Plan was taken to Full Council on 14th April 2016 where it was formally adopted, subject to the Main Modifications as required by the Inspector. Full weight can be now be attributed to the policies of the new Local Plan.

Principle of Development.

7.4 Policy H2 of the Local Plan identifies a number of sites which will be allocated for housing or mixed use development. It states that the Council will work with developers and the local community to bring forward sustainable developments in accordance with the other policies in the Local Plan. The site, identified as G13 in the newly adopted local plan, is allocated for 31 dwellings under Policy H2 and therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant policies in the local plan.

7.5 However, it is noted that as originally submitted, the site plan includes within the application site an area of land which extends beyond the boundaries of the urban area, and the local plan allocation and into the Green Belt. The development of this area for residential purposes would constitute inappropriate development and would be contrary to the NPPF and local plan policy. However, an amended site plan and to exclude the area of Green Belt has now been provided and the development is therefore acceptable in principle.

Conservation

7.6 The mill comprised a number of historic buildings flanking either side of Hawkeshead Road, which would have formed the entrance to the site, and a number of more modern structures on the wider factory site to the north west. The modern buildings have now been demolished under the previous consent, and only the older buildings remain.

6.16

7.7 The Conservation Officer has expressed the view that these constitute a non-designated heritage asset and a desire to see these converted. However, she has acknowledged that the Council has previously approved the demolition of the buildings on the western side of the road and without these the signficance of the other remaining buildings is diminished. On this basis, the proposals are likely to be acceptable, although the redevelopment should respect the character of the former mill complex. The Conservation Officer is concerned that that the submitted schemes fail to meet this and propose very standard urban house type and layout.

7.8 However, the application is submitted in outline and these matters could be addressed at the reserved matters stage. It is considered that there is sufficient scope with the site and the numbers of dwellings proposed to achieve a suitable layout and it is not considered that there are sufficient grounds to sustain a design refusal or to insist upon the submission of a full application at this stage. Nevertheless it is considered to be prudent, for the avoidance of doubt, to add an informative stating that no approval is given for the submitted layout, and that the reserved matters should reflect the historic character and appearance of the site.

Archaeology

7.9 The County Archaeologist concludes that there is some archaeological potential. Should the application be approved conditions could be attached requiring recording of the remaining historic buildings on site and a programme of archaeological works to be undertaken.

Amenity

7.10 Para. 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy EQ6 also stipulates that development should achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and does not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity.

7.11 The adopted SPD on Residential Design states that the distance between habitable room windows should be 21m and for every change in level of 0.5m increase the increase in distance between the properties should be 1m. The guidance in the SPD allows for variation in distances in order to accommodate particular site circumstances.

7.12 Open Countryside lies to the north and west of the site. The nearest existing residential properties to the proposed development are Hawkeshead House, to the south and 66 to 70 Hawkeshead Road to the east.

7.13 The application is submitted in outline and therefore matters of layout and design are reserved matters. Nevertheless, having considered the submitted, indicative layout, it is considered that the distance standards outlined in the SPD (Residential Design) could be achieved as part of a 6.17

scheme to redevelop the site for housing. As such, it is considered that the existing amenity standards enjoyed by the residents of surrounding properties will not to be significantly harmed. Indeed, the removal of the industrial use of the site is considered to potentially improve the amenities of the occupants of surrounding properties.

7.14 The Environmental Health Officer has recommended conditions to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers during the construction phase. With these in place, it is concluded that the residential amenities of both existing and future residents will be safeguarded. As such the proposed accords with Policy EQ6 of the Local Plan and para. 17 of the NPPF.

Design

7.15 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness.

7.16 Local Plan Policies S1 and EQ6 seek to secure high quality design in all developments that responds positively to its environment and contributes to local distinctiveness and sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area.

7.17 As stated above, the application is outline form with details of scale, layout, appearance and landscaping to be determined at a later date. In support of this planning application, a Design and Access Statement has been provided. An indicative layout has been provided with circa 31 units indicated in a cul-de-sac arrangement.

7.18 The importance of securing high quality design is specified within the NPPF and paragraph 61 states that:

“Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.”

7.19 Although matters of detail are reserved, in principle, it is considered that an appropriate design and layout can be achieved, which meets the the Council’s Amenity standards and County Council highway design requirements whilst ensuring that the historic character of the site is the primary influence.

Arboricultural issues 6.18

7.20 Policy EQ9 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to protect trees and hedgerows. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF seeks, amongst other things, to protect trees worthy of protection.

7.21 There are groups of a number of groups of mature trees around the site boundary which could potentially be impacted by development proposals. A Tree Survey report has been submitted with the application. The Arboricultural Officer has examined the proposals and raised no objection in principle. However, due to the close proximity of the existing buildings to the trees, she has commented that further survey work will be required following demolition. Furthermore, as layout is a reserved matter, the exact impact on the retained trees cannot be assessed until the proposed relationship between individual buildings and trees has been established. Therefore the reserved matters application should be accompanied and informed by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment. This can be secured by condition.

7.22 Bearing the above points in mind it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policy EQ9 of the Local Plan.

Ecological impact

7.23 Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity; para. 109 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Policy EQ5 of the adopted Local Plan echoes these aims, advising that biodiversity and ecological resources should be conserved.

7.24 Natural England has been consulted on the proposals and raised no objection in terms of impact on nationally designated sites or statutory sites. However, they have recommended that local advice is sought in respect of protected species.

7.25 The application has been accompanied by a Bat Report, Additional Bat Information, an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey & Protected Species Assessment and a Tree Report. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has considered the submitted information and advised as follows.

Bats in Buildings (Habitats Regulations 2010

7.26 Reasonable effort has been undertaken in the assessment of the buildings and their suitability to support bat roosts and additional clarification has been provided by the work undertaken in December 2014.

7.27 Buildings 1 & 2 support bat roosts of pipistrelle bats. The demolition of these structures will require a European Protected Species licence (EPSL), which can be secured by condition and the LPA must demonstrate that they have considered the 3 Habitat Regulations tests in their consideration and determination of the proposal.

6.19

7.28 With regard to the tests, the site is required in order to provide for the Council’s 5 year housing land supply which is considered to be an imperative reason of overriding public interest of a social and economic nature and there is no satisfactory alternative. Consequently, the development does meet the three tests set out within Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

7.29 The brown long-eared roost in Building 5 has been demonstrated to be a feeding perch rather than a day roost and demolition of this building can now proceed without the need for an EPS licence with general precautions to ensure that individual bats are not killed or injured in the process.

7.30 The more detailed internal inspections of the buildings in that Building 3 has no potential roosting features and that bat activity associated with this structure is related to the roosts within Building 2. This building can be demolished, but further advice should be provided by the bat consultant in relation to undertaking the works without disturbance to roosts in building 2. This can be achieved by way of an appropriately worded condition.

7.31 There appears to be some contradiction between the most recent bat information – indicating that buildings 1 & 2 will be retained, whilst the Demolition Strategy indicates that permission is being sought under the current application for the removal of these buildings. The details provided as part of any Reserved Matters (RM) application should include proportionate and necessary mitigation and if Buildings 1 & 2 are to be removed this should include the provision of a bat barn as previously identified. The condition as suggested below should be able to accommodate this design process.

7.32 All necessary information has now been supplied to address the issues of bat roosting in the buildings and we would recommend that should the proposal receive permission that a suitably worded condition be attached.

Bat Roost Potential in other areas of the site – Trees and Culvert

7.33 It would appear that the Bat Survey only considered the status of the building and not the loss of trees or the deculverting of the drain which are associated with the outline proposal for dwellings with the indicative plans as submitted.

7.34 However, it would appear that it would be essential for a number of trees to be removed to implement a housing proposal on this site and therefore Derbyshire Wildlife Trust would recommend that the tree roost potential is addressed prior to the determination of the application. However, at this stage, as stated above, the tree removal implications of the proposals are unclear, and it is therefore considered that this report would be more informative if provided at the reserved matters stage.

6.20

7.35 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust are of the view that a bat survey of the culvert is not required at this stage of the application process, as it would appear that the current outline is not predicated on the need to deculvert the watercourse. However, if the Local Authority is of the view that the deculverting of the watercourse is essential to the design and acceptability of the scheme within the current determination then the bat assessment would need to be undertaken prior to determination.

7.36 The activity surveys that have been undertaken are sufficient to identify key commuting and foraging features on the site.

Reptiles (Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981) & Great Crested Newt (Habitats Regulations 2010)

7.37 The current Phase 1 Habitat Survey did not include any targeted surveys for the above groups/species of animals. The Report indicates that two of the waterbodies should be surveyed for the presence/absence of great crested newt. The third waterbody has been surveyed sufficiently recently and no great crested newt were recorded at that time. The Report did not make any assessment of suitability for reptiles. However, the previous survey report (Environ Tech 2012) indicated that suitable habitat was present. DWT subsequently indicated that a reptile survey was required prior to the determination of the application.

7.38 DWT would strongly recommend that both these targeted surveys should be undertaken at an appropriate time of year and submitted prior to the determination of the application, as indicated by current government guidance and best practice. This matter has been raised with the applicant.

Japanese knotweed (Environmental Protection Act 1990 and Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981))

7.39 The Report identifies the presence of Japanese knotweed within 7m of the existing buildings and one large area located where the line of the culvert will be removed. Spoil from areas invaded by Japanese knotweed are considered contaminated waste and need to be contained/disposed of in a suitable manner and/or to a licensed tip.

7.40 A Treatment Programme and Construction Method Statement is required to be produced and implemented to identify how the plant will be treated and how spoil associated with the de-culverting of the drain will be dealt with. Treatment of the Japanese knotweed should form part of any management even where it is not part of the built zone. A condition to this effect is required on any approval if granted

Arboricultural Assessment

7.41 The woodlands could be recognised as the UK Broad UK BAP Habitat type (UK Biodiversity Action Plan) consideration should be given to the retention of the greatest area of this habitat within the reserved matters design and suitable protection from construction impacts and an 6.21

associated management regime. DWT would suggest that suitable conditions could be used to ensure that the habitat structure is retained and enhanced.

Reserved Matters Application & Landscape/Ecological Design

7.42 DWT welcome proposals that reinstate/deculvert water courses and would suggest that the Environment Agency may have guidance to offer on this element of the proposal. The northern end of the drain is currently extant and is surrounded by the semi-natural broad-leaved woodland. DWT would strongly recommend that the woodland habitat in this area is retained to provide a buffer to the feature. The retained woodland would also maintain flight lines for bats along this feature. The retention of this area of woodland may additionally act as a visual screen to the proposal.

7.43 Should the watercourse be deculverted the new drain should not exclusively be planted with trees, but an open aspect should be created which will allow greater biodiversity benefits to the aquatic and marginal vegetation. The boundaries of water course are open to public space rather than being formed between one or both rear curtilages. An open public aspect helps prevent the biodiversity value declining and potentially becoming at risk from more antisocial backland activities such as tipping. However, this could be secured at the reserved matters stage.

7.44 An open watercourse is present on the western boundary of the application site which has existing biodiversity value both vegetatively and for commuting bats. In the current detail it is difficult to ascertain whether this forms the site boundary or if there is a naturally provided buffer between the built development (including gardens and rear curtilages). The reserved matters detail should consider the protection and buffering of this feature and appropriate boundary treatments in this part of the site.

7.45 Given the site’s location on the edge of the built up area DWT suggest that the use of locally native species of tree/shrub and grassland would be appropriate to the majority of the sites’ boundaries and along the newly created watercourse.

7.46 The DWT have also recommended a number of general conditions and subject to the imposition of these it is considered that the proposals will not adversely affect any ecological or biodiversity interests subject to the conditions and advice set out in the comments received from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust being attached to any consent granted. The proposals are thus considered to comply with the provisions of section 11 of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy EQ5.

Contaminated Land

7.47 Section 11 of the NPPF seeks to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land stability to ensure new development is appropriate for its location. Local Plan Policy EQ10 seeks to protect people and the

6.22

environment from unsafe and polluted environments, requiring mitigation if necessary.

7.48 The Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the development of the site for residential use would be acceptable with appropriate site investigation (and remediation if required). These matters could be addressed by appropriate conditions to protect the amenity of existing neighbouring residents and proposed occupiers.

7.49 The proposed development is considered to comply with Section 11 of the NPPF and emerging Local Plan Policy EQ10.

Access & Highway matters

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

7.51 Local Plan Policy CF6 seeks to ensure that new development can be accessed safely, provides access to a range of transport modes and minimises the need to travel by unsustainable modes. As noted above, the site is allocated for housing in the Local Plan. The site is considered to be located within a sustainable location within easy access of public transport, walking and cycling routes and key services and facilities.

7.52 A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application which concludes that the proposals could generate a total of 18 two way vehicle movements in the business hour. This represents a new reduction of 15 vehicles in the morning peak hour and a reduction of nine vehicles in the evening peak hour when compared to the potential traffic generation of the industrial unit on the site. In addition, the re-use of the factory could generate significant additional trips by HGV, which would not occur of the residential development goes ahead. This level of traffic does not create a material impact on the local highway network and there will be no capacity issues arising as a result of the additional dwellings. The site has been demonstrated to be within a sustainable location with a very good range of facilities such as schools, health facilities and shops within 1.5km of the site. There are alternatives to commuting by the private car by using either the bus or train to access the wider area.”

7.53 The proposals have been considered by the County highway engineer, who has raised no objection, subject to a series of conditions relating to the detailed design and layout of the site and requiring submission, approval and implementation of scheme of highway improvement works for the provision of pedestrian facilities on Hawkshead Road together with a programme for the implementation. In addition, a Section 106 contribution is requested for investigation/ implementation of traffic restrictions on the link between Hawkshead Road and Charles Street. A sum of £5000 would cover typical legal and signage costs. 6.23

7.54 In light of the above comments, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the local road network and that adequate access, turning and parking provision could be provided as part of a residential scheme for the site. The incumbent residents would have appropriate access to public transport, cycle and pedestrian routes. As such the proposals comply with the provisions of Local Plan Policy CF6.

Flood Risk

7.55 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Rainwater Runoff Method Survey have been submitted with the application. The FRA concludes “The site is an existing derelict mill with a stream flowing through it and small reservoir at the top end of the site owned by United Utilities. The street channel keeps 1 in 1000 year flows inside it and the site is in floodzone 1. Houses will be built on the site and existing culvert made into open channel. New surface water flows will be limited to existing rates of flow ….. and will connect to the existing Brook channel as does the mill at present. The scheme will have a beneficial impact on the river system because the existing culvert will be opened up and surface water storage and limited surface water flow rates will lessen downstream flood risk to others.”

7.56 United Utilities, the Environment Agency and the County Flood Risk Management Team have considered the submitted Assessment and raised no objections subject to suitable conditions.

Affordable Housing

7.57 Policy H4 of the adopted Local Plan states that the Council will seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing across the plan area by working in partnership with the Homes and Community Agency, Registered Providers, Developers and Local Communities. In order to address the need for affordable housing, residential developments should seek to achieve 30% affordable housing on sites of 25 units or more. Where the provision of affordable houses proposed is below the requirements set out above, the Council will require applicants to provide evidence by way of a financial appraisal to justify a reduced provision.

7.58 In this case the developer has provided a viability appraisal to demonstrate that due to the abnormal remediation costs associated with the redevelopment of this brownfield site it is not viable to provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing.

7.59 This has been independently assessed by the Council’s consultant Keppie Massey, who have concluded that it is only viable for the site to provide 13% affordable housing contribution. However, this is based on a number of assumptions around the likely mix of house types on the site, as this is an outline application. It will not be possible to fully assess the viability until the final details of the scheme are known. It is therefore recommended that the Section 106 agreement should secure a

6.24

minimum of 13% with a provision for a reappraisal to take place at the reserved matters stage.

Infrastructure

7.60 There is a requirement for a contribution to open space and play provision. However, the precise amount of the contribution is dependent upon occupancy which is in turn calculated on the number of bedrooms. As this is an outline application with all matters reserved, the precise housing mix is unknown at this stage and accordingly, it is recommended that a contribution based on a formular approach is included in the Section 106 Agreement.

7.61 Contributions of £68,394.06 towards education and a contribution towards traffic management are required by Derbyshire County Council.

7.62 In order to comply with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 it is now necessary for planning applications with legal agreements to consider the issue of whether the requirements within the S106 satisfy the following:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

7.63 It is considered that all the required contributions are necessary, directly relate to the development and are fair and reasonable in relation to the scale and kind of the development proposed and would help to make the development comply with local plan policies and the NPPF.

7.64 On this basis the S106 recommendation is compliant with the CIL Regulations 2010.

Economic Benefits

7.65 The Framework includes a strong presumption in favour of economic growth. Paragraph 19 states that:

“The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth”

7.66 Similarly, the NPPF makes it clear that:

“the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.”

7.67 According to paragraphs 19 to 21:

6.25

“Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century. Investment in business should not be overburdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations.”

7.68 The proposed development will help to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for housing, business and community uses as well as bringing direct and indirect economic benefits to the town including additional trade for local shops and businesses, jobs in construction and economic benefits to the construction industry supply chain. The proposal will also deliver economic benefit in the form of additional Council Tax revenue which is a material consideration

8. PLANNING BALANCE & CONCLUSIONS

8.1 The site, identified as G13 in the newly adopted local plan, is allocated for 31 dwellings under Policy H2 and therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to compliance with other relevant policies in the local plan. However, as currently shown, part of the application site lies outside the area covered by the allocation and within the Green Belt. Residential development in this area would be inappropriate and contrary to policy and accordingly an amended plan has been requested from the developer.

8.2 The proposal involves the demolition of the existing mill buildings which are considered to be non-designated heritage assets. However, the Conservation Officer has acknowledged that the Council has previously approved the demolition of the buildings on the western side of the road and without these the signficance of the other remaining buildings is diminished. On this basis, the proposals are likely to be acceptable, although the redevelopment should respect the character of the former mill complex. This can be controlled at the reserved matters stage.

8.3 Arboricultural issues can also be addressed at Reserved Matters along with adequate standards of residential amenity and amenity impacts during construction can be controlled by condition. Archaeology can also be dealt with by way of condition. Adequate bat surveys have been provided for the buildings to be demolished and surveys of trees and culverts can be undertaken as part of the reserved matters. The tests in the Habitat Regulations can also be adequately addressed. There is an outstanding issue relating to Reptiles & Great Crested Newts and an update will be provided on this issue for Members. Japanese knotweed mitigation, landscaping and ecological design can all be conditioned, Subject to further conditions, the scheme is acceptable in terms of contaminated land, highway and flood risk.

6.26

8.4 A viability assessment has been provided which has been independently assessed and it is agreed that it is not financially viable to provide the policy requirement of 30% affordable housing. It is considered that a minimum of 13% could be provided, although this is based on a number of assumptions around the likely mix of house types on the site, as this is an outline application. It will not be possible to fully assess the viability until the final details of the scheme are known. It is therefore recommended that the Section 106 agreement should secure a minimum of 13% with a provision for a reappraisal to take place at the reserved matters stage.

8.5 A number of other Section 106 contributions are required to infrastructure, including, schools, recyling facilities and highways. It is considered that all the required contributions are necessary, directly relate to the development and are fair and reasonable in relation to the scale and kind of the development proposed and would help to make the development comply with local plan policies and the NPPF.

8.6 The scheme would bring about a number of economic benefits both in terms of the construction of the dwellings and spending in the local economy following completion.

8.7 The NPPF sets out at paragraph 14 a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means approving without delay proposals which accord with the development plan.

8.8 Subject to the resolution of the issue relating to the protected species survey, the proposal complies with the relevant development plan policies and is therefore considered to be sustainable development. Accordingly, having due regard to material considerations, and all other matters raised it is recommended that delegated powers be granted to the Head of Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Chairman to approve the application subject to receipt of a satisfactory reptile and Great Crested Newt Survey and a section 106 agreement and conditions as set out below.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Grant Delegated Powers to the Head of Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Chairman to APPROVE subject to receipt of a satisfactory reptile and Great Crested Newt Survey and a Section 106 Agreement to secure:

1. Minimum 13% affordable housing contribution with a reappraisal mechanism at reserved matters stage. 2. £68,394.06 education 3. Contribution for investigation/ implementation of traffic restrictions on the link between Hawkshead Road and Charles Street. (Amount £5000) 4. Public open space contribution based on the following formula: a. No of occupants* x 16 x £5.50

6.27

Children’s outdoor playing space contribution based on the following formula: b. No of occupants* x 8 x £14.00 (To a maximum of £35,998)

*The number of occupants per dwelling is taken from figures derived from the Office of National Statistics (NOMIS) - Tenure by Household Size by Number of Bedrooms. and the following conditions:

1. Standard Time Limit 2. Standard Outline 3. Submission of Reserved Matters 4. Approved Plans 5. Historic building recording of the remaining buildings, in line with a written scheme of investigation (WSI) approved in advance by the local planning authority 6. A phased archaeological scheme following demolition to slab level, to be carried out to an approved WSI and to include evaluation trenching to assess significance followed by area excavation and recording of archaeological significant areas. 7. War Memorial to be retained and relocated in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved. 8. A scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters for the entire site to been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 9. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme to manage overland flow. 10. Submission, approval and implementation of finished floor levels and ground levels 11. Submission, approval and implementation of detailed design for new channel and culvert. 12. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme to attenuate surface water runoff. 13. Contaminated Land investigation and remediation 14. Pre-demolition asbestos survey 15. No construction/demolition work at the site shall take place outside the following hours:- - 07:00 hours to 19:00 hours Mondays to Fridays. - 08:00 hours to 16:00 hours on Saturdays. - At any time on Sundays or Public Holidays except by agreement with the Local Planning Authority. 16. Submission, approval and implementation of a piling method statement 17. Submission, approval and implementation of a construction management plan. 18. No dust or smoke shall leave the site boundary. 19. No lighting of fires. 20. Submission, approval and implementation of a scheme to remediate Japanese Knotweed

6.28

21. Reserved Matters Application to be accompanied by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment. 22. Submission, approval and implementation of construction method statement 23. Internal layout to be in accordance with the 6C’s Design Guide 24. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme of highway improvement works for the provision of pedestrian facilities on Hawkshead Road together with a programme for the implementation 25. Submission of details of the residential estate road(s) and footway(s) (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage) 26. Carriageway to be constructed up to and including at least road base level, prior to the commencement of the erection of any dwelling intended to take access from that road. 27. No dwelling to be occupied until space has been provided for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. 28. Remove PD rights for garage conversions 29. No gates or other barriers within 6.0m of the nearside highway boundary and any gates shall open inwards only 30. Roads to be not steeper than an 1 in 14 for the first 6.0m from the nearside highway boundary and 1 in 14 thereafter. 31. Submission, approval and implementation of bin storage 32. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme to prevent discharge of water onto highway 33. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme of stormwater drainage 34. Submission, approval and implementation of scheme for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development 35. Bat license and mitigation 36. Bat survey of trees and culvert to be submitted with reserved matters 37. All retained ecological features (eg woodland, trees, grassland and) are temporarily protected with suitable high visibility fencing during construction from the accidental spillage of spoil or stored materials. 38. The temporary fencing should provide a suitable buffer to retained features to help ensure water quality issues and we would recommend that a vegetated buffer of 5m adjacent to the western boundary would facilitate this. 39. Working method particularly on the western boundary and the deculverting of the watercourse should be undertaken to avoid increased sediment loads and pollution on the water quality. 40. All vegetation clearance, site preparation works (such as earth moving or other enabling works) should avoid the bird breeding season (March – August inclusive) unless it can be demonstrated that no breeding birds are present. 41. The RM application is supported by an Ecological Landscape Management Plan and proposals to resource and manage retained and recreated habitats and other areas of open space. 42. The ELMP should include features within the built proposal to enhance these areas for the benefit of wildlife and should include

6.29

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 Head of Regulatory Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

Informative

The recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan

6.30