ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD

PLANNING AND REGENERATION SERVICE REPORTTH TO COMMITTEE 8 JANUARY 2009

Item 1 Ref:RB2008/1326

Erection of 153 houses and 80 apartments (total of 233 dwellings) at Land forming part of the former Cortonwood Colliery, off Knollbeck Lane, for Cortonwood LTD.

Recommendation

A. That the application be referred to the Department for Communities and Local Government as a departure under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation) (Departures) Direction 1999.

B. That consequent upon the Department for Communities and Local Government deciding not to intervene, the Borough Council resolves to grant permission for the proposed development and enter into a Legal Agreement.

C. That the Council resolves to enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the purposes of ensuring:

(i) Provision of affordable units, the affordable units to be provided by the Developer on site will be 7.5% of the proposed total number of units. (ii) Provision of contribution to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority towards education provision. (iii) Contribution towards provision of two no. bus stops along the spine road within the site. (iv)That a phasing plan for the provision of the multi-use games area be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to show that upon the completion of 65% of the houses, the multi-use games area shown on the approved plans shall be installed and completed for use.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

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

1. Having regard to the policies and proposals in the Development Plan including interim planning statements and the advice set out in government guidance, and all relevant material planning considerations set out below:

Regional Spatial Strategy for and the Humber (adopted May 2008)

Policy SY1 ‘ sub area Policy H3 ‘Managing the release of land in support of interventions to address failing housing market’ Policy H4 ‘Provision of Affordable Housing’ Policy T1 ‘Personal Travel Reduction and Modal Shift’

UDP Policies ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land’ HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ T3 ‘Public Transport’ T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’

Supplementary Planning Guidance Housing Guidance 7: ‘Security’

National Policies Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Housing’ Planning Policy Statement 6 ‘Town Centres’ Planning Policy Guidance 13 ‘Transport’

2. For the following reasons:

Although the loss of the land allocated for industrial and business usage in favour of residential redevelopment is contrary to policy, there are special circumstances which outweigh this. In principle, the residential development of this site will contribute to the target housing for the Borough as set out in RSS Policy H3. In addition, the Employment Land Study recognises that the development of this land for Industrial and Business purposes is not viable due to the topography of the site. On this basis, in line with the aims of RSS Policies and Local Policies to regenerate the Dearne Valley, it is considered that the residential development of this derelict and vacant site is acceptable in principle.

The layout and design of the development is of a contemporary nature and is considered to be of a high quality with individually designed units to suit this site. Whilst the nature and type of housing is contemporary, it is considered to be make efficient use of the topography of this site in line with PPS3. The development also provides improvements to open space in general and provides links from neighbouring residential estates to the facilities contained within the adjacent Cortonwood Business/Retail Park. The Greenspace provision and specific Multi Use Games Area will benefit not only the future residents of this site but also those of the adjacent residential areas in the locality and is considered to contribute to the overall local environment by allowing for the formal recreational use of part of the site.

In addition, improvements to public transport and accessibility will be secured by the creation of an ‘all traffic link’ to Cortonwood Drive and the provision of additional bus stops on the spine road of the development. This will contribute to the creation of sustainable communities in line with PPS1 and enable links between the residential areas in the locality and the business (and job) and shopping opportunities associated with the adjacent business/retail park.

Education provision will be increased in light of the Developer’s financial contribution detailed in the Section 106 Agreement and Heads of Terms.

3. The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to grant reserved matters. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s Report and the application case file and associated documents .

Conditions

01 [PC97] The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Drawing numbers 26099_L(--)02 Rev K, 26099_L(--)06 Rev G, 26099_L(-- )07 Rev G, 26099_L(--)08 Rev G, L(2-)COR_15 Rev A, L(2-)COR_16 Rev A, L(2-)COR_17 Rev B, L(2-)COR_18 Rev A, L(31)COR_15 Rev A, L(31)COR_16 Rev A, L(31)COR_17 Rev B, L(31)COR_18 Rev A, 26099_L(-- )10 Rev D, 26099_L(--)11 Rev D, 26099_L(--)12 Rev D, 26099_L(--)13 Rev D, 26099_L(--)18, 26099_L(2-)COR_01B, 26099_L(2-)COR_02B, 26099_L(2- )COR_03B, 26099_L(2-)COR_04B, 26099_L(2-)COR_05B, 26099_l(2- )COR_06B, 26099_L(2-)COR_07B, 26099_L(2-)COR_09B, 26099_L(2- )COR11B, 26099_L(2-)COR_12, 26099_L(31)COR_01A, 26099_L(31)COR_02A, 26099_L(31)COR_03A, 26099_L(31)COR_04A, 26099_L(31)COR_05A, 26099_L(31)COR_06A, 26099_L(31)COR_07A, 26099_L(31)COR_09A, 26099_L(31)COR_11A, 26099_L(31)COR_12) (received 19 August, 8 October and 4 December 2008). 02. The site marked A on the approved plan shall be developed for a Multi Use Games Area, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development of the Multi Use Games Area shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in accordance with the timescale set out in the legal agreement. 03. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment by Scott Wilson, dated April 2008, and shall incorporate all the proposed mitigation measures detailed in that FRA. 04. The floor level of any dwelling constructed on this site shall be a minimum of 150mm above site ground level. 05. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timescale agreed. 06. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface water run off limitation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems as detailed in Sections 6.11 and 6.12 of the Flood Risk Assessment. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details. 07. There must be no new building, structure (including gates, walls and fences) or raised ground levels within (a) 3 metres of the top of any bank of watercourses, and/or (b) 3 metres of any side of an existing culverted watercourse, inside or along the boundary of the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 08. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: (a) A site investigation scheme, based on the findings of the Phase 1 Desk Study report submitted with the application shall be provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site; (b) Based on the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required shall be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. (c) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 09. Prior to development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include the results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. 10. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. 11. If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. 12. Any watercourse/drains on the site shall be retained as part of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A 5 metre buffer zone shall be provided alongside the watercourses. These buffer zones shall be free of structures, hard standing and fences. Domestic gardens should not be incorporated into the buffer zones in order to avoid problems such as the fragmentation by fencing; the placing of garden rubbish near the bank; the introduction of non-native species into the buffer; and pressure for inappropriate bank retention works. 13. The mitigation measures identified in the Habitat Survey and Protected Species Assessment must be carried out. 14. The mitigation measures identified in the Noise survey must be carried out unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 15. No development shall take place until a Landscape Masterplan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Landscape Masterplan shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings were necessary:- • The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. • The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. • Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. • Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. • The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. • A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. • A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works. • The programme for implementation. • Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme with the appropriate standards and codes of practice within a timescale agree, in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 16. Prior to the commencement of development a landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall be prepared to a minimum of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through the use of supplementary drawings where necessary:- • Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements; • A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances; • A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscaping works; • The programme for implementation; • Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme and in accordance with the appropriate standards and codes of practice within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. 17. [PC38D] Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced within the next planting season. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. 18. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no buildings or other obstructions shall be located over or within 5 metres either side of the centre line of the 800mm sewer. 19. [PC12] Details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any off-site work, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until such approved details are implemented. 20. [PC11] Surface water from areas likely to receive petrol/oil contamination (e.g. vehicle parking areas) shall be passed through effective oil/grit interceptors prior to discharge to any sewer or watercourse. 21. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no building shall be occupied or brought into use prior to the completion of the approved foul drainage works. 22. No piped discharge of surface water from the application site shall take place until works to provide a satisfactory outfall for surface water have been completed in accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. 23. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no building or other obstruction shall be located over or within 3 metres either side of the centre lines of the 600mm, 450mm, 375mm and 225mm sewers that cross the site. 24. [PC 24] Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either; a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition 25. [PC29] Before the development is commenced road sections, constructional and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 26. [PC27*] Before the development is brought into use the car parking areas associated with the apartment blocks shown on the submitted plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. 27. The development shall not be commenced until details of the alterations to the road markings in Knollbeck Lane at the site access to create a right turn lane, indicated in draft form on plan D114843/CHES/GA/05, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented before the first occupation of any dwellings. 28. The development shall not be commenced until details of the proposed junction with Cortonwood Drive indicated in draft form on the attached plan have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented before the first occupation of any dwellings. 29. The development shall not be commenced until details of a scheme to provide speed cushions along Cortonwood Drive have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented before the first occupation of any dwellings. 30. The development shall not be commenced until details of the adoptable footpath up to the boundary with Nos. 19 Spring Drive/29 Springhill Avenue have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented before the first occupation of any dwellings. 31. The development shall not be commenced until details of an adoptable footpath between Nos. 17-19 Wynmoor Crescent up to the site boundary have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented before the first occupation of any dwellings. 32. The proposed estate road shall be constructed to a point coincidental with the southern site boundary as indicated on plan reference 26099-L 08 Revision G. 33. [PC95] Before the proposed development is brought into use, a Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include clear and unambiguous objectives, modal split targets together with a programme of implementation, monitoring, validation and regular review and improvement. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed of and give prior approval in writing to any subsequent improvements or modifications to the Travel Plan following submission of progress performance reports as time tabled in the monitoring programme. For further information please contact the Transportation Unit (01709) 822186. 34 [PC45] Prior to the commencement of development, details of the Green Roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submission shall include details of and responsibilities for post-installation maintenance, including replacement of any areas that fail to establish, for a minimum period of 2 years. The approved details shall be implemented prior the building first being brought into use. 35 [PC44*] No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the first occupation of the dwellings. 36 No development shall take place until the applicant, their agent, or their successor in title has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 37 No development shall take place until a lighting scheme for the MUGA has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reasons: 01. [PR97] To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved/amended plans. 02. To ensure the provision of the MUGA. 03. So as to reduce the risk to the property in the event of flooding and to accord with PPS25. 04. To provide a measure of safety from flooding from overland flood flows in the event of extreme rainfall. 05. To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal. 06. To prevent the increased risk of flooding. 07. To maintain access to the watercourse for maintenance or improvements and provide for overland flood flows. 08. To protect the water environment by ensuring that the site is remediated to an approved standard. 09. To protect the water environment by ensuring that the site is remediated to an appropriate standard. 10. To prevent pollution of the groundwater. 11. To protect the water environment by ensuring that the site is remediated to an appropriate standard. 12. To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site. 13. To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the site. 14. To ensure that effective measures are taken to prevent noise disturbance to future residents. 15. [PR38A] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 16. [PR38C] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 17. [PR38D] To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 18. In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair work at all times. 19. [PR12] To ensure that the development can be properly drained in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 20. [PR11] To prevent pollution of any watercourse in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 21. To ensure that no foul water discharge takes place until proper provision has been made for its disposal. 22. To ensure that the site is properly drained and surface water is not discharged to the foul sewerage system which will prevent overloading. 23. In order to allow sufficient access for maintenance and repair at all times. 24. [PR24B] To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site, road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 25. [PR29] No details having been submitted, these details need to be approved prior to commencement of development. 26. [PR27] To ensure the provision of satisfactory garage/parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 27. To provide and maintain adequate visibility in the interests of road safety. 28. To provide and maintain adequate visibility in the interests of road safety. 29. To provide and maintain adequate visibility in the interests of road safety. 30. In the interests of road safety. 31. In the interests of road safety. 32. In the interests of road safety. 33. [PR95] In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 34. [PR45] To adequately appraise the efficiency, suitability and maintenance of the green roof technology in accordance with UDP Policy UTL3.3 'Energy Conservation' and UTL3.4 'Renewable Energy' 35. [PR44] In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 36. To ensure that no development takes place until adequate recording has taken place. 37 In the interest of security of the MUGA.

INFORMATIVES

01. The Habitat and Protected Species Assessment states that water voles themselves are not legally protected. The legislation has recently changed and water voles are now protected as well as their habitat. 02. INF 11 Control of working practices during construction phase It is recommended that the following advice is followed to prevent a nuisance/ loss of amenity to local residential areas. Please note that the Council’s Neighbourhood Enforcement have a legal duty to investigate any complaints about noise or dust. If a statutory nuisance is found to exist they must serve an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 .Failure to comply with the requirements of an Abatement Notice may result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon conviction in Magistrates' Court. It is therefore recommended that you give serious consideration to the below recommendations and to the steps that may be required to prevent a noise nuisance from being created. (i) Except in case of emergency, operations should not take place on site other than between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday and between 09:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays. There should be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Local Planning Authority should be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency and a schedule of essential work shall be provided. (ii) Heavy goods vehicles should only enter or leave the site between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 on weekdays and 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no such movements should take place on or off the site on Sundays or Public Holidays (this excludes the movement of private vehicles for personal transport). (iii) Best practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may include water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment. At such times when due to site conditions the prevention of dust nuisance by these means is considered by the Local Planning Authority in consultations with the site operator to be impracticable, then movements of soils and overburden shall be temporarily curtailed until such times as the site/weather conditions improve such as to permit a resumption. (iv) Effective steps should be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud, dust and other materials on the adjoining public highway caused by vehicles visiting and leaving the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, slurry, mud or any other material from the site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the developer.

Background

Members will recall this particular planning application being deferred by Members, and further to a site visit, to allow the applicant to address issues of the apartment scheme, highway considerations in terms of a possible ‘rat run’ through the proposed estate and beyond to the Cortonwood Business Park and the location of the Multi-use games area. These issues have been taken into account by the applicant and are considered in this planning item report.

RB1989/166 – Outline application to erect industrial, office, leisure, retail and residential development – Granted Conditionally 30/7/1989

RB1990/1701 – Recontour and reclaim site for industry, leisure, retail and residential further to R89/166 – Granted Conditionally 15/08/1991

RB1992/703 – Mineral extraction including coal opencast methods and sandstone for on site restoration purposes and for export: in conjunction with the creation of a containment cell for contaminated waste arising from within the site, all forming part of ongoing reclamation works – Granted Conditionally 24/09/1992

RB1994/828 – Variation of condition No. 1 attached to planning application RB1992/703 to enable the continuation of mineral extraction/reclamation works at the former Cortonwood Colliery – Granted Conditionally 05/09/1994

RB1994/932 - Variation of conditions 1 and 4 attached to R89/166 to allow extension of the period for submission of reserved matters and the inclusion of Use Class B8 respectively – Granted Conditionally 22/02/1996

In addition to the above applications, there have also been various applications for continuation and extension of time for recontouring and restoration of the land which are not detailed above.

RB2008/619 – Erection of 151 dwellings and 80 apartments (total of 231 units) – Withdrawn

Environmental Impact

The proposed development falls within the description contained within paragraph 10(b) ‘Urban Development Projects’ of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table in that the site exceeds the 0.5 hectare threshold. Therefore consideration has been given as to whether this particular development would be likely to have significant effects upon the environment. In this regard the proposal has been assessed under Schedule 3 of the Regulations and in this instance it is felt that the development would be of no more than a local importance in terms of its characteristics, location and potential impact.

The Council has accordingly formed the view that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. As such the Local Planning Authority has adopted the opinion that the development referred is not EIA development as defined in the 1999 Regulations.

Development Plan Allocation and Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy for (adopted May 2008)

Policy SY1 ‘South Yorkshire sub area Policy H3 ‘Managing the release of land in support of interventions to address failing housing market’ Policy H4 ‘Provision of Affordable Housing’ Policy T1 ‘Personal Travel Reduction and Modal Shift’

The site is allocated for Industry and Business in the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. As such the following policies are considered to be material in the determination of this planning application:

UDP Policies

EC1 ‘Existing Industrial and Business Areas’ EC1.1 ‘Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Business Areas’ EC3.1 ‘Land identified for Industrial and Business Use’ ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land’ HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ Policy T3 ‘Public Transport’ T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’

National Policies

PPS1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ PPS3 ‘Housing’ PPG13 ‘Transport’

Site Description

The application site consists of an irregular shaped parcel of land (approximately 8ha) stretching from the former colliery access on Knollbeck Lane between the properties on Springhill Avenue and Garden Drive and the industrial/business premises on Cortonwood Drive to Milking Lane and the Wentworth Meadows residential estate to the south. The site historically formed part of the larger Cortonwood Colliery site which was reclaimed in the late 1980’s.

The main access to the site is from the former Colliery access of Knollbeck Lane although the site can also be accessed (by foot) from Cortonwood Drive.

The site suffers from extreme differences in levels and falls steeply from east to west towards the industrial units on Cortonwood Drive and the Dearne Valley Parkway. The properties on the residential estate to the east including those on Springhill Avenue, Garden Drive, Knollbeck Avenue and Wynmoor Crescent lie at a significantly higher level and look down onto the site.

There is evidence of informal footpaths crossing the site particularly linking the residential estate to the east and adjacent industrial and Retail Park. The site is overgrown although it does not contain any vegetation of significant amenity value.

Overhead power lines intercept part of the site running from north to south.

Proposal

This is a full planning application for the erection of 153 houses and 80 apartments (a total of 233 residential units). The buildings are of a contemporary style and design and the apartments are arranged in four crescent shaped buildings.

The site layout shows the access road entering the site with landscaping adjacent to the properties on Bierlow Close. The access road leads to a link road with Cortonwood Drive for all traffic.

The site layout is constrained by the site levels and the crescent shaped apartment buildings together with the large areas of public open space seek to utilise the site levels in the most effective manner whilst providing a relatively low density style development on this narrow part of the site.

Further within the site, there are fewer constraints due to the increased width of the site although the overhead power lines which intercept the site result in the creation of a landscaping belt/public open space through the middle of the site. The submitted plans indicated that this area will be developed for public open space and a green link for recreational purposes. The plans also indicate that a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) will be provided close to the green link/landscaped area fairly centrally within the site. A footpath link is provided from the area of open space between No. 19 Spring Drive and 29/31 Springhill Avenue into the development, there are also a number of footpath links within the site which will provide pedestrian access to Cortonwood Drive and to the retail park beyond.

The dwellings in this wider part of the site consist of a further two blocks of crescent shaped apartments and dwellings in two distinct forms: (i) Around the periphery of the site; and (ii) A grid arrangement to the southern most part of the site.

Both the crescent shaped apartment blocks and the majority of the dwellings are split level in order to accommodate the level differences across the site. The apartments are a maximum of four storeys in height and the dwellings are typically 2/3 storeys.

The design of the buildings across this site is contemporary and materials will comprise panels of render, grey cladding and brick with irregular fenestration. Supporting information has been received from the Agent in relation to the provision and siting of the MUGA on this site. This documents states that:

“RMBC planning officers and the Greenspaces Manager highlighted the need for a MUGA (as part of the open space provision for the development) to be incorporated within the application.

Suitable locations for the MUGA, on and off site were discussed with the present location being agreed upon as most suitable for: • Ease of accessibility for pedestrian and vehicular access; • Overlooking from nearby properties, providing natural surveillance and security; • The site is one of the few relatively flat sections of the development site; • An appropriately sized MUGA in line with RMBC recommendations; • Discussions with the Architectural Liaison Officer also raised concerns regarding the surveillance of, and therefore possible nuisance caused by the MUGA in other locations within the development.

For detailed layout the following criteria were further considered and adopted: • Sport advise that a MUGA should be 30 metres from nearby residences; • Sport England also advise that a MUGA should not be located: (i) where steep gradients lead to and away from the area; (ii) in exposed terrain; (iii) where emergency vehicles cannot readily access the facility. • Sport England recommend that the playing area be orientated approximately in a north-south orientation.

The location of the MUGA as proposed is the single location within the site which meets the above requirements and would not be prohibitively expensive to implement.”

The MUGA provides for teenage facilities and in line with Sport England guidance on the type of facility for this age range the MUGA will provide for football, tennis and basketball.

The MUGA will be heavily landscaped with earth mounding, planting and open areas of porous hard landscaping. The current position of the MUGA parallel to the adjacent road allows for greater opportunities for landscaping between the adjacent road and the MUGA. Publicity

The application has been advertised as a Departure from the UDP by press and site notice on 4 September 2008. Neighbouring properties were notified of the proposals in writing on 21 September 2008. Following the receipt of amended plans, neighbouring properties were renotified on 8 October and further site notices were posted on 16 October giving 14 days for comment.

The following representations have been received, including an objections from the Save Our Hillies Action Group and a letter from John Healey MP:

617 signatures on a petition; 25 letters of objection raising the following concerns:

• Increased traffic problems on Knollbeck Lane; • Increased noise and air pollution; • Not integrating old and new housing, creating a divided community; • No demand for more housing in this area; • Contaminated land risks; • Increased risk of flooding; • Not enough public services to support the development (i.e. schools, doctors etc.); • Wildlife and trees will be destroyed; • There will be a risk of subsidence of new houses; • Overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours; • Loss of Greenspace (from development of a current area of open space); • Vehicular access from estate road on to Cortonwood Drive will be a rat run; • Change village to a town; • Interruption to utilities like when Wentworth Meadows Estate was built; • There is insufficient capacity in sewers and drainage network.

Consultations

Brampton Bierlow Parish Council has been made aware of significant concerns of a number of Parishioners. These concerns are acknowledged by the Parish Council and the following specific concerns are raised: • The development will result in the loss of amenity land which could also have environmental impacts on wildlife and biodiversity; • Loss of views from neighbouring properties; • The impact on the surrounding road network (particularly Knollbeck Lane) will be detrimental); • The development would change the village of Brampton into a town; • The Council raise questions about the need for further residential development in this area and whether the properties will sell in the current market; • Increased risk of flooding; • Impact of the development in terms of disturbance on local residents during the construction process; • The land is contaminated from previous uses; • The pedestrian routes should be retained; • Need for further education provision as there are not enough school places for the new children.

Yorkshire Forward does not have any comments

Environment Agency has no objections subject to conditions

Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections subject to conditions

Landscape Section has no objections subject to conditions

Yorkshire Water has no objections subject to conditions

SYPTE have stated that the development should be conditioned to make a contribution 2 bus stops.

Transportation Unit has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions and has provided further information on the provision of an all traffic link road to Cortonwood Drive.

Sport England state that “Given the amount of residential development proposed and subject to issues of local provision, it may thus be appropriate to seek a commuted sum contribution for sport and recreation provision in accordance with Sport England’s Policy.”

Greenspaces have stated that there is a severe lack of facilities for teenagers in the locality of the application site. Whilst there are facilities for younger children, the Greenspaces team have experienced mis-use of younger children facilities in this area by teenagers as this age group do not have their own facilities. In this regard the Team consider that this site would represent an ideal opportunity and location (being centrally located for residents of Wentworth Meadows, the estate to the east and the future residents of this development) for the provision of a facility for teenagers. The Greenspaces team have suggested the provision of a Multi Use Games Area and on that basis have no objections to the development subject to provision of the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) in an acceptable location.

Education Section has stated that the development has the potential to significantly increase pressure on Infant and Junior schools in the area and a commuted sum has been requested.

Environmental Health has no objections subject to conditions

Ecologist has no objections subject to conditions

South Yorkshire Mining Advisory Service has requested specific conditions

Environment Agency has no objections subject to conditions.

Aboriculturalist has no objections.

Contaminated Land Officer – No objections.

Barnsley MBC have commented on the proposed development and state that: “School Organisation and Governance wish to object to this proposal as projected numbers on roll at Park Street School up to 2011/12 show that within this period there will not be any surplus accommodation at the primary school to accommodate additional children.

Highways and Engineering comment that the existing highway problems could be exacerbated depending on the site access. There is also a major road safety problem which must be addressed if the development is likely to generate further traffic at the entrance/exist to Cortonwood Retail Park where the Trans Pennine Trail crosses the entrance/exit.”

Appraisal

The main considerations in the determination of this planning application are considered to be:

• The principle of development; • The Layout and Design; • Affordable Housing; • Impact on residential amenity; • The Provision of Open Space; • Transportation; • Land Contamination; • Wildlife.

Principle

This is a full application for the development of 233 residential units comprising 153 houses (semi-detached and townhouses) and 80 apartments in four crescent shaped blocks.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that development shall be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The site was reclaimed during the late 1980’s/early 1990’s and is allocated within the Unitary Development Plan as a development site and specifically for a mix of industrial and business uses. The residential development of this site is therefore contrary to Policy EC3.1 of the Unitary Development Plan. The proposals would need to be considered on the basis of whether other material planning considerations outweigh this policy.

It should be noted that the current Unitary Development Plan was adopted in 1999 and will soon be replaced by the Local Development Framework (LDF) which is currently being produced.

The adjacent sites which are also allocated for Industry and Business to the west of the application site have been developed in recent years for various industrial and business uses and a retail park. However, it should be noted that the application site suffers from extreme topography and is set on a hillside with residential properties to the east. This site has remained vacant despite the development of adjacent sites. The Employment Land Review Dated May 2007 recognises the application site and states that:

“Site scores 1 and is considered undevelopable due to topography.”

Notwithstanding the allocation of the site for Industry and Business, the site remains allocated within the current Development Plan as a ‘Development Site’ and on this basis should be considered suitable for development in principle. This application for residential development demonstrates that the development of this site for residential purposes is viable both economically and in terms of development of the topography. It is considered that the allocation as Industry and Business is outweighed by the fact that the site has remained vacant due to problematic development of the topography and is recognised as not being suitable for business and industrial development in the Council’s Employment Land Review.

Furthermore, the development would contribute to the targets for new housing set out in the RSS. On this basis it is considered that the principle of residential development of this development site is acceptable and that the site should not remain undeveloped.

Layout and Design

Policy HG4 of the UDP states that the “Council will seek to achieve a variety of dwelling types on sites well distributed throughout the borough in order to meet future housing needs”

It is considered that the development would improve the appearance of the site (as required in PPS1 and PPS3) through redeveloping it for housing. The site is currently vacant, overgrown in an untidy state. The layout is largely determined by the topography of the site and whilst the development will undoubtedly be prominent from the wider area due to its position and land levels and the design of both the apartments and dwellings make effective use of the topography of the site by using split level form and developing the most level parts of the site with large areas of open space.

The supporting Planning Statement submitted with the application describes the development as follows: “The focus of the development is the urban park running through the site and the large expanses of public open space that it provides”. The density of the development equates to approximately 30 dwellings per hectare. Although this is slightly below the indicative standards set out in PPS3, it is considered to be acceptable given that significant areas of this site are not suitable for development due to topography. In addition, the surrounding residential areas are of a low density nature and it is considered that the development complements these. The layout and form of the development is considered to be acceptable.

PPS3 states that “Good design is fundamental to the development of high quality new housing, which contributes to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities.” The four apartment blocks are designed in a crescent shape and are modern in design with a maximum of four storeys in height in the middle section and three storeys at the edges. The blocks have been designed with extensive green roofs and a simple but modern design utilising panel materials of render, blue brick, zinc cladding and fibre cement hanging tiles.

The dwellings are also of a modern design and many of the house types are split level being 3 storey at the front and 2 storey to the rear. Notwithstanding the links which are provided to surrounding areas, this site is individual and in visual terms is not particularly seen in the context of neighbouring street scenes. On this basis it is considered that the design of the dwellings provides an innovative development which takes account of its surroundings in terms of layout but provides a distinctive appearance.

Affordable Housing

The site is located within a Pathfinder area and the requirement to provide affordable housing equates to 7.5% of the total number of units i.e. 17 units. This will be secured through a legal agreement in line with RSS Policy and the Council’s Report to Cabinet in November 2007.

Impact on residential amenity

The closest residential properties to the application site lie to the east. These properties have significant garden areas bounding the site and lie at a significantly higher level (as much as 5metres in places). Some concerns have been raised by local residents about loss of privacy, however, due to the significant level differences between the existing dwellings and those proposed and the long separation distances it is not considered that the dwellings would lead to harmful levels of noise, loss of light or privacy. Landscaping will also be planted on this boundary to provide additional screening.

With regard to the future residents of the development, despite the land to the west being in industrial and business usage, the layout of the housing has been arranged to minimise the scope for residents being affected by noise. In addition, a noise survey has been carried out and the development will be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the noise survey. A belt of open space and landscaping provides additional separation to the existing industrial units and is considered to be acceptable by the Environmental Health Section to protect future residents of proposed houses and flats. The measures to be taken include sound insulation of bedrooms and standard acoustic fencing to key elevations facing the industrial units. These elements will be secured by way of a planning condition.

Provision of Open Space

Local residents have raised concerns that the development of this land would result in the loss of open space in Brampton. However, the land has no formal status as open space and is privately owned. The development provides footpath links into, through and out of the site to enable linkages to existing services and to surrounding communities in line with PPS1.

In terms of open space provision, Housing Guidance 4 requires 60 square metres of Public Open Space to be provided per dwelling which in the case of this development equates to 1.38ha. The development provides a total of 1.78ha of open space which exceeds the Council’s standards.

This open space contribution on site includes a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) for teenagers which will be provided by the developer. The design of the MUGA and its surrounding is considered to respond to its intended use in terms of both the sports to be catered for and provision for spectators/those waiting to play. It is proposed that the area around the MUGA be heavily landscaped with earth mounding, planting and open areas of porous hard landscaping. The earth mounding and planting will reduce the visual and noise impact of the MUGA on adjacent properties and the linear park whilst allowing for surveillance of the area. The earth mounding will be tiered and shaped around the MUGA to provide seating for spectators and those waiting to play. There are two possible options for the location of the MUGA within the space available. Both are in line with Sport England’s recommendation that the playing area be orientated in a north-south direction. These options are: (i) Parallel to the adjacent road to the west; (ii) Parallel to the linear park to the east and perpendicular to the nearby properties to the south;

Originally, the submitted plans showed the MUGA parallel to the adjacent road though the second option was considered to be preferential as it allows for the MUGA to integrate with the linear park and allows for greater opportunity for planting between the MUGA and the adjacent road. Accordingly, the location of the MUGA has been slightly amended in line with this.

The position and design of the MUGA is considered to be acceptable. It is further considered that the MUGA represents provision of a facility where there is currently an identified need. The MUGA will meet the need both in terms of both future residents of this development and to the wider community.

Transportation Issues

One of the fundamental issues considered by officers at the time of the initial development proposal for this site was the requirement/desirability of linking the proposed estate road from Knollbeck Lane with Cortonwood Drive. Various options were considered based on a bus only link, an all vehicular link or no link at all. The Transportation Unit have taken the view that in accordance with National Government Guidance relating to the creation of sustainable communities and reducing the use of the private car, a link was essential to the development of this site in order to promote public transport accessibility for residents of the proposed development. Existing residents in the area will also benefit from significantly improved accessibility to the employment and shopping opportunities at the nearby Cortonwood Retail/Business Park. The SYPTE fully supported the principle of a bus link. This raised the question as to whether such a link should be for buses only (safeguarded by a bus gate) or be in the form of an all vehicular link. A bus gate option was dismissed for various reasons including the difficulty in controlling such a traffic restriction. An all purpose link is considered to have significant highway/sustainability benefits in that it provides a shorter route between the Retail/Business Park and some residential areas in the locality. Furthermore, the provision of an additional point of vehicular access to the proposed residential estate (via Cortonwood Drive) will secure benefits in terms of reducing the potential length of cul-de-sac and will improve permeability and linkage between the existing residential areas, the future residential area and the retail/employment facilties. This is a fundamental principle of current transport policies including Policy T1 of the RSS and PPG13.

The proposed link will undoubtedly be used by some vehicular traffic whose origin is outside the existing/proposed residential areas. The Transportation Assessment submitted in support of the application assumes that 10% of baseline traffic northbound on Knollbeck Lane will transfer to the new road (some 31 vehicles two way in the afternoon peak). The impact of this traffic, when added to the traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development, has been assessed in the Transportation Assessment which has concluded that no off site highway works will be required, although improvements to the junction with Knollbeck Lane in the form of a right turn lane are required and safeguarded by condition.

However, the volume of traffic likely to divert to the proposed link cannot be accurately predicted since this will vary according to factors such as the degree of congestion on the existing highway network. In this respect the Transportation Unit has also considered the likely impact but based on a more robust assessment i.e. 10% of the traffic using Wath Road diverting along the link road (some 140 vehicles 2 way in the pm peak). It is considered that this volume of traffic, also that likely to be generated by the proposed residential development can be satisfactorily accommodated along the link road and at the relevant junctions.

Knollbeck Lane between its junction with Pontefract Road and Garden Drive is to be traffic calmed in April 2009 and it is considered that the additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposal can be safely and satisfactorily accommodated.

The initial length of the estate road from Knollbeck Lane into the site is to be constructed with a 6 metre wide carriageway. Cortonwood Drive has a carriageway designed to industrial standard (7.3 metres wide). These roads are considered to be easily capable of accommodating the additional vehicular traffic in capacity terms. Furthermore, the operation of the existing roundabout within the Retail/Business Park is unlikely to be adversely affected. Indeed, roundabouts tend to operate more effectively when traffic is evenly distributed via all arms, which is not the case at present.

In terms of possible impact on residential amenity, traffic using the link road will only pass one of the proposed blocks of flats such that any impact will be limited.

Cortonwood Drive will be subject to more vehicular traffic although as outlined above, this activity can be easily accommodated and it is not anticipated that this will adversely impact on existing businesses. Indeed the link provides an alternative means of vehicular access to/egress from the highway network for these companies, thereby avoiding possible delays at the junction with the A6195 Dearne Valley Parkway. The junction of Cortonwood Drive with the proposed estate road will be overlooked by one of the blocks of flats such that natural surveillance should improve security for businesses. Traffic calming measures are required along Cortonwood Drive as part of the future design of its junction with the estate road. These measures should reduce vehicular speeds and discourage extraneous traffic from using the link road.

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport (SYPTE) consider that although the level of public transport service in this particular location is not ideal, the development is providing a beneficial opportunity for linkages through to Cortonwood Drive and the Retail park beyond. The SYPTE would be prepared to divert the No. 60 service through the site and whilst SYPTE would ideally like to secure enhancements to the existing bus services, they feel that the link road should be prioritized due to the longer term benefits of this provision. In addition the provision of two bus stops along the spine road of the site will also be secured by way of a legal agreement.

In summary, I would confirm that the provision of an all vehicle link road is a fundamental requirement of the proposed development in terms of providing permeability and linkage between the existing and proposed residential areas and the retail/business park. The link will promote sustainability by enabling public transport penetration of the site and improve accessibility to shopping/employment opportunities for existing and future residents. In capacity terms the link will be capable of accommodating the additional vehicular traffic anticipated and traffic calming measures along Cortonwood Drive should deter its use by extraneous traffic.

With regard to the concerns expressed by Barnsley MBC regarding potential impact of traffic on users of the Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) the Transportation Unit has considered the issues raised. Whilst some traffic approaching/leaving the proposed residential development will travel along that part of Cortonwood where the TPT crosses the highway, the provision of an alternative access road between Cortonwood Drive and Knollbeck Lane is expected to cater for some retail/industrial traffic currently using Cortonwood. Accordingly it is not anticipated that the development will result in a material increase in traffic along Cortonwood where the TPT crosses the road.

Land Contamination

Due to the previous uses of the site as part of the Cortonwood Colliery Complex a contaminated land survey was undertaken and a Phase One report submitted with the application. Conditions can be imposed to ensure that further works are carried out and that the site is remediated to a standard which is suitable to enable residential development of the site.

Wildlife

As part of the planning application, the proposed development has been evaluated for its ecological and nature conservation importance. The initial surveys indicate that the habitats within the site are predominantly low conservation value. Specialist bird surveys have been undertaken and did not record any species or populations of species considered to be of high ecological value within the context of the wider area.

The findings of the ecological survey and assessment information provided in agreeable and the recommendations of the Environment Agency to undertake further investigations in relation to grassland habitats and watercourse conditions can be secured by condition.

It is considered that a strategy should also be submitted to identify how the biodiversity enhancements can be provided across the range of open space, also the need for a long term open space management plan will be secured by condition.

Conclusion

Although the loss of the land allocated for industrial and business usage in favour of residential redevelopment is contrary to policy, there are special circumstances which outweigh this. The proposal complies with other policies in the UDP and government planning guidance. The layout of the development is of a high quality and the type of housing is considered to be appropriate for this site. The development also provides improvements to open space/Greenspace provision in the locality and the provision of a Multi- Use Games Area.

In addition, improvements to public transport will be secured by the creation of a link to Cortonwood Drive and the provision of additional bus stops on the spine road of the development.

Item 2 Ref:RB2008/0136

Appeal Decision – Allowed Application no: RB2008/0136 CHANGE OF USE FROM SANDWICH SHOP (USE CLASS A1) TO HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY (USE CLASS A5) OPENING HOURS 7AM TO 9PM AT 94 MIDDLE LANE, CLIFTON.

Recommendation: That the decision to allow the appeal be noted

Background: An application for a change of use from sandwich shop to hot food takeaway at 94 Middle Lane, Clifton was refused planning permission by Planning Board on 6 May 08. The reason for refusal was as follows:

1. The footway fronting the site is of substandard width, 1.6 metres, and incapable of safely and conveniently catering for additional pedestrian activity, including queuing in the footway likely to be generated by the proposal such that vehicular and pedestrian conflict in Middle Lane would occur to the detriment of road safety. 2. The highways in the vicinity of the site are currently subject to significant on street parking demand and are considered to be incapable of safely catering for the additional parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use which would result in indiscriminate parking/manoeuvring conflicting with road users to the detriment of road safety. 3. The proposed use as a hot food takeaway would result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of nearby residents by way of increased noise, litter and odour nuisance, contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV3.7.

Notification that an appeal against this refusal had been made was received on 3 September 2008 and I have now been informed that the appeal has been allowed.

The Inspector considered that the main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on living conditions at surrounding residential properties and on highway safety.

The Inspector noted that the appeal premises are currently used as a retail shop selling mainly cold food although it also sells a small amount of hot food. The shop has unrestricted opening hours.

The nearest residential properties are 1 Clifton Grove and the flats above commercial premises on Middle Lane. It was considered that the main issue would be the traffic noise from traffic coming and going, however, the premises are in a busy commercial street and that they would close at 21.00 hours, the Inspector considered that the likely level of noise would not be unduly harmful.

However, the opening of the takeaway from 07.00 hours on Sundays would be unreasonable and the Inspector has included a condition to restrict opening on a Sunday from 10.00hours.

The residential properties to the rear of the appeal site on Cambridge Street and the flats above the commercial premises on Middle Lane could potentially be affected by the noise and odour from the flue. However, the Inspector noted that the appeal premises already have a flue installed because of the ancillary element of hot food sales. There are no objections from the occupiers of any of these properties and the existing sandwich shop could open unlimited hours, selling an element of hot food using the existing extract.

In relation to highway safety, the Inspector states that:

“I saw that bays of on-street parking exist along both sides of the street, including outside the appeal premises. Although these were busy when I visited the appeal site, spaces were available. While the footpath is narrow, I consider that it is unlikely that queuing out onto the pavement, causing an obstruction would occur on such a regular basis that it would render the proposal unacceptable. I am also mindful that this could happen now at busy times, such as lunchtimes, when the road and parking bays would also be busy. Therefore I find on this issue that the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety.”

In relation to the refused planning permission for a hot food takeaway at 120 Middle Lane, the Inspector considered the issue to be materially different since although it is not far from the appeal premises it is located in an area that is more residential in character.

Also, in relation to the concerns of the local school in relation to healthy eating, the Inspector stated that in the absence of other harm of a Local Plan Policy to deal with such matters it is not considered that this issue would be sufficient to dismiss the appeal.

In conclusion, the Inspector decided to allow the appeal subject to the safeguard of the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2. The premises shall not be open for customers or for deliveries outside the following hours: 0700 – 2100 Monday to Saturday 1000 – 2100 on Sundays and Public Holidays. 3. Prior to the implementation of the planning permission, details of a scheme for the extract and filtration of cooking odours from the premises shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be installed prior to the use hereby permitted being brought into use and operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions and maintained thereafter in perpetuity.

Item 3 Ref: RB2008/0478

Appeal Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Costs application in relation to appeal: The application fails and no award of costs is made

Appeal against refusal of planning permission for the erection of a three-storey building to form 24 no. apartments with associated cycle/bin stores, parking and landscaping at land rear of 120 – 130 Whitehill Road, Brinsworth

Recommendation:

That the decision to dismiss the appeal and the application for costs made by the appellant is noted

Planning Appeal Hearing

Background

An appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a three-storey building to form 24 no. apartments with associated cycle/bin stores, parking and landscaping at land rear of 120 – 130 Whitehill Road, Brinsworth was received by the Council on 3 July 2008 after the application in question was refused in line with Officers recommendation by the Council’s Planning Board on 5 June 2008.

The application was refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development, by virtue of its height, size and design would result in a building that would be overly dominant in this backland location to the detriment of the visual amenity and character of the streetscene and the wider area. In addition, the proposed three storey building in a locality comprising of two storey dwellinghouses would have an over dominant and detrimental impact on the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties on Whitehill Drive, by virtue of overlooking and loss of privacy to their private rear garden areas due to the close proximity of first and second floor habitable room windows of the apartments.

02 The Council further considers that the proposed development does not bear a good relationship to the locality by virtue of its density of 96 dwellings per hectare. In these respects it fails the tests of PPS3 ‘Housing’ which suggests that developments should integrate well and complement the surrounding area in terms of scale, density, layout and access.

The remainder of the report will summarise the Inspector’s report.

Inspector’s Main Issues

The Inspector considers the main issues to be the effect of the proposed development on: (A) the character and appearance of the area; and (B) the living conditions of the residents in the outer square of development on Whitehill Drive and Whitehill Road.

Reasons

The appeal site is an area previously used for domestic garaging, the garages have been removed but large areas of hardstanding remain. It has a derelict appearance, with some areas of scrub becoming established and evidence of anti-social behaviour on the site. The site is within a defined housing area where the adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan 1999 (UDP) identifies housing as the preferred land use. The site is owned by the Council and was marketed for sale as residential land. It is common ground between the main parties and all third parties that the site should be sensitively redeveloped.

The proposed development comprises a three-storey apartment block sited towards the western rear boundary of the site, and car parking, cycle stores, refuse and recycling facilities and landscaping towards the front. The buildings would have green (vegetated) roofs and the development would include features such as sustainable urban drainage, rainwater harvesting and high specification thermal performance walls. These features aim to reduce water and energy consumption at the apartments and run-off from the parking areas.

Character and Appearance

The surrounding area is predominantly traditional two-storey semi-detached housing with relatively long gardens. Semi-detached dwellings on Whitehill Drive and Whitehill Road abut all four sides of the site, which is accessed via a strip of land between Nos 124 and 146 Whitehill Road. The proposed apartment block would be three-storey; however it would be comparable in height to the surrounding housing.

Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing encourages the efficient use of land and states that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of form. The fact that density does not resemble that of the surrounding housing is not necessarily harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development would be of a far higher density than other housing in the area. However, the Inspector does consider that the density of the development would be so out of keeping with that of the surrounding housing as to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector also states that in PPS3 good design is fundamental to using land efficiently. The new building would be a single, large structure extending across almost the full width of the plot. An attempt has been made to break up what would otherwise be a solid frontage, by slightly staggering the apartments at each end and varying the roof height to take account of a slight fall in land level.

The Inspector considers that this would not be successful and the apartment block would appear as a single, large building. The scale of the proposed development would be very different to that of the surrounding dwellings, with the apartment building having a frontage length of approximately 42 metres. The bulk of the new building would be clearly visible from the surrounding housing.

The siting of the apartments to the rear of the site, with extensive parking at the front, would differ considerably from the established pattern of development which is characterised by relatively long rear gardens and regular gaps between pairs of houses. The large building would dominate the plot, and the communal amenity area to the rear of the apartment block would, at approximately 10 metres deep, be short when compared with the adjoining garden areas.

The Inspector therefore considers that the size, form and design of the proposed apartment block are inappropriate for this enclosed location and the proposal would not result in a building which adequately reflects or enhances the appearance of the locality. The Inspector cites Policy ENV3.1 of the UDP, which permits development where it makes a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to, amongst other things, relationship to the locality, scale, and to be in keeping with the character of the area in terms of scale, layout and intensity of use and have no adverse impact on the character of the area, whereas policy HG5 states that the Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment.

The Inspector states that the policies above reflect Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development which states that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.

The Inspector considers that the proposed development would not be compatible with its surroundings or enhance the appearance of the area. Its form and size would not respect that of nearby dwellings nor would it enhance the appearance of the locality, and the layout would not respect the characteristics of the surrounding area. The Inspector therefore concludes that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and as such would not accord with UDP Policies HG1, HG5 and ENV3.1.

Living Conditions of Nearby Residents

The Inspector states that the proposed development would comply with the adopted guidance in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Housing Guidance3: Residential Infill Plots . This SPG requires a minimum distance of 20 metres between principal residential elevations, there would be no windows in any elevation situated less than 10 metres from a boundary with another residential curtilage, and that the maximum height of the dwelling should relate to the height of adjacent dwellings. However, the Inspector concludes that this guidance relates mainly to smaller buildings than the apartment block proposed, and I consider it reasonable to apply longer separation distances where a building is three- storey or of greater mass, in order to comply with the aims of the SPG.

The Inspector states that they appreciate that the surrounding houses have relatively long gardens and this would ensure that there would be no unacceptable harm due to overlooking into habitable rooms, and that there are no windows proposed in the side elevations. However, the Inspector states that the proximity of the rear elevation of the apartment block to the shared boundary with the Whitehill Drive dwellings, and the number of windows proposed would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the private rear gardens of these adjacent houses. In addition the side of the apartment block would be approximately 2 metres from the boundary with Nos. 5 to 8, and 24 to 26 Whitehill Drive, and the long, unbroken rear elevation would be just over 10 metres from the shared boundary with Nos.13 to 20. The Inspector therefore considers that due to the overall bulk of the new development, the proposal would appear overbearing and have an undue visual impact and sense of enclosure when seen from the rear gardens of dwellings on Whitehill Drive.

This would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents, contrary to the requirement in UDP Policy HG1 that new development should have no adverse effect on residential amenity and policy HG4.8 which does not permit the creation of flats if they seriously interfere with the amenities of existing residents.

Other Matters

The Inspector accepts that the proposal would make use of previously developed land and would add to the mix of housing available in the area and appreciates that the proposal would be close to facilities such as shops, schools and public transport and would include a number of features enhancing the sustainability of the scheme. The development would provide low cost accommodation and the appellant proposes to provide four affordable housing units as part of the scheme. However, the Inspector does not consider that these factors outweigh the harm, identified above.

The appellant refers to an e-mail regarding pre-application discussions on a residential scheme for the site. From what was said at the hearing, the Inspector understands that these informal discussions related to a different scheme for 39 flats and, although 24 units are suggested, it is clear from the content of the e-mail that any proposal for 24 flats would have to be within a well designed and laid out scheme of appropriate scale.

Conclusion

The Inspector concludes that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. This would be contrary to UDP Policies HG1, HG4.8, HG5 and ENV3.1. The Inspector considered all other matters raised but do not consider that any outweigh the main issues and as such the appeal has been dismissed.

Costs Application

In addition to the appeal against the refusal of planning permission, the appellant during the Hearing applied for costs under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).

The Inspector’s Conclusion

The Inspector has considered this application for costs in light of Circular 8/93 and all the relevant circumstances. This advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused another party to incur or waste expense unnecessarily.

The Inspector states that the Council has exercised appropriate judgement and produced clear evidence, supported by UDP policies and guidance in PPS1 and PPS3, to support its decisions. Although, the Council did not make reference to the UDP policies in respect of the reasons for refusal in the Notice of Decision, it is clear that the policies were taken into consideration as they are cited in the committee report. The Inspector considers that the Council should have been more specific regarding the policy when composing the reasons for refusal, however the Inspector also consider that the Planning Authority had reasonable grounds for reaching their decision. The Council clearly identified the harm that would be caused by the proposed development.

In addition, in the written statement and in what was said at the hearing, the Council produced sufficient evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal. The Council was able to adequately demonstrate why the decision was made, and the Inspector does not consider that this should be regarded as unreasonable.

The Inspector therefore, concludes that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in Circular 8/93 has not been demonstrated and an award of costs is not justified.

Formal Decision

The Inspector has refused the application for an award of costs.

Item 4 Ref: RB2007/1730

Appeal Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Appeal against refusal of application to fell a sycamore tree protected by RMBC Tree Preservation Order No. 11. 1984 at 21 Lansdowne Crescent, Swinton

Recommendation:-

That the decision to dismiss the appeal is noted

Background

An appeal against refusal of application to fell a sycamore tree protected by RMBC Tree Preservation Order No. 11 1984 was received by the Council after the initial application was refused under delegated powers on 6 December 2007.

The application was refused for the following reason:-

01 The Council considers that no firm evidence has been produced to show that either falling branches from the Sycamore tree are a safety concern for the applicant’s family or that it has become a tree too large for its setting and in the absence of such evidence the felling of the protected tree is not considered to be justified. The loss of the tree would result in material detriment to the visual amenity of the area and would thereby be in conflict with Policies ENV3.3 ‘Tree Preservation Orders’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees and Woodlands’ of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Site and tree description

Lansdowne Crescent is part of a large residential area in Swinton and the street itself is on a hillside. A number of young mature and semi-mature trees are randomly placed on both sides of the road within narrow verges.

No. 21 Lansdowne Crescent is one of two medium sized bungalows built later than surrounding properties, on land between nos. 19 and 29. The front garden is an open plan lawn with a cypress hedge separating it from no. 23 for half its length. Access to the front of the house is via a shared driveway that runs along the northern boundary. The southern boundary is a hawthorn hedge, and the eastern boundary with Lansdowne Crescent is a 50cm high box hedge and there are other trees around the site.

The tree which was the subject of the appeal is a mature sycamore with an approximate height of 17 metres and trunk diameter of 73cm. It has a wide crown with a fairly even branch distribution, with a radial spread approximately 6 metres north and south, 7 metres east and 5 metres west. It has a straight upright trunk clear of any branches up to approximately 5 metres. The tress is designated T1 in the Tree Preservation Order.

Inspector’s Appraisal

An Inspecting Officer visited the site on 11 August 2008 to assess the tree and prepare a report for the Secretary of State.

The Inspecting Officer stated that the appeal tree is prominent by virtue of its height and size in comparison with other younger trees in the vicinity. It can be seen distinctly above the street tree canopy from various aspects in Lansdowne Road and beyond. It is therefore a distinctive amenity feature, which would be noticeably missed if it were removed. It is also part of an association with the street that pre-dates more recent planting, and even though there are now other trees in the vicinity, it is part of the former landscape. In time, the other trees may become more dominant, but in the short to medium term, the appeal tree is the principal landscape amenity feature.

The Inspector further states that there are no significant visible defects in the appeal tree and indicates that large trees are a very common feature of public and private places in towns and villages across the country, and minor hazards such as falling branches are accepted in general as such an incident are extremely low.

The appellant commented that the size of the tree is too large for the setting, the Inspector has stated that they are unclear as to why the appellant has said the above, as the Inspector has stated that there is no reason why trees in the streetscene should all be the same size, in fact the diverse canopy height and age only adds to the variety that enhances the attractiveness of the scene. The group of trees in Lansdowne Crescent including the appeal is not overcrowded and they blend together without causing suppression or undue competition.

The appellant stated that the tree is ‘very old’ and deteriorating. The Inspector states that the age of the appeal tree is an estimated 100 years, this is not abnormal, many sycamore trees in public places are much larger and older than this, and are in good health with prospects for many years future life expectancy.

Inspector’s Conclusions

The appeal tree is a prominent feature in the locality, so its removal from the landscape would be very noticeable, and therefore detrimental to the general quality of life in the community.

There are no particular defects in the appeal tree that would constitute a hazard. Risks associated with minor deposits of twigs and small branches are very low, and can be minimised by corrective surgery, so would not justify felling a high amenity tree.

The perception of the tree being menacing or threatening is subjective, and would not justify felling.

The appeal tree contributes to the variety of the general canopy, and in my opinion is not large for its setting.

There are many trees of similar age to the appeal tree in residential areas such as Lansdowne Road, and neither has its age resulted in a deterioration of condition, so felling would not be justified.

Maintenance of the tree would entail some cost, but this should not be excessive, and is part of routine household and garden maintenance.

Removal of the appeal tree would not estimate tree pollen from the vicinity of no. 21 Lansdowne Road, and there are measures that can be taken to minimise pollen contact, so felling the tree would be unreasonable on these grounds.

Secretary of State’s Decision

The Council have now been informed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that the subsequent appeal against the refusal of permission to fell the sycamore tree identified as T1 in the first schedule to the Order has been dismissed.

The Secretary of State has accepted the Inspecting Officer’s view that the appeal tree is a distinctive amenity feature and would be noticeably missed if it were removed. Furthermore, the tree has no visible defects and the risks associated with the possible shedding of branches are extremely low.

The Secretary of State has also accepted the Inspecting Officer’s view that the tree is not deteriorating and that necessary maintenance would not involve inordinate cost, while the removal of the tree would not eliminate tree pollen from the locality and other measures could be taken to minimise pollen contact.

For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State dismissed the appeal.

Item 5

Proposed Tree Preservation Order No 5 2008 – 4 Lime trees at 54 Broom Lane .

RECOMMENDATION:

That Members confirm the serving of Tree Preservation Order No. 5 (2008) with regard to the Lime Trees the subject of this report, situated on land within the curtilage of 54 Broom Lane, Rotherham under Section 198 and 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Background

Planning permission has recently been refused for an “extension to existing detached garage including new roof “at 58 Broom Lane Ref RB2008/710 for the following reason:

“The Council considers that the proposed extension by virtue of its position in relation to the existing trees, would lead to serious damage and possible removal of trees which meet the criteria for inclusion within a new Tree Preservation Order. The trees provide valuable and important amenity to the area and are significantly visible from Broom Lane which is a classified road. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ENV3.3 “Tree Preservation Order” and ENV3.4 “Trees and Hedgerows” “. The Councils arboriculturist has inspected the trees and has advised that they are suitable for inclusion in a new Tree Preservation Order.

The trees are considered to be a risk from further proposals to enlarge the garage at 58 Broom Lane, although no application has been received, however the executor acting for the previous owner of No 54 Broom Lane has advised in objecting to the proposed TPO that he is considering a planning application in respect of a dwelling on this site to maximise the return on this property . Objections An objection to the making of this order has been received from Mr David Milnes, the executor acting on behalf of the previous owner of No 54. The reasons for his objection can be summarised as follows; Procedural • The Council have used the planning application at the adjoining property as an excuse to make the TPO, the objector quotes, (wrongly) legislation from the Guide to Law and Good Practice. The legislation he quotes refers to County Council’s • Planning permission having not been granted for the enlargement of the garage, the “risk “ to the trees has been removed • The proposed TPO includes two trees not affected by the planning application and therefore against good practice. • The proposed TPO has been used to control development in that it has precluded any discussions with regard to a planning application on the site of No 54 and this is contrary to good practice. Evaluation of amenity – • Two of the trees included T1 and T2 cannot all be viewed from the public highway and therefore do not provide a significant amenity to the area, and should not be included in the TPO Objectors Conclusion: • A development that would be of significant amenity in the area, the objector here is referring to proposals for development within the curtilage of No 54, is being stifled because of the erroneously imposed TPO. There is no intention to remove two of the trees and landscaping would be undertaken if required. I would like the TPO to be revoked or varied to exclude T1 and T2 so I can enter into discussions with the Development Control team. Councils Response The Trees and Woodland Section have considered the objections raised and the Arboroculturist’s has responded as follows; The main parts of the objection from the resident appear to be as follows. • Procedural • Affect on possible future development • Limited amenity Procedural Mr Milnes believes the Order has not been made in accordance with the advice of the former DETR publication, Tree Preservation Orders A Guide to the Law and Good Practice, and in particular that, “a TPO can only be made in connection with the grant of planning permission”. The paragraph he cites in the guidance (1.4. (1)) refers to County Council powers (i.e. a county council can may make a TPO but only in connection the grant of planning permission etc). A Local Planning Authority (i.e. a district, borough or unitary council) can make a TPO “if it appears to them to be expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area” This is in accordance with clause 3.1 of the Guide to Law and Good Practice.

The future prospects of T1 and T2 at 54 Broom Lane appeared to be at serious risk by a proposal to extend an existing detached garage to a double garage at 58 Broom Lane, planning Ref RB2008/0710. As a result they were evaluated for possible inclusion with a new Tree Preservation Order. At the same time T3 and T4, also Lime trees at the property were recommended for inclusion within a new Order because they were considered to meet all the criteria for protection. Protecting all the better amenity trees at a property within an Order at the same time helps to avoid having more than one Order at a property and any misunderstandings that may otherwise occur in the future. This is in accordance with government advice and best practice. Therefore, I am content that the Order has been made in accordance with the government advice on good practice and procedures.

Affect on possible future development Mr Milnes is concerned that protecting the trees, and particularly T1 and T2 will prevent a new dwelling being constructed at the property adjacent to the existing dwelling. The Tree Preservation Order will not prevent any future planning applications at the property being submitted for consideration. However, any trees that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order are a material consideration. If the Order is confirmed any future planning application for new dwellings within a minimum of 8 metres of the main stems of the trees will not be supported by the Trees and Woodlands Unit. This is due to the adverse impact it will have on the future prospects of the protected trees and to avoid severe problems of branch encroachment, shading, depositions of seasonal debris and “honeydew”. Therefore, Members of the Planning Board will no doubt wish to take this into account when considering whether to confirm or modify the Order or not.

Limited amenity Mr Milnes indicates that he has not received a copy of my report and evaluation of trees and, as a result, it is difficult for him to make specific comment. However, he does not agree that T1 and T2 are significantly visible because they can only be viewed from a 50 metre stretch of Broom Lane and 3 additional properties. Collectively the 4 trees were tested in accordance with the guidance and advice of the TEMPO system, Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders, which is a widely used and nationally accepted system. All the trees are clearly visible from Broom Lane, albeit mainly from a limited stretch of the highway. For this reason they clearly meet this part of the criteria for inclusion within a new Order. Also there are no highway verges or trees on the south side of Broom Lane in front of the property concerned. Therefore privately owned trees are important for the amenity they provide locally. For these reasons it is considered that T1 to T4 provide valuable and important amenity to the area and their retention is desirable whilst their condition allows.

Conclusion I am content that the objections to the Order have been carefully considered and the Order has been made in accordance with Government guidelines. In this instance there appears to be no reason not to confirm the Order as it stands. Therefore, it is recommended that the Order is confirmed without modification.

Item 6 Rotherham Town Centre – Draft Public Realm Strategy

Summary

th On 24 November 2008 the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development approved:

1) That the draft public realm strategy be amended to incorporate the ‘Recommended Changes’ stated in the schedule Appendix A. 2) the statutory public consultation required as part of the Sustainability Appraisal process

This report is for information only.

Recommendation:

That Members note:

I. The above decision of the Cabinet Member.

II. The contents of the attached report.

Proposals and Details

Urban designers, Gillespies have been working on the th preparation rd of the Public Realm Strategy (PRS) since March 2007. From 11 April to 23 May 2008, the draft document was the subject of a formal six week public consultation period. Over 200 comments were received, and these have been addressed in the Consultation Report attached as Appendix A, with ‘Recommended Changes’ produced by the Council and Gillespies.

Initially, it was the intention to adopt the document as an Interim Planning Statement (IPS), which would be taken into consideration when determining planning applications. However, following comments from the Government Office during the consultation stage about the limited planning weight of IPSs, it is now intended to adopt the Public Realm Strategy as a Supplementary Planning Document. The SPD would be linked to saved UDP policy (ENV3.1) and appropriate policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy.

To achieve this, the Strategy needs to be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA). This is of sufficient complexity to warrant the appointment of external expertise. The Council has undertaken a tendering exercise, which has resulted in the selection of WSP Environmental Ltd to prepare SAs on all Local Development Framework documents. Prior to the SA being carried out, it is proposed (subject to Recommendation 6.1), that the ‘Recommended Changes’ be incorporated into the Draft Strategy. The Sustainability Appraisal process will take about six months as it involves two rounds of public consultation.

It is anticipated that the final document will be available for adoption during mid-2009.

Finance

Funding of £46,000 was approved from the Council’s RERF budget and £55,000 has been secured from Yorkshire Forward, which covers the fee of £80,000 for the engagement of Gillespies to produce the Strategy. The remaining allocation has supported the main costs incurred by the consultation process, consultation materials, and newspaper notices.

A funding application for £21,800 has been submitted to Yorkshire Forward to cover the costs associated with carrying out the Sustainability Appraisal.

Risks and Uncertainties

A failure to incorporate the ‘Recommended Changes’ and undertake a sustainability appraisal on the Public Realm Strategy will result in a policy document with limited planning weight.

Policy and Performance Agenda Implications

The Public Realm Strategy will provide a flexible briefing and negotiation tool for Development Control and Highways Officers for securing developer contributions, in particular Section 106 Agreements.

Background Papers and Consultation

The Consultation Report is attached as Appendix A.

A copy of the Draft Public Realm Strategy is available to view in the Members’ Room.

The draft Public Realm Strategyth was the subjectrd of a formal six week public consultation period from 11 April to 23 May 2008. In addition internal consultation was undertaken with other Council Directorates, and also with:

• Council Members Seminar • Local Strategic Partnership Board • Town Team Planning Group • Youth Cabinet • Rotherham South Area Assembly • Rotherham North Area Assembly • Rother Valley West Area Assembly • Wentworth South Area Assembly • Chamber of Commerce – Business Forum • Rotherham Access Audit Group

Contact Name: Charles Hammersley, Project Officer, RIDO, Ext.3802, [email protected]