Public Document Pack
High Peak Borough Council
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE AGENDA You can view the agenda online by using a smart phone camera and scanning the code Date: Tuesday, 14 July 2020 below: Time: 1.30 pm
Venue: Virtual Meeting
6 July 2020
PART 1 1. Apologies for Absence
2. To receive Disclosures of Interest on any matters before the Committee 1. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests 2. Other Interests
3. Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 3 - 6)
4. Update Sheet
5. Planning Applications (Pages 7 - 8)
6. HPK/2019/0020 - Land North of Saint Mary’s Catholic School, Cliffe Road, Glossop - Erection of 38 unit housing scheme and all associated car parking, landscaping and highway works (Pages 9 - 88)
7. HPK/2020/0140 - Proposed Campsite, Cemetery Road, Glossop - variation of condition 2 in relation to HPK/2019/0436 (Pages 89 - 102)
8. HPK/2020/0171 - Market Hall, Market Place, Glossop - refurbishment of the existing pitched roof coverings (Pages 103 - 116)
MARK TRILLO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND MONITORING OFFICER
Membership of Development Control Committee Councillor R McKeown (Chair) Councillor D Lomax (Vice-Chair) Councillor A Barrow Councillor L Dowson Councillor C Farrell Councillor I Huddlestone Councillor G Oakley Councillor J Perkins Councillor P Roberts Councillor E Thrane Councillor J Todd Councillor S Young This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 High Peak Borough Council
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Meeting: Monday, 29 June 2020 at 1.30 pm (Virtual Meeting)
Present: Councillor R McKeown (Chair)
Councillors A Barrow, L Dowson, C Farrell, I Huddlestone, D Lomax, J Perkins, P Roberts, E Thrane and S Young
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G Oakley and J Todd
20/83 TO RECEIVE DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ON ANY MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE (Agenda Item 2)
Councillor Barrow declared an ‘other’ interest in agenda item 6, “HPK/2020/0102 High Peak Golf Course, Waterswallows Road, Fairfield, Buxton” (reason: HPBC Executive Councillor) and withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting on the application
Councillor Barrow declared an ‘other’ interest in agenda items 8, “HPK/2018/0584 The Crescent, Buxton” and 9, “HPK/2019/0004 The Crescent, Buxton” (reason: HPBC Executive Councillor)
20/84 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3)
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2020 be approved as a correct record.
20/85 UPDATE SHEET (Agenda Item 4)
RESOLVED:
That the update sheet be noted.
20/86 PLANNING APPLICATIONS (Agenda Item 5)
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted.
(Councillor Barrow, having declared an ‘other’ interest, withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting on the application)
Page 3 Development Control Committee Monday, 29 June 2020 20/87 HPK/2020/0102 HIGH PEAK GOLF COURSE, WATERSWALLOWS ROAD, FAIRFIELD, BUXTON, DERBYSHIRE - LOCAL CHANGES TO THE EXISTING GOLF COURSE (Agenda Item 6)
Local changes to the existing golf course, including construction of 2 new golf greens (to replace 2 existing greens) and 5 new golf tees. Creation of golf features (small grass mounds / hollows). Local landscape planting, Minor drainage works and creation of ditch.
Applicant: High Peak Borough Council
Members viewed the plans, photographs and a video of the site..
The Committee were addressed by Jim Lowe in objection to the application and Jon White in support of the application.
The Planning Officer reported comments received from the Arboricultural Officer who recommended an additional condition around the landscaping proposals and its implementation.
RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be granted as set out in the report, subject to: (i) an additional condition around the landscaping proposals
2. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.
(Councillor Barrow returned to the meeting)
20/88 HPK/2019/0521 - 18A BURLOW ROAD, HARPUR HILL, BUXTON - RETENTION OF SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION (Agenda Item 7)
Retention of single storey extension
Applicant: Mr Steve Smith, Harpurs Plaice
Members viewed the plans and photographs of the site.
RESOLVED:
1. That the application be approved as set out in the report;
2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the committee’s decisionPage (such as4 to delete, vary or add conditions / Development Control Committee Monday, 29 June 2020 informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.
20/89 HPK/2018/0584 THE CRESCENT, BUXTON, SK17 6AY - LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR AMENDMENT TO HPK/2011/0323 AND HPK/2014/0351 FOR EXTENSION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CRESCENT AND PART OF THE OLD HALL INTO A SPA HOTEL (Agenda Item 8)
Listed Building Consent for amendment to HPK/2011/0323 and HPK/2014/0351 for extension and re-development of the Crescent and part of the Old Hall into a spa hotel
Applicant: Buxton Crescent Hotel and Thermal Spa Company Ltd
Members viewed the plans and photographs of the site.
RESOLVED:
1. That the application be approved as set out in the report, subject to prior referral to the National Planning Casework Unit;
2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.
20/90 HPK/2019/0004 - THE CRESCENT, BUXTON SK17 6AY - REMOVAL / VARIATION OF CONDITIONS RELATING TO HPK/2011/0322 AND HPK/2014/0352 (Agenda Item 9)
Removal / variation of conditions relating to HPK/2011/0322 and HPK/2014/0352
Applicant: Buxton Crescent Hotel and Thermal Spa Company Limited
Members viewed the plans and photographs of the site.
The Head of Development Services advised that following a concern from the Environment Agency, the wording of the condition around contamination should be revised and there should be an additional requirement to submit a verification report within 3 months from the date of consent.
RESOLVED:
1. That the application bePage approved 5 as set out in the report, subject to: Development Control Committee Monday, 29 June 2020 (i) the revised wording of the contamination condition, and an additional requirement that within 3 months of the date of this consent 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 LPA. The report shall include 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 and plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollution linkages, maintaining and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the LPA. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.
2. That in the event of changes being needed to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.
The meeting concluded at 2.35 pm
CHAIR
Page 6 Agenda Item 5
HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL
Report to Development Control Committee
14 July 2020
TITLE: PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION BY COMMITTEE
EXECUTIVE COUNCILLOR: Councillor Anthony McKeown
CONTACT OFFICER: Ben Haywood – Head of Development Services
WARDS INVOLVED: All
Appendices Attached - None
1. Reason for the Report: To outline the Committee’s determination of planning applications
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the report be noted.
3. Executive Summary
3.1 Unless the Committee decide to waive their delegated power in respect of any application, the Committee’s determination of any application will operate as a final decision, unless:-
a. it is a major departure from Council Policy;
b. There are resource implications for the Borough Council which need to be considered by the Executive
3.2 The environmental, legal, financial and equal opportunities raised by each application are dealt with within each report. There are no known Community Safety issues unless specified in the report.
Web Links and Location Contact details Background Papers Background papers for all planning Town Hall, Buxton applications
Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Date 14th July 2020
Application HPK/2019/0020 No: Location Land North of Saint Mary’s Catholic School, Cliffe Road, Glossop Proposal Erection of 38 unit housing scheme made up of 10no. 2 bed houses, 22no. 3 bed houses, 5no. 4 bed houses (37 in total) for shared ownership and 1no 3 bed bungalow (open market) and all associated car parking, landscaping and highway works Applicant Bowsall Developments Ltd/ Great Places Housing Group Agent Jennings Design Associates Parish/ward Whitfield Date registered 16.01.2019 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw, Tel. 01538 395400 extension 4921, [email protected]
REFERRAL
The application is referred to committee as it is a major development and is locally contentious.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
REFUSAL
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The site forms a rectangular parcel of grazing land extending to approx.. 1.81ha, which is situated on the ridge of a hillside to the west of Cliffe Road and adjacent to St Marys Catholic Primary School. To the south of the site are the school playing fields with allotment gardens beyond. Adjacent land to the north falls away steeply towards Glossop Brook.
2.2 There are no built features on the site aside from dry stone walls and the remains of a building adjacent to the former reservoir to the south.
2.3 The site is located within the built up area boundary of Glossop, is partly within the ‘Settled Valley Pastures’ landscape character area, as defined in the Local Plan.
Page 9 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 The application, as revised, seeks approval for the erection of 38 dwellings comprising 10no. 2 bed houses, 22no. 3 bed houses, 5no. 4 bed houses (37 in total) for shared ownership and 1no 3 bed bungalow (open market) and all associated car parking, landscaping and highway works. As originally submitted, the application sought approval for 44 dwellings, but this number has been reduced by 6 to take into account consultation responses received during the course of the application.
3.2 The site layout would comprise a linear form of development. As revised the layout plan shows that the majority of the dwellings would be situated to the south of the site with the new access road to the north of the site thereby allowing dwellings to be set back to the south and, in the majority of cases, to be provided with south facing gardens. A planted woodland buffer is proposed along the northern boundary of the site.
3.3 The design of the properties has also been revised to provide a more vernacular form of development in terms of form, architectural detailing, materials and fenestration. With the exception of the bungalow, all properties would be two storeys in height with pitched roofs.
3.4 Due to the sloping nature of the site, the properties will step down the site and the Cut and Fill Analysis submitted with the application shows that a certain amount of cut and fill will be required.
3.5 A single vehicular and pedestrian access to the development is to be taken from Cliffe Road with a cul-de-sac arrangement with turning heads and private drives.
3.6 In addition to the suite of drawings and visuals, the application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:
. Design and Access Statement . Planning / Heritage Statement . Affordable Housing Statement . Landscape & Visual Impact Briefing Notes . Landscape Strategy Plan (and management plan) . Landscape Structure Plan . Cut and Fill Analysis . Transport Statement . Addendum Transport Note . Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey . Biodiversity Net Gain Calculation . Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Method Statement . Drainage Strategy . Flood Risk Assessment . Viability Report . Archaeological Desk Based Assessment . Phase 1 and Phase 2 Geo-Environmental Site Assessments
Page 10 3.7 The application and details attached to it - including the plans, supporting documents, representations and responses from consultees - can be found on the Council’s website at:- http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2301 12
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 None.
5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016
S1 Sustainable Development Principles S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S2 Settlement Hierarchy S3 Strategic Housing Development S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy EQ1 Climate Change EQ2 Landscape Character EQ5 Biodiversity EQ6 Design and Place Making EQ7 Built and Historic Environment EQ8 Green Infrastructure EQ9 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ11 Flood Risk Management H1 Location of Housing Development H2 Housing Allocations H3 New Housing Development H4 Affordable Housing CF3 Local Infrastructure Provision CF4 Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities CF6 Accessibility and Transport CF7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy
High Peak Design Guide 2018
Supplementary Planning Documents
Residential Design Landscape Character Housing Needs Survey Planning Obligations
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11 The presumption in favour of sustainable development
Page 11 Section 5 Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 6 Building a strong and competitive economy Section 8 Promoting healthy communities Section 9 Promoting sustainable transport Section 12 Achieving well-designed places Section 14 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
National Design Guide 2019
National Planning Practice Guidance
6. CONSULTATIONS
Site notice Expiry date for comments: 21/02/2019 Press notice Expiry date for comments: 14/02/2019 Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 20/02/2019
Neighbours
6.1 165 no. letters/emails of objection have been received, in which the issues raised may be summarised as follows:
Principle of housing The fields were considered for housing when the local plan was being outlined and after objections were not included. Development is not in the local plan. The housing needs of Glossop were agreed and the plan runs until 2031. The Borough has exceeded the number of houses needed and the targets are being met. Loss of Green Belt. Should we really be building on green belt land when we have so much undeveloped brown land? Appreciate need for housing, but isn’t there another part of Glossop where the development could take place? Why the sudden need for more housing before recent housing development have been sold? Unsuitable location for housing. Rapid development of housing in Glossop is removing its desirable qualities. Glossop does not need more housing.
Visual Impact The view from Glossop Town Centre towards this site is pleasing. Loss of another green space / urban sprawl. Adverse landscape impact. The fields where the development is planned can be seen from many areas in
Page 12 the town. The proposal would spoil views and this local amenity would be gone forever. This green space also acts as a natural separation between neighbourhoods and building more houses would just clutter the hillside. The green space alongside Cliffe Road provides a natural separation between the Whitfield and Glossop areas. Continuing to build and extend in this area degrades the boundary and the integrity of the separate settlements. No amount of screening will hide the light pollution its houses and street lighting will be generating at night and on dull days, nor the smoke from the chimneys at winter time.
Traffic issues Glossop is already gridlocked with traffic; development will add to the delays and congestion. Access is via narrow streets and a highly populated area. Access to this site will be terrible with lack of visibility. Cliffe road is a dangerous route and will be more so for pedestrians with increased traffic using it. Access is past a primary school that has problems with vehicles; alternative routes take you via a steep single track road. All routes to this site are unsuitable and impassable in snow or icy conditions. Cliffe Road is already a rat run. Cliffe Road will be a more attractive and direct route to Glossop Town Centre for future residents of the development. Access via Gladstone Street will pose problems as there is a 90 degree turn into Gladstone Street from Victoria Street. Alternative route, via Highfield Road and Gladstone Street would result in extra traffic using the junction of Gladstone Street and Victoria Street, which is not an easy junction. The congestion this will cause on Cliffe Road down to Cross Cliffe will force unnecessary traffic down on to Gladstone street past the school which could endanger the wellbeing of the children that play and walk to school that way. The development would introduce more traffic on narrow roads often very badly surfaced which struggle with the current car usage. Parking will become more of a problem. Lack of footpath provision / a new footpath link should be provided. No feasible access for construction traffic/ potential for accidents will go up. There are more accidents on this road than is indicated in the application transport documents. Question the number of car journeys estimated by the transport report. Although the distances quoted look manageable for walking or cycling, the route goes via a steep hill which requires a good level of fitness to navigate, especially if carrying shopping or pushing a pram. Highway strategy and transport statement are incomplete. The Traffic Plan does not adequately address the effects of additional vehicles on the light controlled junctions and roundabouts along the A57 from the Town Centre to Dinting Vale and Woolley Bridge. Extra traffic will generate mud and dirt and cause damage to the road which already requires work to pot holes.
Page 13 Design/Layout/Heritage Ratio of plots to open space is too great. Poorly designed and fake stone cladded houses will diminish the character of the area. Development needs to be fit better with the two adjacent conservation areas, including use of materials. The need is for bungalows for the ageing population we have, not more family houses. Harm to heritage assets – conservation areas. No open space is provided in the site. Land stability report is needed. Car parking dominates the front of the houses. The suggestion of making a track (rear of Bank Street) into a pedestrian link is not on. The bungalow appears to have no chimneys whereas the houses do. Are these necessary in the current thinking on domestic heating, or are they fakes to give an authentic cottage profile? False chimney stacks are not needed and the money would be better spent on car electric charging points and optimum insulation for every house.
Affordable Housing The affordable housing will not be available to all as anyone with an income up to £80K, who does not own their own home, will be able to apply. The houses, like all the other developments in Glossop do not cater for the young local population. Glossop needs affordable housing for local people not another "executive" housing development. Most of the houses should be part-ownership and/or social housing. Also, just because more affordable housing in itself may be desirable, this does not justify building those houses on a greenfield site.
Ecology Loss of wildlife, various birds and bats and their habitats. Consequently future children will not learn through experience about the natural world.
Infrastructure The infrastructure in Glossop and Hadfield does not support massive building projects that are underway. People can’t get the school places they need and GP and dental services are overloaded. Inadequate public transport to serve needs of the development / leading to more car journeys. Interested to know how you are planning to support the ageing water/electric/sewage and gas network when you are putting yet more stress on it. Local employment opportunities are limited. Glossop is now bursting at the seams and it looks like the housing
Page 14 developments are becoming all about money / developer profit.
Amenity / Environmental issues Damage to walls and properties from vehicles. Increased noise and pollution, including air pollution. Adverse impact on health. Huge disruption during construction period. New fence will block light into classroom. Health of school children will be affected by exhaust fumes and pollution. Flooding continues to be a concern in Glossop, we need green land. Not only for water absorption, but to support local wildlife. Flood risk attenuation details submitted are incomplete and inadequate. Loss of outlook for local residents. The development will blight neighbouring properties, making it more difficult to sell them.
Other Safeguarding is a key concern given proximity of the development to the school. The construction team will not be DSB’d. Loss of privacy to the school. School children being taught on the school field would be impossible if houses were allowed on the site next to the school. Children have visual access to an area of visually appealing landscape which will be lost. Lack of consultation with nearby residents. Archaeological considerations. The DCC Archaeologist has over-egged his justification for further archaeological investigation. Areas next to the proposed development will be seriously and potential permanently harmed such as the statuary protected community allotments.
6.2 St Mary’s Catholic Voluntary Academy and Trust are also opposed to the application due to the proximity of the development and negative impact on the safeguarding of students. Removal of hedgerow and trees with small trees which take a long time to be established and provide screening between school and the housing.
6.3 Cllrs George and Jean Wharmby have raised concerns in relation to the access on to Cliffe Road, which they state is a single width road with pinch points exceptionally close to private houses. 30+ houses using the route down hill will have a devastating impact on these properties, particularly construction vehicles which will struggle with access even if they access from the Hague street area as they will have to negotiate residential estates. It is requested that this application be refused.
Consultees
Consultee Comment Officer response DCC Highways Original comments 22.02.2019 Paras
Page 15 7.63-76 The submitted details propose a development of 44no. residential units all served via a new access road from Cliffe Road. At the request of the applicant, a meeting was held with the Highway Authority at these offices on 15th February 2019 at which a revised proposed layout was tabled. A number of issues were discussed and further revisions are to be made with a view to satisfactorily resolving these. As such, it is recommended that this application is held in abeyance until such time that the updated details, on which the Highway Authority can provide observations and recommendations, have been received. If you are minded to determine this application on the details as submitted, the Highway Authority would be grateful to receive further opportunity to provide recommendations.
Follow up comments 24.05.2019
I refer to the revised details for the above application that have been forwarded to this Authority for highway comments together with earlier correspondence concerning development of this site.
As stated previously, the submitted details propose a development of 44no. residential units all served via a new access road from Cliffe Road.
The revised details have been prepared with a view to allaying Highway Authority concerns raised at an earlier meeting with the applicant’s transport consultants and include an Addendum Transport Note dated April 2019.
The Note identifies the perceived access routes to/ from the site for both vehicles and pedestrians together with predicted trip generations and impacts on the existing highway network.
It’s predicted that around 90% of traffic will be likely to travel to/from the A57 west of Glossop town centre with two routes to Norfolk Square identified i.e. via Cliffe
Page 16 Road/A57 to the north of the site and via Cliffe Road/ Highfield Road/ Gladstone Street/ A624 to the south. The former is shorter but involves use of a geometrically limited length of Cliffe Road with the main constraint of the latter route being caused by on-street parking on the existing estate roads. The Transport Note predicts that 60% of traffic will use the shorter route generating 12no. and 10no. two way trips in the am and pm peak hours respectively on the length of Cliffe Road north of the proposed junction to serve the site i.e. one vehicle every 5 – 6 minutes. A survey of existing traffic flows recorded average weekly am and pm peak hour two-way trips of 18no. and 27no. trips respectively on the same section of road i.e. one vehicle every 2 – 3 minutes.
As you will be aware, development of the former Woods Mill site off of Milltown/ Mill Street is partially completed and it’s predicted that this may result in additional trips being made via Cliffe Road. This being the case, funding has been secured under a Section 106 Agreement towards investigation into, and any subsequent implementation of, traffic management measures should these prove to be necessary. The developer of the site, the subject of this application, has been advised of this situation and has accepted that securing additional funds in a similar manner would be considered appropriate.
The Highway Authority has raised concern with respect to off-site pedestrian links. The Transport Note identifies two separate routes of similar distance linking the proposed new road junction with the town centre, one to the south via existing estate streets afforded with footways and the other northwards via Cliffe Road and the A57. The latter route has sections devoid of segregated pedestrian facilities and will involve use of the geometrically limited length of Cliffe Road and, as a town centre route, would be likely to be less attractive. However, it’s recognised that the proposed supermarket development on the former Woods Mill site (where a segregated pedestrian/ cycle link between Milltown and the town centre is also to be provided),
Page 17 together with the existing medical centre and school, will be most likely to result in additional pedestrian activity via Cliffe Road.
The Highway Authority has noted the extent of controlled land beyond the application site and recommended that creation of additional pedestrian links be thoroughly explored in order to reduce reliance on/ attraction of Cliffe Road. The level differences between The Bank and proposed development site have been noted and use of a more sinuous (rather than direct) route, possibly with step sections, suggested. However, the Transport Note states that ‘at this stage’ no alternative pedestrian route has been identified and indicates that the aforementioned Section 106 funding may be used to enhance pedestrian safety on Cliffe Road.
It’s not clear whether further investigation is being considered although there do appear to be further opportunities to explore. The proposed Drainage Strategy Plan demonstrate sewer connections being made along a track/ corridor within the applicants control between the site and Gladstone Street. Provision of a pedestrian (and cycle if possible) link via a route along this line would be likely to prove attractive when taking into consideration the reduced distance to the town centre and opportunity to make use of The Bank towards Milltown as well as the advantage of being able to enter/ exit the site at its point of lowest level rather than the new junction, its highest. In addition, it’s noted that land adjacent to Cross Cliffe is within control at a point where the highway is at its narrowest and devoid of any margins. It would appear that the boundary wall in this location supports land to the south of the highway, however, setting this wall back and providing a section of footway of 2.0m width across this entire frontage (roughly 50m) would be considered to be of benefit to pedestrian safety especially if alternative routes can’t be justifiably delivered.
The proposed new junction geometry is considered
Page 18 acceptable although the re-aligned wall to the north should be set back a minimum of 2.0m from the carriageway channel for the entire length of the exit visibility sightline. Ideally, the 2.0m grassed margin should extend around the bend in road alignment for the full extent of the site frontage thereby providing a level area that pedestrians may use as a refuge should it prove necessary.
A Highway Strategy Plan has been submitted on which the proposed internal road layout has been demonstrated. In order to meet Highway Authority recommendations, the following issues will need to be satisfactorily addressed:-
There should be a 2.0m width footway across the frontages of Plots 13 – 16.
The turning facility in the vicinity of Plots 35 – 36 (i.e. the furthest extent of proposed adopted highway) should be demonstrated as being of adequate dimension to enable a Large Refuse Vehicle to turn entirely within the proposed highway with 500mm clearance to wheel track to allow for driver error in approach. The existing swept paths involve use of land beyond the proposed highway.
Proposed private driveways/ parking spaces should be located at, or close to, 90° to the carriageway channel e.g. Plots 12, 16, 20, etc.
Suitability of the route between the proposed highway and field beyond the ‘farmers access gate’ for use by agricultural vehicles should be demonstrated by appropriate swept path analysis.
The reduction in footway/ margin width adjacent to Plot 12 should be tapered rather than stepped.
Adequate areas for standing of waste bins on refuse collection days should be demonstrated adjacent to, but clear of, the proposed highway. It’s recommended that the views of the local refuse collection service are
Page 19 sought with respect to the proposals for their purposes.
Off-street parking should be provided on the basis of 2no. or 3no. spaces per 2/3 or 4/4+ bedroom unit respectively. Each space should be of 2.4m x 5.5m minimum dimension (2.4m x 6.5m where located in- front of garage doors) with an additional 0.5m of width to any side adjacent to a physical barrier e.g. wall, hedge, fence, etc.
The oversized pipe to be used as a Hydrobrake should be located beyond the proposed highway.
As satisfactorily resolving the above issues may have an impact on the proposed housing layout, it’s recommended that the applicant is requested to submit revised details to satisfactorily allay the concerns.
However, if you are minded to determine the application as submitted, the Highway Authority will be grateful to receive further opportunity to provide recommendations.
Follow up comments 09.08.2019
As the Applicant’s Transport Consultant states, suitability/ availability of pedestrian links between the site and other local amenities is a highways concern.
An existing route to Norfolk Square in the town centre has been identified using a Public Footpath and footways of Gladstone Street and Victoria Street. The former is of course unmade, unlit and devoid of positive drainage. As a consequence, in order to be considered as the formal/practical route at all times (winter months, inclement weather, etc.), the existing footway of Highfield Road would need to be used rather than the Public Footpath. Such route would involve walking a significantly greater distance than by use of Cliffe Road and the pedestrian/ cycle route currently being formed alongside Glossop Brook on the south side of the residential and commercial re-development of Woods Mill.
Page 20 It’s accepted that Cliffe Road lacks formal pedestrian facilities, however, the shorter distance involved in accessing the Town Centre and Victoria Mill/ Woods Mill development areas are likely to make this route more attractive than would be the case if most amenities were equidistant via Highfield Road. With this in mind, the Highway Authority has strongly recommended that all alternatives to reduce the likely desire for pedestrians to use Cliffe Road are thoroughly explored.
It’s appreciated that there is a significant level difference between The Bank and the proposed development site and, as Phil states, use of a 1 in 2 slope is unacceptable. It’s suggested that costs for provision of an engineered solution using steps and retaining walls to create a link with The Bank would be prohibitive – presumably this also includes creation of a more sinuous route utilising land within the control of the applicant to emerge elsewhere on The Bank/ Lower Bank/ Cross Cliffe/ Cliffe Road. Anti-social behaviour is also cited as a reason for not creating a link with The Bank, with some examples given, and I trust that the views of Derbyshire Constabulary’s Designing out Crime/ safer Derbyshire Section have been sought in this respect.
A number of issues have been identified with creation of a formal pedestrian link via the existing track within the ownership of the applicant between the site and Gladstone Street. Whilst the site has not been revisited by this Authority to review this route, it’s unclear where the six dwellings stated as being served via this track are located. As far as can be ascertained from details available, all dwellings in this vicinity have direct access with either Gladstone Street or Bank Street although there may be vehicular access taken to parking spaces/ garages to the rear of some dwellings. Presumably there are vehicular access rights to the existing allotments. The existing layout of the allotments and width of track at the eastern end are suggested as issues in delivering a link via this route. The blue line
Page 21 boundary would suggest that there is sufficient controlled land to create a pedestrian link (preferably shared with cycles) and the allotments would almost certainly be disturbed during installation of drainage pipes along the same route. Would it not be possible to reconfigure where necessary as a part of the reinstatement works following the drainage installation? Creation of a link on this route would provide a significantly shorter route to Norfolk Square than via Highfield Road and also remove the need to ascend to the highest point of development before descending again into the site or towards the town centre.
In summary, I trust that you will satisfy yourself that creation of a more sinuous link with existing highways (The Bank, Lower Bank, etc.) is unviable and/or undesirable due to anti-social behaviour concerns and that allotment layout/ claimed potential residential amenity issues are valid reasons not to utilise the line of the proposed site drainage as a link with Gladstone Street.
The Highway Authority has suggested that, particularly in the event of no alternative pedestrian link being available, setting back of the existing boundary wall adjacent to Crosse Cliffe (circa 20 – 25m) would provide a refuge for pedestrians at a point where the existing highway is at its most constrained i.e. this relates to frontage with Crosse Cliffe only and not Cliffe Road where, although similar provision would no doubt be of benefit, forward visibility is significantly better and the road generally less constrained.
Without benefit of either of the aforementioned pedestrian links, it’s suggested that Cliffe Road, despite its deficiencies, will prove to be a more attractive route to the Town Centre due to the significantly shorter distance involved. Indeed, this still may prove to be the case if a link with The Bank/ Gladstone Street is created and the applicant’s acceptance to provision of funding under a S106 for investigation, and any subsequent implementation of, traffic management measures should they prove necessary is noted.
Page 22 Revision of the boundary wall adjacent to the new junction to be set back a minimum of 2.0m for the full extent of the exit visibility sightline is noted as is the proposal not to extend a footway along the northern side of the proposed estate road and verge for the full extent of site frontage, the latter so as not to encourage pedestrian use of Cliffe Road. Whilst the reasoning behind this is understood, should this not prove to be effective in practice, it’s recommended that pedestrian activity is monitored for a period of 5 years post full occupation of the site and should it be considered that provision of a margin beyond the bend would be of benefit to pedestrian safety, land is secured to undertake setting back of the boundary at a later date.
It’s noted that revisions to the internal road layout are also being made to address issues previously raised.
Follow up comments 28.01.2020
As you are aware, the Highway Authority raised a number of issues in relation to the original proposals and potential mitigation measures were the subject of subsequent communication. One of the major concerns of the Highway Authority is pedestrian safety for those using the geometrically limited section of Cliffe Road due to this being the shortest route between the site and several amenities (including shops, medical centre, school, etc.) to the east of Glossop Town Centre. Whilst alternative routes of similar length to using Cliffe Road have been identified to the town centre itself, the Hourigan Connelly letter of 4 November 2019 appears to suggest that securing of funding under a S106, as previously accepted, to explore and subsequently implement any requisite mitigation measures on the route to the north- east (in a similar manner to Consented development to the north) isn’t required as ‘the proposals are acceptable as tabled’. The same letter identifies the aforementioned town centre route that involves use of an unmade/ unlit/ undrained PROW (or longer route using adopted highways) and lack of segregated
Page 23 pedestrian facilities on Cliffe Road although fails to recognise the likelihood of the latter’s use. The Highway Authority has stated that creating alternative more convenient pedestrian (and possibly cycle) links over controlled land should be thoroughly explored. The letter states that there is no prospect of connecting the development to the existing PROW due to significant level constraints. The Highway Authority has suggested that the use of a more sinuous route, even including steps, however, although informed as being prohibitively costly, no details of sections etc. have been provided to demonstrate such a link could not be created. A separate connection across fields is discounted due to land ownership issues (although the blue line boundary appears to have direct frontage with The Bank, Lower Bank, Cross Cliffe, Cliffe Road and Gladstone Street) and levels in addition to requiring pedestrians ‘to navigate an unpaved, narrow and steep section of…Cross Cliffe’. Crosse Cliffe is indeed narrow and steep, however, it is surfaced and the application details demonstrate control of frontage to this road where there is currently no footway where provision of such a facility would be considered of major benefit. No details of potential routes have been provided to demonstrate unsuitability from an engineering viewpoint. The Highway Authority has highlighted the corridor of controlled land linking the site and Gladstone Street in which proposed drainage from the site is to be located as a potential pedestrian/ cycle access. Potential advantages of this route include the reduction in distance to the town centre and removal of need to ascend to the proposed junction with Cliffe Road when travelling in any direction (significant benefits for those living in/ visiting the northern extents of the development). There doesn’t appear to be any mention of this route within the letter. The Transport Note also makes reference to the above in the Pedestrian Access section. Specific comments were made with respect to the pedestrian links review within the e-mail response of 9 August 2019 (attached for information) querying whether all of the reasons given for not creating alternative links were considered
Page 24 to be valid and, should this be the case, recommended setting back of the existing boundary wall adjacent to Crosse Cliffe (circa 20 – 25m) to provide a refuge for pedestrians at a point where the existing highway is at its most constrained together with securing of the aforementioned funding under a S106 as previously accepted by the applicant. The Transport Note implies that the cost of setting back the boundary wall would be prohibitive and not form a complete link. Whilst cost is not a highway reason for not providing infrastructure that would be considered to be beneficial to highway safety, introduction of an additional length of segregated pedestrian facility at the location concerned would significantly reduce the length of Cross Cliffe where pedestrians would need to share the highway with vehicles. Therefore, as submitted with no form of proposed mitigation, the Highway Authority’s concerns with respect to safe pedestrian routes linking with this site remain.
I’ve quickly reviewed the Proposed Layout Plan on the HPBC website and, without benefit of a scaled copy, would highlight the following:- The proposed junction geometry is generally acceptable although it’s recommended that the wall set back by 2.0m for the entire length of exit visibility sightline is extended to meet the existing wall as a taper rather than stepping back towards Cliffe Road at 90°. Tracking to/ from the north should be provided and entry/ exit radii of 8.0m would be preferable to accommodate the Large refuse Vehicle. The parking spaces for Plot 16 need to be set back at least 2.0m from the proposed carriageway edge as vehicles parked in each space will impede exit visibility from the other. It’s recommended that exit visibility sightlines of 2.4m x 25m are demonstrated from all driveways/ parking spaces located on the inside of bends in order to ensure any areas in advance passing over land behind the highway can be secured by Condition to be maintained in future clear of obstruction. Carriageway narrowing is not an effective speed
Page 25 reduction feature where traffic flows are relatively light. In this case, only vehicles travelling to/ from around a dozen dwellings and the agricultural access will be expected to be using this section of the road. The turning head may need to be reduced in length to avoid surplus highway across the frontage of Plot 34. Areas adjacent to, but not within, the proposed highway should be demonstrated for the standing of waste bins on refuse collection days. I trust that you will ensure that the level and dimension of off-street parking is adequate to meet your own Authority’s standards. Unfortunately I’ve not had opportunity to discuss the drainage proposals with our drainage section however, given the extent of controlled land, it’s likely that an acceptable layout can be accommodated. It would appear that measures to prevent surface water run-off from Plots at a higher level than the proposed highway are to be provided.
Follow up comments 24.04.2020
I refer to the attached Addendum, that I note has also been provided to yourself, together with previous correspondence, discussions, meetings concerning these development proposals.
A number of revisions to the proposed site layout are given in para 1.4. The corner radii, set-back wall, reduction in turning head length, removal of the carriageway narrowing and relocated parking spaces are all acceptable although a 2.0m width highway verge will be required between the driveway serving Plot 15 and the junction with Cliffe Road (and tree’s demonstrated within the areas concerned relocated/ removed).
Comments concerning exit visibility from private accesses are noted as is the comment with respect to this internal design requirement being secured by Condition. It’s assumed that such Condition would need to be worded along the lines of ‘all driveways being provided with 2.4m x 25m exit visibility sightlines unless
Page 26 agreed otherwise by the LPA’. Whilst Manual for Streets (MfS) does allow a reduced ‘x’ distance of 2.0m in determining achievable exit visibility, it’s recommended that a 2.4m ‘x’ distance is used where possible to demonstrate adequate visibility is available without need for encroachment into the carriageway. The sightlines demonstrated on Drg. D101 rev. A are taken to a point off-set by 0.5m from the nearside carriageway channel to the right when exiting and to the carriageway centreline to the left. The sightlines should ideally extend to the nearside channel in each direction although taken to a point 1.0m offset from the channel is considered to be acceptable. A ‘y’ distance of 17m in the leading direction would not be appropriate from the access to Plot 19. I don’t have details of proposed gradients to hand but, when taking into consideration this sites topography, these should also be taken into account when determining the requisite sightlines. I concur that approach speeds to the junction with Cliffe Road are likely to be lower and sightlines reduced accordingly. Whilst I’ve been unable to accurately dimension from the appended details, it would appear that adequate visibility will be available from the driveway serving Plot 16 over the proposed highway verge, however, a small area of the grassed area to the rear of footway adjacent to the rear garden of Plot 11 may be need to be secured for visibility from the driveway serving Plot 15 (without taking gradient into account, a ‘y’ distance of 18m would be commensurate with 85%ile approach speeds of 15mph and a 2.4m ‘x’ distance would reduce the likelihood of encroachment into the carriageway on the inside of the bend on approach to a junction).
It would appear that the sightline recommendations should be comfortably achievable without impact on the housing layout.
The submitted vehicle swept path details are considered to be acceptable.
It’s noted that Plot’s 5, 6, 13 and 14 are located in excess of the recommended maximum mancarry
Page 27 distance of 25m from the proposed highway or turning facility demonstrated as being suitable for use by a typical supermarket delivery vehicle. As a consequence overlong, or awkward, reversing manoeuvres may be required on private driveways shared by others.
Waste bin collection points have been identified in several locations annotated as being in accordance with MfS although it’s recommended that the views of the local refuse collection service are sought with respect to these for their purposes. In addition, appropriately dimensioned areas should be demonstrated adjacent to, but not within, the proposed highway for standing of bins for all proposed dwellings on collection days in order to reduce the likelihood of obstruction of the footways. It would appear that areas for such purpose may be provided adjacent to the driveways for most of the proposed dwellings.
Therefore, you may wish to seek revised details to satisfactorily address the above issues however, if you are minded to approve the proposals as submitted, it’s recommended that the following Conditions are included within any Consent:-
1. No development shall take place including any works of demolition until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: i. Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii. routes for construction traffic iii. hours of operation iv. method of prevention of debris being carried onto highway v. pedestrian and cyclist protection vi. proposed temporary traffic restrictions vii. arrangements for turning vehicles viii. Roadside hoarding and construction access arrangements. 2. Before any other operations are commenced,
Page 28 excluding construction of the temporary access referred to in Condition [1 viii] above, space shall be provided within the site for storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading, unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles, laid out and constructed in accordance with detailed designs first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once implemented the facilities shall be retained free from any impediment to their designated use throughout the construction period. 3. Prior to occupation of any dwelling on site the permanent access arrangements with Cliffe Road shall be fully completed to the satisfaction of, and in accordance with detailed designs first submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. 4. No development shall take place until the layout and construction details of the residential estate road and footways (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing / construction materials, means of surface water drainage and street lighting) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 5. The carriageways of the proposed estate road shall be constructed in accordance with details approved under Condition [4] above up to and including at least road base level, prior to the commencement of the erection of any dwelling intended to take access from that road. The carriageways and footways shall be constructed up to and including binder course surfacing to ensure that each dwelling prior to occupation has a properly consolidated and surfaced carriageway and footway, between the dwelling and the existing highway. Until final surfacing is completed, the footway base course shall be provided in a manner to avoid any upstands to gullies, covers, kerbs or other such obstructions within or abutting the footway. The carriageways, footways and footpaths in front of each dwelling shall be completed with final surface course within twelve months (or three months in the case of a shared surface road) from the occupation of such dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Page 29 6. The estate street shall be provided with 15m forward visibility sightlines around the inside of bends in the street alignment, as laid out in the County Council’s Delivering Streets and Places design guide; the area in advance of the sightlines being laid out as an extended footway, forming part of the estate street and not part of any adjoining plot or other third party land. 7. Individual driveways shall be provided with 2.4m x 25m visibility splays in each direction to the new estate street, or other such dimension as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, measured to a point offset by 1.0m from the nearside carriageway channel level; the area in advance of the sightlines being identified and remaining thereafter free from any obstructions to visibility over 1m high (600mm in the case of vegetation) relative to the nearside carriageway channel level. 8. The premises, the subject of the application, shall not be occupied until the estate street has been provided with suitable turning arrangements to enable service and delivery vehicles to turn, all as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. In the case where interim turning arrangements are constructed these must remain available until any permanent estate street turning is available, in accordance with the approved estate street designs. 9. No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been provided within the site curtilage/ plot for the parking of residents and visitors vehicles associated with that dwelling, all to be laid out in accordance with the approved drawings and constructed as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities shall be retained throughout the life of the development free from any impediment to their designated use, for the parking of motor vehicles at all times. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order) the garage/car parking spaces hereby permitted shall be retained as such and shall not be used for any purpose other than the garaging of private motor vehicles associated with the residential occupation of the property without the grant of further specific
Page 30 planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. 11. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of secure cycle parking facilities for the occupants of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall be fully implemented and made available for use prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained for use at all times. 12. Unless agreed otherwise by the Local Planning Authority, there shall be no gates or other barriers located within 6.0m of the proposed highway boundary and any such gates shall open inwards only. 13. The proposed property access drives shall be no steeper than 1 in 10 for the first 6m from the nearside highway boundary and shall be provided with sufficient vertical curvature to prevent the grounding of vehicles when traversing to and from the highway. 14. No part of the development shall be occupied until details of arrangements for storage of bins and collection of waste from points adjacent to, but not within, the proposed highway have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the facilities retained for the designated purposes at all times thereafter. 15. Prior to the commencement of the development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of water from the development onto the proposed highway. The approved scheme shall be undertaken and completed prior to the first use of the access concerned and retained as such thereafter. 16. Works shall not commence on site until a scheme for the disposal of highway surface water has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the dwellings and retained accordingly thereafter. 17. No development shall be commenced until details
Page 31 of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and Maintenance Company has been established.
Follow up comments 19.06.2020
I note the submitted swept paths and comments with respect to servicing Plots 13 & 14. The Highway Authority recommends that a turning facility is provided for any dwelling in excess of the recommended mancarry distance of 25m from the (proposed) highway in order to reduce the likelihood of overlong reversing or vehicles being stood on the highway for an overlong duration whilst servicing is carried out. As you say, the access is located at a point with good visibility therefore, also bearing in mind the perceived level of traffic, it’s unlikely that a vehicle parked whilst making a delivery or one being reversed onto the spine road would cause severe harm to safe operation of the public highway. The shared driveway will, of course, remain private therefore the safety of the more vulnerable users of it would not be a matter for the Highway Authority.
Economic The proposal is for planning permission for Development development of 38 units of residential accommodation. (HPBC) Residential development will impact on the local economy in terms of jobs and purchasing of supplies and services. In order to assess the economic impact of this development, we have relied upon the data supplied by the applicant and used the Council’s approved multipliers to prepare these comments.
The proposal for development of 38 dwellings will provide the following outputs:
Page 32 • The new householders occupying each new house will spend some of their income locally through shopping and use of local services. National research has identified that 34% of all household expenditure is spent at district level or below. For this development of 38 units this is calculated at £349,692 per year.
• Each new house will generate direct jobs within the construction industry or associated supply chain, of which 25% are likely to be locally based. Indirect Jobs are also generated by local spend in shops and services. This is calculated at an additional local job for every seven new homes. Using these multipliers the development will generate 40 direct jobs and 5 indirect jobs.
• The development will also generate approximately £7,447 council tax for the area per annum.
Housing Comments on original scheme Paras Strategy 7.10-13 Supports the application. and 7.19- Great Places are proposing a development of 44 23 homes, of which 34 dwellings will be shared ownership with the remaining 10 dwellings Market sale. This equates to 78%, well above the required H4 30% affordable housing contribution.
The proposed tenure mix will compliment the recently completed Surrey Street affordable housing development which saw 51 units built for affordable rent. The provision of shared ownership will provide an opportunity for local people to get a foot on the housing ladder and assist those unable to afford to buy a property on the open market.
The proposed property mix of 10x 2 bed and 24 x 3 bed will meet the housing needs, and allow both couples and families the opportunity to purchase a property. Although the properties do meet the required Nationally Described Spaces Standards, I’m happy to accept
Page 33 Great Places proposal of 2b3 person and 3b4 person dwellings as the lettings criteria restrictions implemented through the Home Options allocation policy are not applicable in this case as the properties are shared ownership.
Great Places have recently been awarded a ‘Strategic Partnership’ with Homes England and have already secured funding through Shared Ownership Affordable Homes Programme (SOAHP).
United Utilities Recommends conditions. Paras 7.77-81 Follow up comments 24.04.2019
Our engineer has looked at the revised drainage strategy and made the following comments;
Drainage lay drawing 1372/001/P7 seems to indicate that the surface water plot drainage discharges to a soakaway within each plot. United Utilities would have no objection to such a proposal.
It seems the proposed highway is to drain to the combined public sewer via a surface water sewer. United Utilities would not allow a highway drain to discharge to the public sewer.
Therefore, our response letter dated 13/2/2019 still applies.
DCC Flood Original comments 25.01.2019 Paras Risk 7.77-81 Management Recommend a holding objection on the proposed Team development as it is not possible to provide an informed comment until such a time that the applicant has submitted further information. Sufficient detail is required at the early planning stage to demonstrate that the proposed site is able to drain and that due consideration has been given to the space required on site for surface water storage.
Follow up comments 12.12.2019
As a statutory consultee for surface water the minimum
Page 34 details required on all major planning applications are as follows, and as such until this information is provided the LLFA are unable to provide an informed comment.
• Site plan and impermeable area • Topographic survey of the site • Appropriate evidence to support how the site will drain, including confirmation of where the surface water will outfall to (photographs / maps / a confirmation letter from a water company) • Basic calculations of the greenfield/brownfield runoff and discharge rates, (refer to Point J in the Advisory Notes) • A quick storage estimate to show the required storage volume of surface water on site and an indication of the likely location • Calculations should include allowances for the current Environment Agency guidance for climate change and urban creep (Refer to Point J in the Advisory Notes) • Basic ground investigation (desktop survey as a minimum) • Major developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate (as per National Planning Policy Framework 165).
These details are required at the early planning stage to demonstrate that the proposed site is able to drain and that due consideration has been given to the space required on site for surface water storage.
Please note the level of detail submitted should be proportionate to the size and scale of the development.
It is noted that the applicant has submitted evidence that suggests that ground conditions may be suitable for infiltration, however this testing only included 2 locations, and were not performed in accordance with BRE 365. In order to demonstrate that the site can be wholly drained through infiltration, the LLFA would require the applicant to provide full BRE 365 testing for all locations proposed for Soakaways. While the LLFA are happy for this testing to be undertaken at the detailed design stage, evidence to support how the site will drain if infiltration is not feasible is required at this stage, in order to demonstrate that the site has a viable outfall.
Follow up comments 03.03.2020
Page 35 Having reviewed the drainage strategy this is acceptable in principle, however as previously noted testing in line with BRE365 will be required at the proposed location for the soakaway, in order to demonstrate that this is a viable outfall for the sites surface water.
Revised comments 11.05.2020
Following a review of the information was received on 05/11/2019, the LLFA has no objection subject to conditions requiring (1) a detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of the surface water drainage for the site; (2) details indicating how additional surface water run-off from the site will be avoided during the construction phase; and (3) a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detail any minor variations), provide the details of any management company and state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements.
It is proposed to dispose of surface water from the site using a soakaway at the north west end of the site. Full BRE365 testing has been undertaken on the site, which shows infiltration rates are suitable. The soakaway proposed in the Drainage Strategy uses the lowest infiltration rate attained from BRE365 testing for the sizing of the proposed soakaway, to ensure that the soakaway and drainage network are sized appropriately to accommodate all rainfall events up to the 1 in 100 year event (+ 40% Climate Change allowance). Given that the site has no secondary option for surface water disposal (no surface water body or sewer in the vicinity) this is critical to ensure that there is no increase in flood risk on the site for the lifetime of the development.
Conservation Having read the HPBC Design Officer’s comments and Paras Officer as she has given a comprehensive response on the 7.47-52 setting of the Conservation Areas I don’t feel that I need to comment. I agree with her assessment of the harm that this development would cause.
DCC Original comments 11.02.2019 Para 7.52 Archaeology
Page 36 The site (c2ha) occupies a prominent ridgetop location overlooking the valley of the Glossop Brook to the north. Although there are no known archaeological finds from the site itself, the Glossop area has significant concentrations of prehistoric and Romano- British activity; of particular interest close to the proposal site are numerous records of ‘carved stone heads’, associated with the southern side of the valley, which is likely to suggest an Iron Age or Romano-British ritual focus. The ridge-line location of the site enhances its potential for prehistoric activity: this is a typical location associated with e.g. prehistoric barrows and field systems in the High Peak. Immediately north of the site is MDR16489, a trackway previously thought to be a Roman road but now interpreted as a late medieval paved cartway between Old Glossop and Charlesworth. Aerial photographs show marks of possible archaeological features within the site – including linear features and an enclosure; historic mapping suggests that small-scale quarrying has taken place, which conversely may have impacted upon archaeological survival.
Because of the clear archaeological potential of the site I advise that an assessment of archaeological significance and impact is required to address the requirements at NPPF para 189. This should take the form of archaeological desk-based assessment and geophysical survey of the site. Once this information has been submitted I should be reconsulted on the planning application; in the meantime I object to the proposals on grounds of insufficient information to understand archaeological significance and impact (NPPF paras 189/190).
Follow up comments 04.04.2019
Thank you for consulting on the additional information submitted in relation to the above application.
Recommend condition requiring a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological work.
The applicant has submitted the results of archaeological desk-based assessment and geophysical survey of the site. The data contained in these reports is useful and enables us to judge archaeological significance enough to determine the application as per NPPF para 189. However, the interpretation placed on the evidence in each report is, I
Page 37 feel, a little downbeat and serves to downplay the archaeological potential of the site.
For example, in noting the cluster of carved stone heads or ‘Celtic heads’ in the vicinity of the site, the DBA document suggests that this is of no significance because of the distance to the nearest record (c400m). However, this is a loose knit distribution (11 known findspots within Glossop parish), of which there is a notable cluster of five close to the proposal site, the remainder being associated with known sites of early activity at Melandra Castle/Ardotalia, Mouselow Castle, and Old Glossop. This does suggest that there is a hitherto unidentified site of Iron Age/Romano-British ritual or cult activity somewhere in the region of the Glossop Brook or the valley slopes to the south.
In addition, the interpretation of the geophysical survey seems to ignore the rectilinear and curvilinear features shown on the interpretive plan at A and C. These are noted on the plan at Fig 3 as ‘uncertain origin, possible agricultural or natural but could be related to sub- surface feature’ – in other words as possible archaeology – but then disregarded in the report conclusions which only discuss the possible ditch at B.
I advise that the site has moderate potential for below- ground archaeological remains with a particular focus on research questions relating to the Iron Age/Roman period in the Glossop area. The geophysical survey has generated some possible targets which should be further tested through trial trenching to establish character, date and significance, in addition to the features visible on aerial photographs and noted in previous comments.
Notwithstanding these observations, the evidence to hand does not suggest that there is an archaeological objection to development of the site, and – provided the applicant is willing to accept a pre-commencement archaeological condition – I advise that the archaeological interest in the site is best addressed through a conditioned scheme of work, to comprise an initial phase of trial trenching, followed by further excavation/recording of any significant remains as appropriate to meet the requirements of NPPF para 199.
Arboricultural Original comments 27.02.2019 Para 7.62 Officer
Page 38 1. Existing trees 1.1 An arboricultural Report has been supplied which identifies 6 trees which will be impacted on by the proposals. One tree is in poor condition and is to be removed in any event. The others are to be retained. Therefore subject to conditions to protect the existing trees there is no arboricultural reason to object to this application.
2. Landscape Impact 2.1 The impact of the proposals on the landscape have been dealt with by HPBC Design/Regeneration Officer in her consultation:
The application submission includes a briefing note on the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed scheme. It identifies a number of views points around the town and from footpaths where the scheme is visible of partially visible. Having assessed these views, I would conclude that the proposed development will be visible and prominent from a number of points around Glossop. In particular close views from say Howard town Mill, will be detrimental to the landscape quality that surrounds Glossop. From here, the development will be highly prominent on the ridge and interrupt the skyline. Longer distant views (say from North Road) show the development in context of open fields on highly sloping ground. It will be isolated from the built development of Whitfield and 2.2 The Landscape assessment acknowledges the impact with several viewpoints with long term adverse impacts. This depends heavily on the proposed landscaping mitigating the impact.
3. Proposed landscaping – Woodland Buffer 3.1 The proposed screening planting is to be located to the north and east of the site. The width of the landscaping strip varies but is generally less than 10m. There will be significant changes of levels on the site the plans provided indicate that the planting will be on a steep slope and backed in places by a retaining structures. 3.2 I note that there appears to be discrepancies on the Landscape Structure Plan (5671.04 Rev C) between the table of tree species and the plan for example the Pine species (PINSY) is not listed in the schedule but show in the plan. 3.3 The species selected don’t reflect particularly the landscape character assessment for the area. [1]
Page 39 . For example there is far too much Hornbeam (Carpinuis betulus) which is not typical of the area. Whilst occasional specimens would be fine to improve the diversity of species selection it should not be the dominant species. Oak and Birch (Quercus and Betula) should be the dominant higher canopy species. Without the longer lived trees such as Oak in this buffer the potential Biodiversity benefits will be reduced. 3.4 The aim of the landscape proposals is to plant trees which will screen the site. The proposed planting however has a number of limitations in this respect. 3.4.1 Optimistic growth rates The growth rates have been predicted and may tend to be optimistic for this area and this project. There are a number of factors that may hinder growth rates: a) The trees will probably be grown on disturbed subsoil/top soil probably from the regrading of the site. This soil profile will have no natural structure this could adversely effect the properties of the soil such as drainage, porosity, and fertility. Making it a harsher environment for you trees to establish and hindering growth rates. b) The geotechnical report notes that the soils are shallow. c) Local climate the exposed nature of the area. d) The watering regime proposed is not consistent and good growth rates depend on regular watering. 3.4.2 There are limited evergreen species in the group therefore the screening effect will be seasonal. Heavily increasing the evergreen species cover would however be counter productive as it would look out of place in this location. 3.4.3 The trees will adjacent to the rear gardens of the proposed properties which is likely to lead to pressure for inappropriate pruning of tree removal. Given the elevated position there will initially be views out from the gardens across to the hills. When this is intercepted by the tree growth it is likely to lead to pressure for pruning/ removal. Other issues such as leaf fall and perceived risk could also be issues. 3.4.4 The sustainable management and retention of the screen will depend on the management arrangements for this the financing will also need to be secured. ] 3.4.5 The landscape strip varies in width but is generally less tha10m wide. The landscape structure plans shows 2 rows of trees which are a combination of feathered whips and standard trees. This will be under planted with a woodland mix of species planted a 2-3year saplings. The standard trees will be around 4m in height when planted and the feathered whips around
Page 40 2-3m in height. Therefore for any initial impact of landscape will be very limited.
4. Conclusion 4.1 There are no Arboricultural objections on the basis of existing trees subject to conditions. 4.2 The objections are based on adverse impact on the landscape character of the area and in adequate mitigation. 4.3 The mitigation of the impact relies heavily on the proposed landscape buffer which comprises inappropriate species. There are doubts on the ability of the proposed landscaping to establish and make reasonable growth in line within a suitable times scale. There are also concerns with regards to maintaining a dense group of trees next to residential properties.
Follow up comments 05.06.2019
In response to revised scheme:
• It appears to me that with the houses set back that the impact of the building line is lessened. But taking a lead from Anton’s Comments It would still be detrimental in landscape terms. • In terms of whether the proposed landscaping could mitigate the harm I have concerns about how effective this will be and whether the effect can be achieved over a reasonable timescale. These are detailed in my previous comments • Also there is the issues of the landscape buffer only being effective part of the year unless it includes conifers which in themselves are not in keeping with the landscape character.
Follow up comments 07.11.2019
I note the amendments to site layout and that the landscaping strip appears to cover a larger area. However it is not entirely clear whether the density of planting has increased. There are less standard trees to be planted and no numbers are given for the younger tree planting.
The width (of the woodland buffer) has increased in places and I understand some of the levels have been altered to remove the need for retaining structures – this will need to be confirmed. The species diversity has been improved.
Page 41 The modifications to the layout of the site have moved the properties so that they face the landscape strip which is a better arrangement. Whilst the revisions deal with some of the initial concerns I consider that the landscaping proposed has a limited ability to mitigate the any adverse impact on the landscape. I would be happy to review this again when DCC Landscape Advisers have had a chance to review the landscape impact.
Follow up comments 28.11.2019
As far as I can see there is no real alteration to the scheme so the comments remain as sent on 20/11/2019.
DCC Landscape Comments (Layout Drawing 1010 A002 rev Paras Landscape R) 12.04.2019 7.24-52 Background and Issues The Application is for 44 dwellings, the site is not an allocated site for housing within the Adopted Local Plan but is within the built up area boundary. Following Pre App advice a screening belt of trees and shrubs has been proposed as mitigation. Due to the prominent position of the proposed housing the success of the planting screen is crucial. The land falls steeply to the north where the screening is required and the housing ridgeline heights need to be carefully assessed to ensure its effectiveness. The site is adjacent to the old reservoir fields and may compromise access to these for agricultural purposes. It could therefore could create pressure for these to also be developed as a future phase accessed from the proposed road. Landscape Character CHARACTER AREA: Dark Peak TYPE NAME: Settled Valley Pastures OTHER HABITAT: Unimproved pasture WOODLAND CHARACTER: Densely scattered small woodlands WOODLAND VISION: Widespread small-medium woodlands WOODLAND TYPE: Oak-birch with hazel HEDGEROW TREES: Densely scattered
Page 42 TRADITIONAL MATERIALS: Gritstone with Welsh slate or stone slate roof
The Site The site is on a ridge of high land and is very visible from several aspects nearby and from distant hills. It is not visible from the S and SW or N when close to the site and under the ridge. It is part of a wedge of green space of traditional pasture enclosed by walls running into Glossop from the countryside and is an important visual link on the skyline. The Proposed Design The approach to the development is poor being dominated by parking to frontages and lacking in focal points. The rear boundary to Plot 12 has a large presence on the street right up to the footpath, I suggest a hedge or landscape strip is included. Plots 35 and 36 also have prominent rear boundaries that would benefit from screening. The parking dominated area to the fronts of plots 32-35 and 36-39 provide a very poor frontage, they lack front gardens of useable size and space for any meaningful landscape planting is compromised. There is a lack of any amenity open space or any focal spaces. The housing is not able to take advantage of the good views from site due to the necessity of screening and this has led to an inward looking development. Some views out from amenity spaces could be included to take advantage of the long views. There is a lack of any footpaths around the development other than the access road. A looping footpath could be included through the woodland buffer with viewpoints and seating. It could also be linked to the PROW at the NW corner to provide a pedestrian route into Glossop. This is a secluded development due to the allotments, topography and screening that does not link into housing or footpaths. The poor footpath linkages and topography are likely to encourage car use.
Visual Impacts
Page 43 The site is on a ridge of high land so it is very visible from several significant receptors nearby including Howard Town Mills and Milltown. It is also visible nearby from parts of High Street East. More distant but clear views are available from the land rising in the north from housing areas and from PROW Glossop HP/12/115/1. The site is not visible from the South and South West or the North when very close to the site under the ridge. The proposed layout positions most of the housing near the ridge and presents rear boundaries to the most visible edge. This is proposed to be mitigated by screening but will be contrary to the benefit of residents as it also screen their views. Therefore there will not be a long-term will for the screening to be successful from a resident point of view. It is likely that a fair amount of housing will be visible in winter to some degree and facing the rear boundaries to the most prominent view increases the potential for visual intrusion. To reduce the visual impact it would be worth exploring the option of taking the access road along the ridge and situating the houses behind to pull them further away from the ridge and be less visible i.e. mirror layout. This would also give many of the houses south facing rear gardens that at present are north facing. The linear arrangement of houses spread out with gaps between increases the potential impact as it would be more noticeable on the skyline than a continuous block of built form. Due to the steep topography the development requires extensive earth moving and retaining walls. This degree of remodelling of the land will increase the intrusion of the development within the landscape and it is likely that despite buffer planting the overall change will be distinguishable at a distance as the street trees will mimic the new levels. The LVIA undertaken for the site summarises ‘ the site has few, if any, features of significant landscape value and can be considered as typical of the Settled Valley Pasture Landscape Character Type. There are only a small number of existing trees, which are of poor quality, and there are no hedgerows or other shrubby vegetation. Ground flora has been limited by the
Page 44 grazing of horses. The small sections of dry stone wall on the site are generally in a poor condition. The area forms part of the greater agricultural landscape and contributes, in some part, to the overall visual amenity of the locality’ I would consider that the LVIA undervalues the site and that it makes a significant and important contribution as a green wedge linking central Glossop to the countryside. Whilst the flora has been degraded by horse grazing it still has a great potential as historic pasture to be a flora rich meadow if managed better in the future. Therefore it should not be undervalued and is worthy of conserving.
Overall the LVIA stresses the impacts along with the proposed mitigation measures and consequently this reduces its assessment of the significance of the impacts. Whilst mitigation will help, the success of the planting is paramount and the risk of poor establishment and the resulting high impacts should be assessed. In addition to be effective screening planting will need a high proportion of native evergreen species. The proportion of native evergreens in typical local woodlands will be much less, therefore the screen planting will be out of character with local woodland types and visually different.
In conclusion, due to the proposed linear arrangement of housing along a highly prominent ridge, the extensive remodelling of topography and the high dependency upon mitigation of questionable relevance to the landscape, I would consider that the proposals are very likely to cause an unacceptable visual intrusion to the landscape.
Landscape Comments (Alternative Site Layout Drawing 1010 SK001 rev C) 29.05.2019
Background and Issues The Application is for 44 dwellings, the site is not an allocated site for housing within the Adopted Local Plan but is within the built up area boundary. There are great concerns on the potential impact to the
Page 45 setting of the Howard Town Mill complex. Following Pre App advice a screening belt of trees and shrubs has been proposed as mitigation. Following previous comments an alternative layout has been produced which explores the option of taking the access road along the ridge and situating the houses behind to pull them further away from the ridge. Due to the prominent position of the proposed housing the success of the planting screen is crucial. The land falls steeply to the north where the screening is required and the housing ridgeline heights need to be carefully assessed to ensure its effectiveness.
The Site The site is on a ridge of high land and is very visible from several aspects nearby and from distant hills. It is not visible from the S and SW or N when close to the site and under the ridge. It is part of a wedge of green space of traditional pasture enclosed by walls running into Glossop from the countryside and is an important visual link on the skyline.
The Proposed Design The proposed realignment of the wall at the entrance is not clear on the drawings and it should be clarified to ensure that the new gap is no wider than the minimum required for access and visibility splays. All new walls should be traditional local drystone walls to match adjacent and set back from roadside pavement with a grass verge. The proposed access road has a rather suburban feel and I suggest omitting the footpath to north side of the access road to create a more rural feel and provide additional verge / buffer space. The parking to the fronts of no.s 10-13 create a poor entrance, the inclusion of some hedging would help soften this. There is potential to develop a focal area and naturalistic amenity area in the vicinity of plot 1. The substation would need to be located at the edge of this space and not centrally. Some seating appears to be shown along the new
Page 46 road, although these are in potentially sunny positions they only face the housing. There is the potential to include some seating in this focal space which could benefit from oblique views created through the woodland buffer (much like the farmers field access). The tree on the boundary of no. 41 is likely to cause shading problems for the resident and may need protection to prevent excessive pruning or future removal. I would recommend that the proposed facing materials for the houses are stone rather than reconstituted stone. The following are comments previously made which I consider are still relevant: The approach to the development is poor being dominated by parking to frontages and lacking in focal points. The parking dominated area to the fronts of plots 32-35 and 36-39 provide a very poor frontage, they lack front gardens of useable size and space for any meaningful landscape planting is compromised. There is a lack of any amenity open space or any focal spaces. Some views out from amenity spaces could be included to take advantage of the long views. This is a secluded development due to the allotments, topography and screening that does not link into housing or footpaths. The poor footpath linkages and topography are likely to encourage car use. The provision of a footpath linked to the PROW at the NW corner to provide a direct pedestrian route into Glossop is important and I consider should be provided.
Visual Impacts Setting housing back from ridge is welcome and as shown by sections the houses will be only marginally higher than previously but much further from the woodland buffer. This will create less conflict with large trees so the buffer is likely to be more accepted by residents and given a chance to flourish and become more effective. The new position of the housing and a more successful buffer will reduce visual impacts. The revised layout is more responsive to the existing topography and the gaps between housing is less
Page 47 pronounced which I also consider to be of benefit in reducing visual impact. Plots 1-4, however, are still in particularly prominent positions and I would suggest that they are omitted from the proposals. In addition, I suggest that plots 5-10 include native hedging to the rear boundaries and sides so as to soften the impact of any timber fencing.
Plot 42 is potentially in a prominent position with the proposed floor level 1.64m above existing ground levels. I recommend that the levels to achieve access to the property are investigated further with an aim of reducing the floor level to existing levels. Although the LVIA assessed a previous layout proposal, the following are general points which I consider still apply: The LVIA undertaken for the site summarises ‘ the site has few, if any, features of significant landscape value and can be considered as typical of the Settled Valley Pasture Landscape Character Type. There are only a small number of existing trees, which are of poor quality, and there are no hedgerows or other shrubby vegetation. Ground flora has been limited by the grazing of horses. The small sections of dry stone wall on the site are generally in a poor condition. The area forms part of the greater agricultural landscape and contributes, in some part, to the overall visual amenity of the locality’ I would consider that the LVIA undervalues the site and that it makes a significant and important contribution as a green wedge linking central Glossop to the countryside. Whilst the flora has been degraded by horse grazing it still has a great potential as historic pasture to be a flora rich meadow if managed better in the future. Therefore it should not be undervalued and is worthy of conserving. Overall the LVIA stresses the impacts along with the proposed mitigation measures and consequently this reduces its assessment of the significance of the impacts. Whilst mitigation will help, the success of the planting is paramount and the risk of poor establishment and the resulting high impacts should be
Page 48 assessed. In addition to be effective screening planting will need a high proportion of native evergreen species. The proportion of native evergreens in typical local woodlands will be much less, therefore the screen planting will be out of character with local woodland types and visually different. In conclusion, as these proposals stand, due to the siting of housing along a highly prominent ridge, the extensive remodelling of topography and the high dependency upon mitigation of questionable relevance to the landscape, I would consider that the proposals are likely to cause an unacceptable visual intrusion to the landscape and to be of detriment to the setting of the Howard Town Mill complex. However, with the omission of plots1-4 from the proposals, I consider that the impacts could be reduced to an acceptable level. The omission of these dwellings would enable the retention of the existing drystone wall to the north and also provide space for a good woodland buffer as well a focal / naturalistic amenity area.
Follow up comments
Landscape Comments 10.6.19 (Site Layout Drawing 1010 SK001 rev C)
Background and Issues The Application is for 44 dwellings, the site is not an allocated site for housing within the Adopted Local Plan but is within the built up area boundary. There are great concerns on the potential impact to the setting of the Howard Town Mill complex. Following Pre App advice a screening belt of trees and shrubs has been proposed as mitigation. Following previous comments an alternative layout has been produced which explores the option of taking the access road to the north of the houses, facing the fronts to the visible edge and moving the houses away from the woodland buffer. Due to the prominent position of the proposed housing the success of the planting screen is crucial. The land falls steeply to the north where the screening is
Page 49 required and the housing ridgeline heights need to be carefully assessed to ensure its effectiveness.
The Site The site is situated high up the slopes of a sleep valley and is very visible from several aspects nearby and from distant hills. It is not visible from the S and SW or N when close to the site and under the ridge. It is part of a wedge of green space of traditional pasture enclosed by walls running into Glossop from the countryside and is an important visual link to the countryside on the skyline.
The Proposed Design Overall the submitted amended layout still tends to be rather suburban in character and not particularly appropriate to the location. It would be preferable if in place of the proposed bungalow, a house with more presence were proposed and that the access road would then take the form of a drive to this. Along the access road dwellings grouped as clusters of terraces with some single gateway houses addressing the entrance would seem more fitting. This would perhaps read as a more transitional character between the Howard Town Mill Complex and other areas of Glossop. More specifically, I would comment in relation to the current proposed amended layout that: The realignment of the wall at the entrance is not clear on the drawings and it should be clarified to ensure that the new gap is no wider than the minimum required for access and visibility splays. All new walls should be traditional local drystone walls to match adjacent and set back from roadside pavement with a grass verge. The footpath to north side of the access road should be omitted to create a more rural feel and provide additional verge / buffer space. The parking to the fronts of no’s 10-13 create a poor entrance and the inclusion of some hedging would help soften this. There is potential to develop a focal area and naturalistic amenity area in the vicinity of plot 1. The substation would need to be located at the edge of this
Page 50 space and not centrally. There is the potential to include some seating in this focal space which could benefit from oblique views created through the woodland buffer (much like the farmers field access). The tree on the boundary of no. 41 is likely to cause shading problems for the resident and may need protection to prevent excessive pruning or future removal. I would recommend that the proposed facing materials for the houses are stone rather than reconstituted stone. The following outstanding comments previously made on 24.05.19, I consider are still relevant to this layout proposal: The approach to the development is poor being dominated by parking to frontages and lacking in focal points. The parking dominated area to the fronts of plots 32-35 and 36-39 provide a very poor frontage, they lack front gardens of useable size and space for any meaningful landscape planting is compromised. There is a lack of any amenity open space or any focal spaces. Some views out from amenity spaces could be included to take advantage of the long views. This is a secluded development due to the allotments, topography and screening that does not link into housing or footpaths. The poor footpath linkages and topography are likely to encourage car use. The provision of a footpath linked to the PROW at the NW corner to provide a direct pedestrian route into Glossop is important and I consider should be provided. Visual Impacts The revised position of dwellings will create less conflict between dwellings and the woodland buffer and the planting is likely to be more accepted by residents and given a better chance to establish. This will increase the chances of creating a more effective buffer. The layout is more responsive to the existing topography and the gaps between housing are less pronounced which could help reduce visual impact. However, the development still occupies a site which has the potential to be visually
Page 51 intrusive to many receptors and it is questionable if the buffer can mitigate this. Plots 1-4 are in particularly prominent positions extending down the slope into the next field and over the existing field boundary wall. Plots 5-10 have timber fencing to the rear boundaries and sides which are likely to be visually intrusive. Plot 42 is also potentially in a very prominent position with the proposed floor level 1.64m above existing ground levels. Although the LVIA assessed a previous layout proposal, the following are general points which I consider still apply: The LVIA undertaken for the site summarises ‘ the site has few, if any, features of significant landscape value and can be considered as typical of the Settled Valley Pasture Landscape Character Type. There are only a small number of existing trees, which are of poor quality, and there are no hedgerows or other shrubby vegetation. Ground flora has been limited by the grazing of horses. The small sections of dry stone wall on the site are generally in a poor condition. The area forms part of the greater agricultural landscape and contributes, in some part, to the overall visual amenity of the locality’ I would consider that the LVIA undervalues the site and that it makes a significant and important contribution as a green wedge linking central Glossop to the countryside. Whilst the flora has been degraded by horse grazing it still has a great potential as historic pasture to be a flora rich meadow if managed better in the future. Therefore it should not be undervalued and is worthy of conserving. Overall the LVIA stresses the impacts along with the proposed mitigation measures and consequently this reduces its assessment of the significance of the impacts. Whilst mitigation will help, the success of the planting is paramount and the risk of poor establishment and the resulting high impacts should be considered. In addition to be effective screening planting will need a high proportion of native evergreen species will be required. The proportion of native evergreens in typical local woodlands will be much less,
Page 52 therefore the screen planting will be out of character with local woodland types and visually different. Conclusion In conclusion, due to the proposed siting of housing in a highly prominent position in view of the Howard Town Mill area, the extensive remodelling of topography and the high dependency upon mitigation of questionable relevance to the landscape, I would consider that the Application should be refused as the proposals are likely to cause an unacceptable visual intrusion to the landscape and to be of detriment to the setting of the Howard Town Mill complex.
Follow up comments 02.08.2019
Thank you for the updated layout ( drawing no. PS016 Option 4_RevA ).
I note that the numbers of dwellings has been reduced from 42 to 38 and that this has enabled some welcome revisions to be made. At the entrance the consolidation of the group of plots numbered 1 to 4 allows for a greater width of buffer planting; a larger seating area has been included along the access road; a terrace of housing has been created at plots 30-33 removing the unattractive frontage of car parking to the dwellings. However, overall I still have great concerns about the visual impact of these proposals. At present development is confined to the bottom of the valley with some development is visible along the ridge, this is separated by a backdrop of green hillsides of pasture and trees and I consider that it is historically appropriate to preserve this situation. Despite the proposed mitigation I consider that there is a great likelihood that there will be a visual link of development from the valley floor to the ridge if the proposals go ahead and this separation will be lost. I therefore consider that my previous concerns as below still apply:
‘due to the proposed siting of housing in a highly prominent position in view of the Howard Town Mill area, the extensive remodelling of topography and the high dependency upon mitigation of questionable
Page 53 relevance to the landscape, I would consider that the Application should be refused as the proposals are likely to cause an unacceptable visual intrusion to the landscape and to be of detriment to the setting of the Howard Town Mill complex’.
Follow up comments 20.11.2019
As per my previous comments, I have concerns regarding this proposed development. I consider that at present the site makes a significant and important contribution as a green wedge linking central Glossop to the countryside and that the proposals are likely to cause an unacceptable visual intrusion to the landscape and to be of detriment to the setting of the Howard Town Mill complex. In addition, in terms of Landscape Character, there is a contradiction between the requirements of woodland buffer planting and woodland that is appropriate to the character of this landscape. Particularly the necessity of the inclusion of a high proportion of evergreen species would introduce a more urban feel to the hillside. However, if the Application were to be approved I have the following comments in relation to the Landscape Strategy Plan drawing number 5671.05 rev B: The transplants included in the buffer mix are shrub species and trees are only included as feathered, standard, or semi mature specimens. Whilst the semi mature trees will provide immediate impact they are more susceptible to poor establishment and losses it is important that a good number of tree species are also include as transplants to replace losses in the long-term. In terms of native species appropriate to local landscape character, I consider that the planting mix should also include Betula pubescens and Quercus petraea as tree species in the buffer and that Viburnum opulus and Sorbus aria are not appropriate. The gap in the buffer planting adjacent to the Farmers Access is rather wide and I suggest that additional planting is included here. Within the development, the hedges to garden boundaries contain ornamental species,
Page 54 my preference here would be for beech.
Design Comments 30.01.2019 Paras comments 7.24-52 (HPBC) Description: The development site is approximately 1.81ha in size and lies on the edge of Whitfield, Glossop. Whilst the site and wider area is in the built up area boundary, the character and nature of the area is grassed fields on a strongly sloping topography that acts as a green separation/buffer between the Howard Town Mill/Woods Mill complex and the settlement of Whitfield. It has a rural/countryside character and provides a tranquil transition between the two. The topography of the area is dramatic and the site sits at a high point on a ridge that commands long range views across the town. The site is not an allocated housing site within the Adopted Local Plan, but lies within the built up area boundary. As a result, Policy H1 supports housing development on unallocated sites within defined built up area boundaries of the towns and larger villages, providing all other policies in the Local plan are taken into account.
Proposals: The application consists of 44 dwellings comprising detached, semi detached and some terraces along with 1 bungalow. 34 of the dwellings are for shared ownership and will be managed by Great Places. The remaining (9) are for sale on the open market with the bungalow reserved for the landowner. The units are two storeys in height and adopt a more traditional approach to their appearance utilising stone facades with reconstituted stone details and artificial slate roofs. A single access is taken from Cliffe Road which services the estate. The houses are laid out along a strong linear route on an alignment perpendicular to Cliffe Road. The land slopes dramatically to the north and a planting buffer is proposed to shield the rear development from view. There appears to be significant alterations required to the existing topography to accommodate the
Page 55 development. The proposed site sections C-C, D-D and E-E illustrate the change in gradients and portray the houses sitting on an elevated position on their northern boundary. The cut and fill analysis suggests that there is significant fill around plot 42 that results in the requirement of a retaining wall. The northern edge of the development requires a graduated fill of 1m – 3m.
Design Comments: Relevant National and local policies: The revised NPPF 2018 (para 127) states (and summarised below) that planning polices and decisions should ensure that developments: Will function well and add to the overall quality of the area. Are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping. Are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places. Paragraph 130 clearly states that Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in plans or supplementary planning documents. The adopted High Peak Local Plan policy EQ6 states that all development should be well designed and of a high quality that responds positively to both its environment and the challenge of climate change, whilst also contributing to local distinctiveness and sense of place. This will be achieved by: Requiring development to be well designed to respect the character, identity and context of High Peak's townscapes and landscapes. Requiring that development on the edge of settlement is of high quality design that protects,
Page 56 enhances and / or restores landscape character, particularly in relation to the setting and character of the Peak District National Park. Requiring that development contributes positively to an area's character, history and identity in terms of scale, height, density, layout, appearance, materials, and the relationship to adjacent buildings and landscape features. The council has two relevant SPDs that offer design guidance when submitting development proposals in High Peak. The most recent, The High Peak Design Guide was adopted in February 2018 and provides overarching principles in securing good design. It reinforces the importance of how new development should assimilate well into its landscape character and respond to the distinctive character of individual landscapes and settlements. In considering new development the guide states the following: The setting and views need to be carefully considered On the edge of settlements buildings should sit comfortably within the landscape – emulate ground hugging forms of traditional buildings Should respond to the distinctive character of the settlement Respect the grain of existing development – relationship to street and each other. The earlier Residential Design Guide (Dec 2005) contains much more detailed guidance on residential development within the borough from context and setting, patterns of development, through to more detailed guidance on building form, materials appearance and architectural and distinctive details. By following the guidance in the above SPD’s new development should assimilate well into its context and setting, respond to the settlement pattern in terms of grain, scale, form and layout and display distinctive architectural details and characteristics.
Response to development proposals: In considering the above local and national policies, I would conclude that the scheme fails to meet the guidance and policies at both a national and local level
Page 57 for the following reasons: 1. The site is located at the edge of Whitfield and divorced from the built settlement by land given over to the allotments and school fields. The village itself is typical of many High Peak settlements, where traditional forms of development jostle for position against the network of streets and roads. Densities are high but the position of the village and its setting lends the settlement a strong rural characteristic, which is in contrast to the town centre of Glossop. The site is detached from the village by land given over to allotments and school fields. The use and nature of these preserves the openness and rural character of the setting of Whitfield. The wider fields and landscape to the north provide an important transitional buffer between the Howard Town Mill complex and the village. This will be interrupted by the proposed development that will introduce a suburban wedge that does not follow the natural peripheral spread of settlements. The location of the development will interrupt and harm the rural setting of Whitfield.
2. The cut and fill analysis suggests that there will be significant alterations to existing levels and topography, to adequately accommodate development and especially focused around the northern boundary and plot 42, where a retaining wall is required. The amount of regrading illustrates that the development is not working with or, mindful of, the existing topography. The regrading and the introduction of a high retaining wall will impact on the rural setting of the village.
3. Throughout Whitfield development is orientated, almost exclusively, to address the street, lanes and footpaths. The historic part of the settlement is focused around the main thoroughfare through the village and clustered around Whitfield Cross and Hague Street, dissipating out towards the north, south and east. The western boundary is contained by a council estate that was developed along a north/south axis - presumably to address the topography and land contours. In direct contrast to this context and historic evolution the proposed development fails to take advantage of
Page 58 addressing the street (Cliffe Road) and is orientated on a east/west axis. Both these characteristics fail to respond to the context and settlement pattern.
4. Within the settlement of Whitfield the densities are high, especially around the nucleus of the village where terraced cottages prevail. The densities reduce at its edge, with larger detached farm buildings and some modern infill. But the position of development (back of footpath in some cases) and the fluidity of the evolution gives the perception of a village bursting with a concentration of historic (often very simple) buildings. In contrast, the proposed development has a lower density of development and its rigid layout and standard house types offers a development with a more suburban feel which is in direct contrast to Whitfield.
5. With the exception of house types A, C and D the others offer a more suburban response that fail to address the typical and traditional buildings within the settlement. With the right detailing and in a suitable location A, C and D have some merit but still require some amendments. For example, the ground floor openings are too squat and should have a stronger vertical emphasis with the stone heads located a course above the door heads.
6. Materials should be natural stone with good art stone detailing. Roof materials should be natural slate or a very good art slate. Windows and doors should be painted timber.
7. The application submission includes a briefing note on the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed scheme. It identifies a number of views points around the town and from footpaths where the scheme is visible of partially visible. Having assessed these views, I would conclude that the proposed development will be visible and prominent from a number of points around Glossop. In particular close views from say Howard town Mill, will be detrimental to the landscape quality that surrounds Glossop. From here, the development will be highly prominent on the ridge and interrupt the
Page 59 skyline. Longer distant views (say from North Road) show the development in context of open fields on highly sloping ground. It will be isolated from the built development of Whitfield and will be an unexpected slice of development set within the context of open land.
Conservation Response: There is a conservation area designated around both the Howard Town Mill complex and Whitfield Village. Neither of these boundaries is adjacent to the site, but the character appraisal for both areas have been consulted in compiling this response. The Glossop Character Appraisal identifies a number of characteristics that are pertinent in this proposal. This states the following: The proximity and scale of the surrounding countryside and the contrast that this provides with the built development and the mill complex is a key defining characteristic. The topography of Glossop and the relationship between the buildings spaces and the landform are the key components of its setting. The south side of the valley provides a key backdrop to the Howard Town Mill complex at Cross Cliffe. The town has a dramatic landscape setting, which contributes significantly to the character of the area. Whilst the site is some way from the Whitfield Conservation Area boundary, the character appraisal identifies that its rural landscape setting is an important part of its character. In addition, because of its upland setting long panoramic views area available from the village and footpaths. These views give little sense of its relative urban setting.
Given the above comments and characteristics as defined in the Glossop and Whitfield character appraisals the principle of development on this site would cause harm to the setting of the Howard Town Conservation Area and the rural context of the Whitfield Conservation Area. Such a strong form of linear
Page 60 development would act as an unwelcome protrusion in the landscape and interrupt the rural transition from Whitfield, through Cross Cliffe, to the Howard Town Mil complex.
Follow up comments 17.04.2019
The comments provided below relate to the revised plans submitted on the 8th April 2019. I have summarised my original concerns below. Any revisions, in light of the revised plans are in italics.
1. The proposed development will introduce a suburban wedge that does not follow the natural peripheral spread of settlements. The location of the development will interrupt and harm the rural setting of Whitfield.
Concerns have not been addressed. The layout is similar with the only difference being the orientation of plots 28 – 31 and 36 – 39.
2. Significant alterations to levels and high retaining wall will impact on the rural setting of the village.
The proposed retaining wall around the bungalow has been omitted from the scheme which is welcome. However, overall the sections remain as previous and my original concerns are not addressed.
3. The proposed development fails to take advantage of addressing the street (Cliffe Road) and is orientated on a east/west axis. Both these characteristics fail to respond to the context and settlement pattern.
Concerns have not been addressed.
4. The proposed development has a lower density of development and its rigid layout and standard house types offers a development with a more suburban feel which is in direct contrast to Whitfield.
Whilst some house types are better overall, my original concerns have not been addressed.
Page 61 5. Concerns over house type design.
House type A, C and D are now acceptable. House type B not amended with the exception of the ground floor window proportions. House type E not amended with the exception of the ground floor window proportions. There are also concerns over the legibility of this design as the side elevation reads as the front elevation. House type F Much better and is now acceptable Bungalow G No comments House type H Remove the gable detail on the front and rear and have simple pitched roof.
6. Materials – I can’t find any details on materials but these should be natural stone with good art stone detailing with a natural slate roof or good art slate roof. Windows and doors to be painted timber.
7. Harm to the setting of the Howard Town Conservation Area and rural context of the Whitfield Conservation Area and the rural transition between the two.
Concerns have not been addressed.
8. Boundary treatments
The proposed 1.2m post and rail fence to the rear gardens is better in terms of visual impact. However, in reality I suspect most owners will replace with high close boarded fence over time. 1.8m fencing should be used only for rear garden separation and where not visible from public vantage points (plots 13, 17 and 18 are not acceptable and possibly plots 3, 4 and 5). Stone boundary wall should be used to address the street and at the entrance to the development.
Revised comments 28.05.2019
The proposal to mirror the previous layout appears to
Page 62 result in less substantial topography modifications than before and pushing the position of the units further south has the potential to deliver a softer appearance to views from the north. However this only really addresses one element of my original comments (point 2). To some extent it just moves the problem elsewhere and I am concerned over the rear views/boundary treatments etc when travelling along Cliffe Road north.
The revised layout would not result in withdrawing my in principle objection to this scheme.
Derbyshire Original comments 14.02.2019 Paras Wildlife Trust 7.58-61 A revised site plan has been submitted by the applicant, which incorporates a ~10 m strip of tree planting along the northern boundary. Creation of broadleaved woodland would increase the structural habitat diversity and provide some compensation for the loss of species-poor grassland, although not like- for-like. The inclusion of hazel coppice and other flowering and fruiting trees would be beneficial for wildlife. We would look to the tree officer to provide further detailed comments on the species mix proposed. Any fencing surrounding the woodland strip should be permeable for wildlife and funding should be secured to manage the strip for a period of time significant enough to facilitate the development of a healthy young woodland habitat (at least 25 years). Our previous (pre-application) comments dated 30th April 2018 are still relevant, including the recommended condition for a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy.
Revised comments 25.11.2019
I have reviewed the ecological report and biodiversity metric calculation together with relevant drawings and other documents that describe the proposals for the site.
The proposals appear to have taken on board comments and recommendations made in the Trust’s earlier planning consultation responses and the
Page 63 biodiversity metric calculation (ref 1CO105237LE1RO, dated 25/10/19)) indicates a net gain based on the proposed habitat creation incorporated within the landscape plans. The block of heathland / mixed scrub habitat along the northern boundary provides the most significant contribution to this gain, but the grassland, tree and shrub planting within the residential gardens also helps to maintain a habitat connectivity for wildlife within the built development. The heath/scrub planting and native hedgerow include a reasonably diverse species mix with various fruiting and berry producing varieties to provide a food source for birds and other wildlife in addition to the habitat structure provided by the actual plants.
Wildflower meadow grassland adjacent to the scrub will provide diversity of habitat structure and also contribute to botanical interest within the landscaped areas. Combined, this relatively large block of habitats along the northern side of the site will provide a green corridor that links to existing off-site habitats and will help to provide landscape connectivity for wildlife, which is welcomed.
To maximise the value of this habitat block as a corridor for wildlife, and in particularly nocturnal species such as bats, the lighting scheme should aim to keep this area relatively dark. Lights should be directed towards the road / footpaths and suitably hooded / cowled to avoid unwanted lightspill. As a general guide, lighting levels should be as low as is feasible to meet any other requirements and lamps should use a warm white spectrum to reduce blue light component. Consideration should be given to the use of timers to limit illumination to essential periods only and maintain a period of darkness during the night. Detailed guidance on lighting is available in a number of publications that can be downloaded for free from the Bat Conservation Trust website. https://www.bats.org.uk/our-work/buildings-planning- and-development/lighting
Page 64 The landscape management plan includes suitable measures for the tree and shrub habitats, with the changing requirements for ongoing years clearly set out. This document does not currently include a section on the new grassland habitats, therefore we recommend that this is added, in particular specifying the mowing regime to maintain the intended botanical diversity for meadow areas. (The landscape plan notes an annual cut, but the timing of this cut could make a considerable difference to how well this habitat is maintained.) If the council is minded to grant consent, we recommend that conditions are attached to secure the following: Timing of site clearance to avoid impacts on nesting birds; Implementation of the proposed soft landscaping; Adherence to the landscape management plan; Sensitive lighting design. The Trust also supports the species enhancements included on the final page of the Biodiversity Metric Calculation, which will provide specific nesting / roosting / refuge features for various different species groups and compliment the efforts made in habitat creation. We recommend that a further condition is attached to any consent to secure provision of these features.
HPBC No objection, subject to conditions. Paras Environmental 7.82-83 Health Environment The proposed site is located within flood zone 1 with no Agency environmental constraints which fall within our remit, therefore the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal. Paras DCC Planning Comments 22.11.2019 7.14–18 Policy Team Primary Level The proposed development falls within and directly relates to the normal area of Whitfield St James' CofE (VC) Primary School. The proposed development of 38
Page 65 dwellings would generate the need to provide for an additional 8 Primary pupils. Whitfield St James’ CofE (VC) Primary School has a net capacity for 315 pupils, with 280 pupils currently on roll. The number of pupils on roll is projected to decrease during the next five years to 222. An evaluation of recently approved residential developments of 11 or above units or over 1,000 square metres of floor space within the normal area of Whitfield St James’ CofE (VE) Primary School shows no new development, which would generate a demand for primary places. Analysis of the current and future projected number of pupils on roll, together with the impact of approved planning applications shows that the normal area primary school would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 8 primary pupils arising from the proposed development.
Secondary Level The proposed development falls within and directly relates to the normal area of Glossopdale School. The proposed development of 38 dwellings would generate the need to provide for an additional 6 secondary and 2 post16 pupils. Glossopdale School has a net capacity for 1200 pupils with 1065 pupils currently on roll. The number of pupils on roll is projected to increase to 1230 during the next five years. An evaluation of recently approved residential developments of 11 or above units or over 1,000 square metres of floorspace within the normal area of Glossopdale School shows new development totalling 552 dwellings, which would result in demand for 83 secondary and 33 post16 places. Analysis of the current and future projected number of pupils on roll, together with the impact of approved planning applications shows that the normal area secondary school would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 6 secondary and 2 post 16 pupils arising from the proposed development.
Mitigation
Page 66 The above analysis indicates that there would be a need to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on school places in order to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The County Council therefore requests financial contributions as follows:
£206,945.40 towards the provision of the provision of education facilities at Glossopdale School HPBC With regard to the above application, we wouldn’t be Paras Operational looking for any on-site open space or play provision 7.14-18 Services due to the nature of the site in terms of it’s size, but also the proximity of other existing play sites and open spaces. Therefore, we would be looking for off-site contributions towards existing play, outdoor sports provision and allotments in the area, all of which require improvements and enhancements to accommodate the additional capacity from the proposed development. The play contribution would go towards improvements at Whitfield Recreation Ground where the play area there is in need of redevelopment including additional items of equipment. The outdoor sports contribution would be targeted towards either exiting facility improvement at Whitfield Rec (enhancing the existing MUGA) and/or improvements to the sports courts at St. Philip Howard Sports Centre, which has community use. The allotments contribution will be targeted to improvements at the site on Cliffe Road, close to the proposed development. The contributions are worked out on a formula basis which is as follows:- Play - £192 x number of dwellings Outdoor Sports - £489.40 x number of dwellings Allotments - £76.95 x number of dwellings
Alliance No issues with this planning application. Waste and Recycling
7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE
Policy Context
Page 67 7.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. The Development Plan currently consists of the adopted High Peak Local Plan April 2016.
7.3 At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paras 10 and 11). For decision makers this means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, grant planning permission unless a) policies in the Framework which protect areas or assets of importance provide a clear reason for refusing the application or b) any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
7.4 Paragraph 8 of the NPPF outlines that achieving sustainable development requires the consideration of three overarching and mutually dependant objectives being: economic, social and environmental where they are to be applied to local circumstances of character, need and opportunity of each area. These objectives are interdependent and should be pursued in mutually supportive ways and comprise:
a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;
b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of the present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and,
c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making the effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
7.5 Section 5 of the Framework relates to delivering a sufficient supply of homes. Paragraph 59 identifies that to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of
Page 68 land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.
7.6 High Peak Local Plan policy S1a establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within the NPPF.
Principle of development & Background
7.7 Following adoption of the Local Plan in 2016, the site is located within the built up area boundary of Glossop. The site forms part of the wider site reference G17 that was considered at the options stage of the Local Plan prior to its adoption. It was subject to consultation but did not proceed to the preferred options stage on the basis of its Sustainability Appraisal Score relating to biodiversity and consultation feedback in relation to the potential prominence of any development. However, it was then subject to further consultation later in the process at the “additional consultation stage”. The site was not allocated as a housing site, but was included as an extension to the built up area boundary with the analysis stating “Small site capacity below the threshold for residential allocation but considered to have development potential. Sloping site with potential landscape impact. Level area on Cliffe Road has potential for development, limited potential on remainder of the site due to topography…”
7.8 The site is within relative close proximity of Glossop Town Centre and is considered to be within a relatively sustainable location. In considering the suitability of this site for housing, consideration is given to advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) as well as conforming to policies set out in the High Peak Local Plan Policies 2016.
7.9 Policy H1 of the Local plan provides support for new housing development on unallocated sites within the built up area boundary of the towns. Policy S5 is supportive of new housing on sustainable sites within the built up area boundary. Although the Council is able to demonstrate a five year housing supply, the proposed dwellings would make a contribution towards the supply of housing, including affordable housing, in the Borough and provide a contribution economically and socially to the area. The principle of residential development on the site would therefore accord with Policies S2 and H1, subject to consideration of the other relevant policies of the Local Plan and any other material considerations.
Affordable housing
7.10 Policy H4 of the Local Plan requires a 30% affordable housing contribution on sites of 25 units or more, with 80% rented and 20% shared ownership/intermediate split.
7.11 The proposed scheme intends to deliver 37 no. 2, 3 and 4 bed family homes for Great Places for Affordable Home Ownership. The Shared Ownership units will enable first time buyers and those unable to afford to buy a home on the open market to purchase a 35% share of the open market value. Excluding the open market bungalow, the affordable provision equates to 100% of the site, which is well
Page 69 above the 30% required under policy H4. In order to meet an identified local need for affordable home ownership options, Great Places are proposing all affordable units be allocated for Affordable Home Ownership. The proposed tenure mix will compliment the recently completed Surrey Street affordable housing development which saw 51 units built for affordable rent.
7.12 The proposed property mix will meet housing needs and allow both couples and families the opportunity to purchase a property. The Council’s Housing Officer accepts the applicant’s proposal of 2b3 person and 3b4 person dwellings as the lettings criteria restrictions implemented through the Home Options allocation policy are not applicable in this case as the properties are shared ownership.
7.13 In summary, it is considered that the development is compliant with Policy H4 of the Local Plan in that it exceeds the policy requirements in respect of affordable housing provision. Nevertheless, a Section 106 agreement would be required to secure a minimum of 30% of the dwellings as affordable units.
S106 Contributions
7.14 Policy CF7 of the Local Plan states that development proposals will be required to provide, or meet the reasonable costs of providing, the on-site and off- site infrastructure, facilities and/or mitigation necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms through the appropriate use of planning obligations and/or conditions.
7.15 In terms of public open space requirements, the Council’s Operational Services Officer has confirmed that an off site contribution of £28,817.30 would be required towards existing play, outdoor sports provision and allotments in the area, all of which require improvements and enhancements to accommodate the additional capacity from the proposed development. The play contribution would go towards improvements at Whitfield Recreation Ground where the play area there is in need of redevelopment including additional items of equipment. The outdoor sports contribution would be targeted towards either exiting facility improvement at Whitfield Rec (enhancing the existing MUGA) and/or improvements to the sports courts at St. Philip Howard Sports Centre, which has community use. The allotments contribution would be targeted to improvements at the site on Cliffe Road, close to the proposed development.
7.16 In respect of education provision, the County Council has advised that there would be a need to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on secondary school places in order to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The County Council therefore requests that a financial contribution of £206,945.40 be sought towards the provision of education facilities at Glossopdale School.
7.17 A Viability Report has been submitted by the applicant, which assesses the viability of the scheme based on 37 affordable units and excludes from the appraisal the detached open market bungalow which is intended for the land owner. The report has tested appraisals of a wholly open market scheme with zero S106 obligations and affordable housing, and the proposed scheme of 100% affordable housing dwellings with zero S106 obligations. The report concludes that the scheme
Page 70 generates a loss and therefore cannot support the provision of any additional S106 obligation in either case.
7.18 The applicant’s Viability Report has been assessed by an independent consultant appointed by the Council. The consultant has excluded the bungalow from their financial appraisal but has taken this plot into consideration in preparing their assessment of the benchmark land value of the site. It is concluded that the residual land value is less than the benchmark land value and hence the development is not technically viable on this basis. It is not able to support the planning contributions sought. For the development to come forward even in the absence of planning contributions the applicant will need to provide an element of internal subsidy or alternatively be able to secure a higher level of grant than the figure of £26,000 per dwelling on which the appraisal is based. In summary, the development is not able to support any S106 contributions.
Housing Type & Mix
7.19 Local Plan Policy H3 requires new residential development to address the housing needs of the area and therefore a mix of housing types and sizes should be provided, including an appropriate level of affordable housing provision. Accordingly, the SMHAA (Strategic Housing Market Availability Assessment) recommends the following property size and type mix for both market and affordable dwellings:
1 bed flat 10% 2 bed flat/ house/ bungalow 45% 3 bed house/ bungalow 35% 4 bed house 10%
7.20 In relation to the application proposals, the following property mix is proposed:
No. % SMHAA Difference 1-bed 0 0 10% -10% 2-bed 10 26.3% 45% -18.7% 3-bed 23 60.5% 35% +25.5% 4-bed 5 13.2% 10% +3.2% Total 38 100% 100%
7.21 Whilst the housing mix proposes a greater share of 3 bed units, fewer 2 bed units, and no 1 bed units, overall the development consists predominantly of 2 and 3 bedroom units which is where the majority of demand lies. The scheme provides a good range of housing types and sizes appropriate to the area, almost of all which will available for shared ownership, and the Housing Officer has not objected in this regard. The mix is therefore considered acceptable in this instance.
7.22 In relation to compliance with the Technical housing standards - nationally described space standards (NDSS), all of the dwellings will comply with the overall minimum floor area standards. It is noted that the smaller single bedrooms to
Page 71 Houses Type D, E and F, at approx. 6.16m2, 6.40m2 and 6.29m2 respectively, fall marginally below the NDSS minimum requirement of 7.5m2 for a single bedroom. However, this is considered acceptable on the basis that the rest of the bedrooms exceed the standards and, overall, the dwellings would provide future residents with spacious accommodation and a high standard of amenity.
7.23 The scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable in respect of LP Policies H3 and H4 in particular and the NPPF.
Layout and Design
7.24 Section 12 of the NPPF outlines that the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what planning and the development process should achieve. Design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 127 seeks to ensure development;
a) functions well and adds to overall qualities of the area over the lifetime of the development,
b) are visually attractive as a result of good design,
c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting whilst not discouraging innovation,
d) establish a strong sense of place using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;
e) Optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount of mix of development and support local facilities and transport networks.
f) Create places that are safe, inclusive, and accessible and which promote health and well-bring with a high standard of amenity of existing and future users and where crime and disorder, including the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
7.25 The NPPF is clear that permission should be removed for development of poor design that fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
7.26 Policies S1 and EQ6 of the adopted Local Plan seek to ensure that development is well designed and of a high quality that responds positively to its environment whilst contributing towards local distinctiveness and a sense of place. New development should take account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area and secure high quality and locally distinctive design and amenity. Developments should be easy to move through and around and incorporate well integrated car parking, pedestrian and cycle routes.
7.27 The High Peak Design Guide 2018 requires the setting of any building to be carefully considered. New development should be guided by the existing character
Page 72 and context. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Design 2005 also provides guidance on the approach to new residential development, and the factors which contribute toward local distinctiveness. The National Design Guide 2019 explains that the underlying purpose for design quality is to create well-designed and well-built places that benefit people and communities. This includes people who use a place for different purposes i.e. to live, or pass through and includes people at different stages of life with different abilities. A well designed place comes about through making the right choices concerning layout, form and scale of buildings, appearance, landscape, materials and detailing.
7.28 The site is located within an elevated position on land to the west of Cliffe Road. A single access is to be taken from Cliffe Road which is to serve the new estate. The houses are laid out along a strong linear route on an alignment perpendicular to Cliffe Road. Development steps down the hillside towards the west to follow the site contours. A substantial amount of cut and fill is proposed as part of this development. The submitted cut and fill analysis suggests that there is a significant amount of fill, particularly towards the lower end of the site around plot 38 (bungalow).
7.29 During the course of the application, numerous discussions have taken place with the applicant and their architects in relation to the layout and design of the proposed development. As a result several revisions have been made to the scheme. The principal changes relate to the layout of the development, including a reduction in the number of units from 44 to 38, improvements to the positioning of the dwellings and alterations to the form and design of the house types.
7.30 In terms of the layout, this has been amended to re-position the new estate road from the southern site boundary to the north of the site thereby allowing dwellings to be set back to the south further away from the planted buffer and, in the majority of cases, the dwellings will be provided with south facing gardens. A substantial planted buffer is proposed along the northern boundary of the site which is intended to soften the development in views from the north. As originally proposed, the plans indicated a 1.5m high close boarded timber fence to the prominent northern boundary of the site, which was considered unsatisfactory. With the re-positioning of the access road to the north and the dwellings to the south of the site, the northern site boundary treatment has been changed to a 1.2m high timber post and rail fence, which better reflects the rural character of the area. Concerns regarding the positions of parking spaces have also been addressed, with the majority of dwellings now benefitting from side parking rather than being dominated by frontage parking. The retaining structure around Plot 38 has been reduced in its extent.
7.31 The proposed house types have been re-designed to better reflect local vernacular whilst delivering a viable development in terms of the materials used. The original designs had a very suburban appearance, for example some of the windows had a horizontal emphasis and dormers were included to House Type F. With the exception of the single bungalow all units are two storey in height with pitched roofs. The amended designs seek to reflect traditional characteristics of properties in the High Peak with a traditional form, simple window openings with stone heads and
Page 73 cills, chimney stacks and black rainwater goods. The designs use reconstituted stone along with artificial slate roofs and traditionally proportioned window openings.
7.32 With regard to landscaping, this includes the proposed planting buffer to the northern site boundary as well as some tree planting within the development. The tree species mix has been revised to take into account the consultation response from the Arboricultural Officer. The woodland buffer is to be retained by the landowner; it would not available for public use but is intended to provide a planted buffer and ecological enhancement area. Further details of how this area will be managed are contained within the Landscape Management Plan
7.33 Notwithstanding the amendments to the scheme which have resulted in improvements to the layout and design of the development, there is considered to be harm to the landscape character of the area which is discussed in detail below.
Landscape Impact
7.34 Section 15 of the NPPF requires decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that development is sympathetic to local character, history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities).
7.35 Policy EQ2 of the adopted Local Plan seeks to protect, enhance and restore the landscape character of the Plan Area for its own intrinsic beauty and for its benefit to the economic, environmental and social well-being of the District. Amongst a number of criteria, development should be informed by and sympathetic to the distinctive landscape character as identified in the Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document. Policy EQ6 identifies that development should contribute positively to an areas character, and consider the relationship between buildings and landscape features. Moreover, public and private area should be well designed and provide for the retention of significant landscape features such as mature trees.
7.36 The High Peak Design Guide 2018 requires the setting of any building to be carefully considered, including its impact on views into over and out of the site. Paragraph 4.15 outlines that a careful analysis of the site and its context including the wider landscape setting is essential.
Para 2.4 states that:
“The High Peak landscapes provide some of the defining characteristics of the area and have been instrumental in shaping local settlement patterns. In order to protect, and where possible enhance, the landscape character, development should assimilate itself into the landscape and avoid adverse impact on landscape quality”.
In relation to setting, Para 3.2 states that:
Page 74 “In the countryside or on the edge of settlements, buildings should sit comfortably in the landscape. This is best achieved by emulating the horizontal, ground-hugging form of traditional buildings with their strong eaves and ridge lines and simple, low silhouettes parallel with the contours”.
7.37 The site lies predominantly within the Settled Valley Pastures landscape area. The Landscape Character SPD provides a profile of the Settled Valley Pastures as follows:
The underlying geology is gritstone and shale. There are scattered farmsteads outside the compact settlements. This is a pastoral landscape with permanent improved pasture which gives way higher up the slopes to poorer grazing where the ecological value is greater. The landscape has a strong network of winding lanes and roads and railways along the lower slopes above the floodplain. This is a well wooded landscape with wooded cloughs around tributary valleys and hedgerows with some hedgerow trees which define irregular fields. Amenity tree groups are associated with settlements and there is woodland along the roads and railway lines. As with the field boundaries, the woodland often has irregular outlines.
The Landscape Character SPD goes on to explain some of the key characteristics of this landscape type, which include: “Settled landscape of small nucleated settlements and scattered stone farmsteads with stone slate roofs”, and “Stone terraces on lower slopes associated with historic mills”.
7.38 In support of the application, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted with the application. The LVIA states that ‘the site has few, if any, features of significant landscape value and can be considered as typical of the Settled Valley Pasture Landscape Character Type. There are only a small number of existing trees, which are of poor quality, and there are no hedgerows or other shrubby vegetation. Ground flora has been limited by the grazing of horses. The small sections of dry stone wall on the site are generally in a poor condition. The area forms part of the greater agricultural landscape and contributes, in some part, to the overall visual amenity of the locality’. The DCC Landscape Adviser considers that the applicant’s LVIA undervalues the site and the significant contribution it makes as a green wedge linking central Glossop to the countryside.
7.39 The character and nature of the site and immediate surroundings is grassed fields on strongly sloping topography that acts as a green separation/buffer between the Howard Town Mill/Woods Mill complex and the settlement of Whitfield. It is part of a wedge of green space of traditional pasture enclosed by walls running into Glossop from the countryside and is an important visual link on the skyline. It has a rural/countryside character and provides a tranquil transition between the two. The topography of the area is dramatic and the site sits at a high point on a ridge that commands long range views across the town. The land slopes dramatically to the north and a planting buffer is proposed in order to shield the development from view.
7.40 The applicant’s LVIA identifies a number of views points around the town and from footpaths where the scheme is visible or partially visible. The proposed development will be visible and prominent from a number of points around Glossop.
Page 75 In particular close views from Howard Town Mill, Milltown, Mill Street and High Street East will be detrimental to the landscape quality that surrounds Glossop. From here, the development will be highly prominent on the ridge and interrupt the skyline. From longer distant views (for example from North Road or Dinting Road) the development will be seen in the context of open fields on highly sloping ground. It will be isolated from the built development of Whitfield and will be an unexpected slice of development set within the context of open land. Such a strong form of linear development would act as an unwelcome protrusion in the landscape and interrupt the rural transition from Whitfield, through Cross Cliffe, to the Howard Town Mill complex.
7.41 Extensive alterations are required to the existing topography to accommodate the development. The proposed site sections C-C, D-D and E-E illustrate the change in gradients and portray the houses sitting on an elevated position on the skyline. The cut and fill analysis suggests that there is a significant amount of fill, especially around plot 38. The amount of regrading illustrates that the development is not working with or, mindful of, the existing topography. This degree of remodelling of the land will increase the intrusion of the development within the landscape and it is likely that despite buffer planting the overall change will be distinguishable at a distance as the street trees will mimic the new levels.
7.42 With regard to the proposed planting buffer, there are concerns about how effective the planting will be and whether the effect can be achieved over a reasonable timescale. There is also the issue of the landscape buffer only being effective part of the year unless it includes conifers which in themselves are not in keeping with the landscape character – there is a contradiction between the requirements of woodland buffer planting and woodland that is appropriate to the character of this landscape. The inclusion of a high proportion of evergreen species would introduce a more urban feel to the hillside. The modifications to the layout of the site have moved the properties so that they face the landscape strip which is a better arrangement. In addition, the width of the woodland buffer has increased in places. However, overall the proposed landscaping has a limited ability to mitigate the adverse impact on the landscape.
7.43 Although some improvements have been made to the layout and design of the scheme, the DCC Landscape Adviser still has concerns “about the visual impact of these proposals. At present development is confined to the bottom of the valley with some development is visible along the ridge, this is separated by a backdrop of green hillsides of pasture and trees and I consider that it is historically appropriate to preserve this situation. Despite the proposed mitigation I consider that there is a great likelihood that there will be a visual link of development from the valley floor to the ridge if the proposals go ahead and this separation will be lost. I therefore consider that my previous concerns as below still apply:
“due to the proposed siting of housing in a highly prominent position in view of the Howard Town Mill area, the extensive remodelling of topography and the high dependency upon mitigation of questionable relevance to the landscape, I would consider that the Application should be refused as the proposals are likely to cause an unacceptable visual intrusion to the landscape and to be of detriment to the setting of the Howard Town Mill complex”.
Page 76 7.44 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would be “visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping” (NPPF Para 127(b); nor would it “be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting”, as is required by NPPF Para 127(c).
7.45 It is concluded that the impact of the proposed development on the landscape within which it is sited would be detrimental. Although the site is not located within a ‘designated landscape’ it is considered that the landscape of open rural fields play an important role as a rural backdrop to the settlement and act as a transition between the existing built up areas of Howard Town Mill/Woods Mill complex and Whitfield.
7.46 In summary, due to the adverse landscape and visual effects identified the proposed development is considered to be in conflict with the following adopted High Peak Local Plan policies: S1 – Sustainable Development Principles; EQ2 – Landscape Character; EQ6 – Design and Place Making; and it is also contrary to the High Peak Design Guide, the Landscape Character SPD, as well as Section 12 of the NPPF.
Impact on Heritage Assets / Conservation Areas
7.47 The site is not within a conservation area, but land to the north at a much lower level is within the Howard Town Conservation Area. The Conservation Area (CA) boundary is approx. 18m from the site at the narrowest point between Bank Street (a public right of way) and the north west corner of the site. There are also some listed buildings within the CA to the north, including Nos, 8-14, 25 and 28 High Street East. The Glossop Conservation Area Character Appraisal identifies a number of characteristics that are pertinent in the context of this proposal, as follows: The proximity and scale of the surrounding countryside and the contrast that this provides with the built development and the mill complex is a key defining characteristic. The topography of Glossop and the relationship between the buildings spaces and the landform are the key components of its setting. The south side of the valley provides a key backdrop to the Howard Town Mill complex at Cross Cliffe. The town has a dramatic landscape setting, which contributes significantly to the character of the area.
7.48 Notwithstanding the planting of the proposed woodland buffer along the northern boundary of the site and improved design of the dwellings, due to its position on the ridge at a point much higher than land to the north, the development would be clearly visible on the skyline when viewed from various points within the Conservation Area, including from the Howard Town Mill Complex, Milltown, Mill Street, High Street East and from the public footpath leading from Bank Street to Lower Bank. As identified in the Character Appraisal, the countryside surrounding the Conservation Area provides a contrast with the built development and is a key component of its setting. The development of the site represents an intrusion of the countryside context of the Conservation Area and would therefore be detrimental to its setting. Given the above and the characteristics as defined in the Glossop
Page 77 Character Appraisal, the proposed development on this site would cause some harm to the setting of the Howard Town Conservation Area.
7.49 The Whitfield Conservation Area is located to the south of the site and is approx. 220 metres away from the site at the nearest point. There are a number of listed buildings within the Conservation Area, and also Flatt Farmhouse on Cliffe Road which is located outside of the CA, is a Grade II listed building situated some 180 metres to the south of the site. The Character Appraisal identifies that the Conservation Areas rural landscape setting is an important part of its character. The HPBC Design/Regeneration Officer is concerned about the harm to this rural context. However, given the significant distance between the site and Whitfield Conservation Area, and the amount of intervening existing built form along Cliffe Road and on Highfield Road, there is a lack of intervisibility between the site and the Conservation Area which leads to the conclusion that the impact on the setting of Whitfield Conservation Area and listed buildings be less than substantial.
7.50 Overall, whilst it is considered that there would be some harm to the setting of the Howard Town Conservation Area, this harm, for the purposes of Paragraph 196 of the NPPF, would also be regarded as “less than substantial”. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. The public benefits of the scheme include the contribution towards the supply of housing and new affordable housing provision.
7.51 The perceived impact on the rural context of Howard Town and Whitfield Conservation Areas relates more to harm to the wider landscape and longer distance views of the development, and, as discussed within the Planning Balance section below, such harm is not considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
7.52 Following submission of a desk based archaeological assessment and geophysical survey of the site, the County Archaeologist does not object to the application, subject to a condition requiring submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological work.
Impact on neighbouring amenity
7.53 The NPPF at paragraph 127 (f) seeks to ensure that planning decisions deliver, amongst a number of factors, a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Policy EQ6 requires new development proposals to achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development taking into account matters such as overlooking, shadowing, overbearing effects, noise and light pollution. The Councils adopted Residential Guide SPD advises that a distance of 21m between habitable windows of adjacent properties should be achieved to provide an acceptable level of amenity. Where changes in level are evident, these distances should increase by 1m for every 0.5m in height difference between the smaller and the taller building.
7.54 Other than a small number of existing dwellings on Cliffe Road opposite to the site entrance, there are no other residential properties within close proximity of the site. In relation to the impact on the neighbouring properties on Cliffe Road (Nos. 1-
Page 78 7), it is noted that the new dwelling on Plot 1, which includes a number of habitable room windows in the east facing side elevation, only achieved a separation distance of approx. 18 metres from the front elevations of the facing neighbouring properties. Revised plans have been received, which show that Plot 1 (and attached Plot 2 behind it) have been moved slightly further back into the site so that a 21m separation is achieved between Nos. 1-7 Cliffe Road and the side elevation of Plot 1.
7.55 Internally the proposed layout of the development provides for sufficient separation distances between properties. 21m separation distances will be achieved between the principal elevations of properties and 12+m will be achieved between gable elevations and neighbouring principal windows which will be sufficient to ensure sufficient levels of light and privacy. Garden sizes are sufficient and are commensurate with the size of the dwellings themselves and similar properties in the vicinity.
7.56 In regard to the impact on St Mary’s Catholic School, given the extent of existing tree cover along the boundary between the site and the school playing fields and existing boundary fencing, together with the separation distances between the new dwellings and the school and the school playing fields and the orientation of the dwellings at the lower end (south western corner) of the site relative to the school, there is not considered to be a significant issue with overlooking of the school from the development. The trees to the southern site boundary with the school / playing fields are not within the applicant’s ownership and are shown to be retained on the revised Landscape Structure Plan.
7.57 The proposals are considered to maintain the amenities of existing neighbouring residential properties and provide a suitable level of amenity for future occupants of the proposed dwellings. The proposals are therefore considered to meet the requirements of local plan policy EQ6 and para 127 (f) of the NPPF in this regard.
Ecology / Trees
7.58 Section 15 of the NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment by protecting and enhancing biodiversity. When determining applications paragraph 175 states if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from development cannot be avoided (through locating to an alternative site), adequately mitigated for or as a loss resort compensated for then planning permission should be refused. Policy EQ5 of the Local Plan seeks to conserve and enhance the biodiversity and geological resources of the area by ensuring that development proposals will not result in significant harm to biodiversity or geodiversity interests.
7.59 The application is accompanied by an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report which concludes that the proposed development would not impact upon any statutory or non-statutory sites due to their distance away from the site. The development would result in the loss of common / widespread habitats (improved grassland with some scattered trees in the centre of the site, bordered by tree lines and dry-stone walls) which have negligible ecological value. It is not anticipated that the site supports significant numbers of notable bird species. Nevertheless, the site provides some breeding opportunities for birds and thus, it is recommended that any
Page 79 vegetation removal is undertaken outside of the breeding bird season. Development will result in the loss of the grassland within the site which could result in a slight decrease in suitable foraging habitat for bats. However, it is anticipated that with native and species rich planting being secured as part of the landscaping proposals, the site could see an increase in the number of invertebrates and increase as a foraging resource.
7.60 The applicant has also provided a Biodiversity Net Gain Calculation which indicates that with the new habitats to be created on the site (including buildings, gardens, amenity grassland areas, scattered woodland, and wildflower meadow grassland), the development will result in a net gain of 2.14 habitat area biodiversity units and a net gain of 0.91 linear habitat biodiversity units which gives an overall net gain of 3.05. Also, as proposed in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report, species enhancements on site will further increase the biodiversity value of the site; these would include bat and bird boxes, hibernaculas and hedgehog highways.
7.61 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust has recommended conditions to secure the following: Timing of site clearance to avoid impacts on nesting birds; Implementation of the proposed soft landscaping; Adherence to the landscape management plan; Sensitive lighting design; Species enhancements included in the final page of the Biodiversity Metric Calculation.
7.62 Local Plan policy EQ9 seeks to protect existing trees, woodland and hedgerows. An Arboricultural Report has been submitted which identifies 6 trees which will be impacted on by the proposals. One tree is in poor condition and is to be removed in any event. The others are to be retained. A significant amount of tree planting is to take place as part of the development. Therefore subject to conditions to protect the existing trees, there is no arboricultural basis to object to this application and it complies with Local Policy EQ9.
Highway safety
7.63 Section 9 of the NPPF states that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of development proposals so that, amongst other things, opportunities from existing or proposed infrastructure are realised, opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport are identified and pursued, and patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design or schemes and contribute to making high quality places.
7.64 Paragraph 108 of the NPPF identifies that in assessing an application for development, it should be ensured that:
a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location;
b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and
Page 80 c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.
7.65 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Para 110 goes on to state development should give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements within the scheme and with neighbouring areas.
7.66 Policy CF6 of the adopted Local Plan sets out the need to ensure that development can be safely accessed in a sustainable manner, whilst minimising the need to travel particularly by unsustainable modes of transport.
7.67 The site layout includes a vehicular access from Cliffe Road in the form of a priority T-junction at the site’s eastern boundary in approximately the same location as the existing gated access. The proposed site access junction can achieve appropriate visibility splays and will be able to operate safely and within capacity. A farmer’s access to facilitate access into the fields along the north of the development site is also included. There is an appropriate provision of internal footways within the site that connect with the external footway on Cliffe Road on the south side of the proposed new access junction.
7.68 The Applicant’s Transport Note identifies the perceived access routes to/ from the site for both vehicles and pedestrians together with predicted trip generations and impacts on the existing highway network. It is predicted that around 90% of traffic will be likely to travel to/from the A57 west of Glossop town centre with two routes to Norfolk Square identified i.e. via Cliffe Road/A57 to the north of the site and via Cliffe Road/ Highfield Road/ Gladstone Street/ A624 to the south. The former is shorter but involves use of a geometrically limited length of Cliffe Road with the main constraint of the latter route being caused by on-street parking on the existing estate roads. The Transport Note predicts that 60% of traffic will use the shorter route generating 12no. and 10no. two way trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively on the length of Cliffe Road north of the proposed junction to serve the site i.e. one vehicle every 5 – 6 minutes. A survey of existing traffic flows recorded average weekly AM and PM peak hour two-way trips of 18no. and 27no. trips respectively on the same section of road i.e. one vehicle every 2 – 3 minutes. The revised proposals see a reduction in unit numbers from the original. This will result in a decrease in predicted trip generation, and the development proposals will result in an additional 20 two-way vehicle movements in the AM peak hour and 18 two-way vehicle movements in the PM peak hour.
7.69 It has been demonstrated that vehicle trips generated by the proposed residential development in the weekday AM and PM peak hours will be dispersed onto the wider highway network via multiple route choices, resulting in negligible increases in traffic on the surrounding links and junctions. At the request of the Highway Authority, the impact of the proposed development’s vehicular trip generation at the A57 / Milltown junction has been assessed during both the AM and PM peak hours. This assessment shows that under 2020 traffic flow conditions the proposed residential development will result in a negligible increase in vehicle
Page 81 movements at the A57 / Milltown junction, which will not cause a noticeable change with regard to the operational characteristics of the priority T‐junction. The findings of the traffic assessment therefore indicate that the development will not have a severe impact on the operation of the surrounding road network.
7.70 One of the major concerns of the Highway Authority is pedestrian safety for those using the geometrically limited section of Cliffe Road due to this being the shortest route between the site and several amenities (including shops, medical centre, school, etc.) to the east of Glossop Town Centre. The Highway Authority has recommended that additional pedestrian links be thoroughly explored in order to reduce reliance on/ attraction of Cliffe Road. The proposed Drainage Strategy Plan demonstrates sewer connections being made along a track/ corridor within the applicants control between the site and Gladstone Street. Provision of a pedestrian (and cycle if possible) link via a route along this line would be likely to prove attractive when taking into consideration the reduced distance to the town centre and opportunity to make use of The Bank towards Milltown as well as the advantage of being able to enter/ exit the site at its point of lowest level rather than the new junction, its highest. In addition, land adjacent to Cross Cliffe is within control at a point where the highway is at its narrowest and devoid of any margins. It would appear that the boundary wall in this location supports land to the south of the highway. However, setting this wall back and providing a section of footway of 2.0m width across this entire frontage (roughly 50m) would be considered to be of benefit to pedestrian safety especially if alternative routes can’t be justifiably delivered.
7.71 A number of issues have been identified with creation of a formal pedestrian link via the existing track within the ownership of the applicant between the site and Gladstone Street. There is a significant level difference between The Bank and the proposed development site and use of a 1 in 2 slope is unacceptable. Provision of an engineered solution using steps and retaining walls to create a link with The Bank would be prohibitive and could not be supported by this scheme in viability terms.
7.72 The Applicant’s Transport Consultant argues that there is a segregated, safe route for pedestrians that provides safe access between the proposed development site and Glossop Town Centre. This route is approximately 0.5 miles in distance and uses the footway on the west side of Cliffe Road, a public footpath (or a longer route via the footway on Highfield Road), and the footways on Gladstone Close, Gladstone Street and Victoria Street. They also state that Cliffe Road / Cross Cliffe to the north of the proposed residential site is not an attractive walking route to access the town centre and the Woods Mill development area due to the very steep gradient and the intermittent footway provision in this direction.
7.73 The Highway Authority has suggested that funding of £15,000 be secured by way of a S106 agreement to explore and subsequently implement any requisite mitigation measures in the form of refuge for pedestrians on Cliffe Road at a point where the existing highway is at its most constrained, which has been accepted by the applicant in principle.
7.74 With regard to the site access and internal layout of the development, a number of amendments have been made to the access arrangements and parking layout. The vehicular access arrangement on Cliffe Road includes the realignment of
Page 82 the wall to the north of the junction set back 2m from the carriageway channel for the entire length of the exit visibility sightline. The Cliffe Road site access junction has amended with 8m corner radii and the Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposed junction geometry. The proposed wall realignment on Cliffe Road for the extent of the northern visibility splay is tapered back into the tie in point at the edge of the carriageway verge. Plot 16 parking spaces are set back 2m from the proposed internal access road carriageway edge. The development proposals comprise of 76 parking spaces for the 38 dwellings, equating to 100% of the maximum standards. The proposed car parking provision is therefore in accordance with the parking standards set out in the Local Plan. Exit visibility sight lines have been reviewed for the driveways on the inside of bends. The carriageway narrowing feature on the main internal access road is no longer proposed. The internal site layout will be able to accommodate the path and turning manoeuvres of a large refuse vehicle.
7.75 As noted in the latest comments from the Highway Authority, the access details are now deemed to be generally satisfactory as is the potential impact on the surrounding highway network, subject to conditions together with a S106 legal agreement to secure funding to explore and subsequently implement mitigation measures in the form of a refuge for pedestrians on Cliffe Road. Highways recommend a number of conditions including submission of a construction management plan & method statement; details of permanent access arrangements with Cliffe Road; construction details of the estate road and footways; provision of 15m forward visibility sightlines around the inside of bends in the street alignment; provision of suitable turning arrangements to enable service and delivery vehicles to turn; details of parking spaces, cycle parking, arrangements for storage of bins and waste collection; and a scheme for the disposal of highway surface water. Details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development would also need to be agreed.
7.76 In light of the above comments, subject to the contribution outlined and conditions & informatives recommended by Highways, it is considered that the proposed development would not adversely impact on the surrounding local road network; as such the proposal accords with Local Plan Policy CF6 and Chapter 9 of the NPPF.
Flooding & drainage
7.77 Policy EQ11 of the Local Plan seeks to support development which avoids areas of current or future flood risk. Paragraph 155 of the NPPF states that development in areas at risk of flooding, should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk.
7.78 The site lies within flood zone 1, an area which has the lowest risk of flooding. The applicant intends that all dwellings will be constructed with standard thresholds in place of at least 150mm. Given that the site is within Flood Zone 1 there will be no loss of fluvial floodplain storage post development and a route of safe escape is not required. Flood proofing will be incorporated as appropriate. A flood warning and evacuation plan would be implemented post development.
Page 83 7.79 The proposed drainage strategy for the site has been subject to discussions between the applicant’s drainage consultant and the Flood Risk Management Team (LLFA). It is proposed to dispose of surface water from the site using a soakaway at the north west end of the site. Full BRE365 testing has been undertaken on the site, which shows infiltration rates are suitable. The soakaway proposed in the Drainage Strategy uses the lowest infiltration rate attained from BRE365 testing for the sizing of the proposed soakaway, to ensure that the soakaway and drainage network are sized appropriately to accommodate all rainfall events up to the 1 in 100 year event (+ 40% Climate Change allowance). Following submission of additional information on site drainage proposals, the Flood Risk Management Team has lifted it’s objection, subject to conditions covering a detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of the surface water drainage for the site; details of how surface water run-off from the site will be avoided during the construction phase; and submission of a verification report which demonstrates that the drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme.
7.80 Bearing the above comments in mind it is considered that the proposal will be able to incorporate appropriate drainage for the site and that no flooding issues will result from the development.
7.81 Therefore, it is considered that, subject to appropriate conditions, there are no flooding or drainage issues arising from the development and the proposal accords with Local Plan policy EQ11 and section 14 of the NPPF in this regard.
Land contamination
7.82 Policy EQ10 of the Local Plan seeks to protect people and the environment from unsafe, unhealthy and polluted environments. Paragraph 170 (e) of the NPPF states that new and existing development should not contribute to, or be put at an unacceptable risk from, or be adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Policy S1 of the Local Plan and paragraph 127 (e) of the NPPF seek to protect the amenities of all existing and future residents.
7.83 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Geo-environmental Site Assessment Reports have been submitted with the application. The reports identify a low risk of land contamination to future site occupants and the wider environment, however, the proposed end use of the development is particularly sensitive to the presence of land contamination. The Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the reports and raises no objection, subject to conditions. Therefore, subject to the recommendations of the contaminated land reports, it is considered that the proposed development does not pose any significant environmental health risks to people or the environment and that in this respect the application accords with policy EQ10 of the Local Plan and paras 127 and 170 of the NPPF.
8. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSIONS
8.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Page 84 8.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Local Plan 2016.
8.3 Bearing all the above matters in mind, in summary and conclusion, it is considered that: 1) as the site is now within the built up area boundary, the principle of housing development can be considered acceptable when assessed against Policy H1, subject to other material planning considerations; 2) the development would achieve an appropriate mix of house types and sizes; 3) no archaeological interests are threatened, subject to a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological works; 4) there are no significant surface water run-off, drainage or potential flooding issues arising from the application; 5) subject to conditions and appropriate mitigation, there are no significant highway safety issues arising from the proposal; 6) 38 No. dwellings could be accommodated within the site whilst a) preserving the residential amenities of existing neighbouring residential properties and b) providing sufficient levels of amenity for future occupants of the proposed dwellings; 7) the viability of the development could not withstand the contributions that have been sought towards education provision and or off site public open space improvements; 8) there are no significant ecological/biodiversity issues arising from the application and 9) there are no significant public health issues arising from the proposed development.
8.4 There would be economic benefits stemming from a) the construction phase, b) future residents contributing to the local economy and c) additional Council Tax and potential New Homes Bonus payments. In addition there would be social benefits resulting from the provision of 38 No. dwellings, almost all of which would be affordable.
8.5 However, the harm that has been identified to the landscape and visual amenity is considered to outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The proposal would also result in some harm to the setting of the Howard Town Conservation Area and Whitfield Conservation Area. Such harm to the heritage assets would be “less than substantial” and must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The NPPG helpfully explains what is meant by the terms “public benefits”. It states “Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 8). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit. In this case these are the provision of housing and affordable housing. However, the weight given to these benefits is moderated by the fact that i) the Borough can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing and the site is therefore not required to meet housing needs ii) only 30% of the housing can be secured in perpetuity as affordable housing under Local Plan Policy. Therefore the harm to the Conservation Areas would not on balance be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. They also weigh against the proposal in the overall planning balance. Furthermore, given that the development
Page 85 would be highly prominent and intrusive in the landscape, including in views from certain vantage points within the Conservation Area, this is a contributory factor which adds to the overall visual harm.
8.6 Therefore, the proposal fails to accord with the relevant local plan policies as set out above, which are considered to be up-to-date, given that they were adopted in April 2016, and the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. Within the planning balance, the environmental harm (impact on the landscape and visual amenity including views from and setting of the Conservation Areas) outweighs the benefits; as such, overall the proposed development is considered not to be a sustainable form of development and therefore does not accord with policies S1 and S1a of the Local Plan or the sustainability thread running through the NPPF. There are no other material considerations that indicate planning permission should be granted. Neither would the scheme be made acceptable through the imposition of reasonable planning conditions. As such the application should be refused.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. That the application is REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its siting, layout, form, scale and appearance, would be a prominent, visual intrusion into the landscape, which fails to respect local landscape character, when viewed from a number of vantage points, including the Howard Town Conservation Area. As such the development would erode the visual qualities and character of the area contrary to Local Plan Policies EQ2, EQ6 and EQ7 and advice contained within the adopted High Peak Design Guide 2018, Glossop Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2006 and Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance March 2006. The identified environmental harm, including less than substantial harm to the setting of the Howard Town and Whitfield Conservation Areas outweighs the social, economic and public benefits of the scheme; consequently the proposal does not represent sustainable development and therefore does not accord with Local Plan Policies S1 and S1a or the sustainability thread running through the NPPF. The proposal is also contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF, which is a significant material consideration and consequently, development should be restricted.
B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and
Page 86 environmental conditions of the area. However it has not been possible to secure a form of development that does not result in landscape harm
Page 87 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Date 14th July 2020
Application HPK/2020/0140 No: Location Proposed campsite, Cemetery Road, Glossop Proposal Variation of condition 2 in relation to HPK/2019/0436 Applicant Mrs Joanne Crook Agent N/A Ward/Parish Dinting Ward Date registered 20 April 2020 If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark Ollerenshaw [email protected] 01538 395400 ext. 4921
1. REFERRAL
The application is referred to the Development Control Committee because it is a major development and the previous application was determined by the Committee.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE subject to conditions
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 The application site forms part of an existing agricultural field with associated access located to the north east of Cemetery Road, outside the built up area boundary of Glossop within an area of Open Countryside and Green Belt. The eastern boundary of the camping field runs alongside Woodhead Road. The site area is approx. 1.5 hectares.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 This application seeks to vary Condition 2 attached to the previous approval, HPK/2019/0436, which was for the change of use of a field to a campsite, erection of a toilet and shower block and new car park. Condition 2 lists the approved plans. It is proposed to vary the condition to reference the revised plans which propose the relocation of the toilet and shower block. As approved, this building is shown to be sited adjacent to the new car park off Cemetery Road. It is now proposed to locate this building within the camping field. The applicant explains that they have reviewed the approved siting of the toilet block and consider that it is too far away from the camping field, especially for families with small children and anyone with disabilities. The design and appearance of the building would remain as previously approved.
Page 89 1 3.2 The application, the details attached to it, including the plans, supporting documents and the responses of the consultees can be found on the Council’s website at:
http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2393 10
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
HPK/2019/0436 - Change of use of field to campsite and erection of toilet and shower block and small car park – Approved 20 January 2020.
http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2 34992
HPK/2019/0139 – Change of use of part of field to campsite and erection of toilet and shower block and small car park – Withdrawn.
http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2 31531
HPK/2011/0595 – Erection of General Purpose Agricultural Building – Refused 18/01/2012.
http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=1 32100
HPK/2011/0460 – Erection of Agricultural Building – Refused 12/10/2011.
http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=1 31126
HPK/2004/0281 – The Construction Of A Surface Water Sewer To Serve The Cemetery And Bringing In Of Clean Soil To Level the fields, and rebuild to DPC the existing agricultural building – Approved 30/07/2004.
http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=4 3001
HPK/0003/2386 – Golf Driving Range with Associated Buildings and Parking Facilities Together with Fencing Access and Lighting – Refused 21/04/1993.
http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=2 0661
5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016
Page 90 2 S 1 Sustainable Development Principles S 1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy E6 Promoting Peak District Tourism and Culture E7 Chalet Accommodation, Caravan and Campsite Developments EQ 2 Landscape Character EQ 3 Rural Development EQ 4 Green Belt Development EQ 5 Biodiversity EQ 6 Design and Place Making EQ10 Pollution Control and Unstable Land CF 6 Accessibility and Transport
Supplementary Planning Guidance
High Peak Design Guide Landscape Character SPD
National Planning Policy Framework
Para 11 The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Section(s) 6, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site notice Expiry date for comments: 29/06/2020 Neighbour letters Expiry date for comments: 11/05/2020 Press notice Expiry date for comments: 21/05/2020
Neighbours
One objection letter has been received, in which the following issues are raised: Lack of notification/consultation with neighbouring properties. The location plan is inaccurate as it includes Laneside Farm Land as part of the development. The site is on filled ground and is devoid of all forms of land drainage. Previous application for an agricultural building in 2011 was refused. There is a small spring on the lowest part of the above site adjacent to Woodhead Road which runs under the road into a small stream running through the outskirts of the farm into a culvert before joining the river through Manor Park. This stream supplies water for the farm and cattle. The farms main spring water supply collects from land just below Woodhead Road. A major concern is the contamination of the spring water and stream from toilet waste etc. from this proposed development. Flooding:- during heavy rain, water run off from the proposed site of Cemetery Road is unable to run through the drains to the stream and floods the main road.
Page 91 3 The stream enters a closed culvert/ drain underground on the farm and will not cope with any more surface water flow from hard surface areas/ car parks etc. The water would then flood into the farm buildings causing pollution of the river and a public health issue. The cemetery during its extension installed holding tanks for surface water and a reed bed to overcome any possible surface water problems.
Consultations
Consultee Comment Officer response DCC Highways No objection. Para 7.27
Environmental In response to the objection letter (points Paras 7.20-24 Health 4-7):
4. There is a small spring on the lowest part of the site adjacent to Woodhead Road which runs under the road into a small stream running through the outskirts of the farm into a culvert before joining the river through Manor Park. 5. This stream supplies water for the farm and cattle. 6. The farms main spring water supply collects from land just below Woodhead Road. 7. A major concern is the contamination of the spring water and stream from toilet waste etc. from this proposed development.
I understand the development utilises a mini treatment works (package treatment plant) and this will be compliant with EA general binding rules. These are intended to protect controlled waters. I also understand the spring supply serving Laneside Farm is located north of the farm, and the development presents little risk to this. Hillside Cottage is also on a private water supply (well); the development presents an potential risk to this water supply depending on the depth of the well and the proximity to any treatment plant point outlet.
Recommend that the Environment Agency is consulted.
Page 92 4 It’s also advised that further details are submitted regarding the package treatment plant and soakaway or discharge point.
Environment Awaiting comments. Paras 7.20-24 Agency DCC Flood Risk No comments to make on this application. Management Team Arboricultural Original comments Para 7.15 Officer We need to look at an amendment to the landscaping proposals to include a fence along the field boundary between the camping field and the car parking 'field'. I know there are some Oak trees going in (which I would still want to see as part of an amended scheme), but I consider with the relocation of the toilet block that a low native hedgerow along this field boundary would be beneficial in screening the site but also would provide some shelter to the campsite.
Revised comments
The revised plan is acceptable, but it lacks details so the hedge planting can be detailed in a condition along the lines of:
A hedgerow comprising native species (Hawthorn, Holly and Blackthorn) shall be planted along the southwest boundary of the site as indicated on the landscaping plan. The hedgerow will comprise at least a double staggered row of whips (young trees at least 60cm in height) planted 33cm apart with at least 3 trees per metre. This will be planted in the first available planting season following commencement on site and any trees that die within the first 5 years shall be replaced.
7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE
Procedural Matters
Page 93 5 7.1 Section 73 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 allows for an application to be made to vary or remove planning conditions associated with a planning permission. One of the uses of a section 73 application is to seek a minor material amendment to a development, where there is a relevant condition that can be varied. There is no statutory definition of “minor material amendment”. However, it is likely to include any amendment where its scale and/or nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one which has been approved.
7.2 It is therefore necessary to consider whether the changes proposed are a minor material amendment to the development and whether they substantially differ in scale and nature to the development approved in addition to considering whether planning permission for the development should be granted subject to conditions which differ from those previously approved.
Policy Context
7.3 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
7.4 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan consists of the adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016.
7.5 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF explains that at the heart of the Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, for decision makers this means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan, they should be approved without delay, but where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
Principle of development / Green Belt
7.6 The principle of this development has been accepted through the granting of the previous application, HPK/2019/0436 and the previous permission remains extant.
7.7 The site is situated outside the built-up area boundary of any town or larger village as defined within the adopted Proposals Map, and therefore lies in the open countryside. The site is also situated within the North Derbyshire Green Belt. As such, the application is subject to Local Plan Policies EQ3 and EQ4 Plan which refer to Rural Development and Green Belt Development respectively.
7.8 The National Planning Policy Framework states that the construction of any new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, although exceptions to this include, amongst other things;
Page 94 6 The provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it;
7.9 As part of the previous application it was concluded that the provision of facilities for outdoor recreation such as the application proposal represented an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt. However, the erection of the new toilet and shower block would not by its nature preserve Green Belt openness. As an inappropriate form of development within the context of national Green Belt policy, the proposal can only therefore be found to be an acceptable form of development in the Green Belt if sufficient very special circumstances can be demonstrated which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. It was found that the social and economic benefits that would arise from the development as a whole constitute ‘very special circumstances’ that outweigh any limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt. There is a demonstrable lack of campsites in the local area with the nearest being located at Crowden and Hayfield and both of these are more focussed on caravans. The proposed change of use will meet a demand for a type of visitor accommodation that is not currently being met, as identified in the letters of support received in respect of the previous application. The site is within close proximity of services and facilities in Glossop, including public transport options, and the proposal will also have clear benefits for tourism in Glossop and the Peak District and spending in the local economy by visitors to the site.
7.10 The current application is to relocate the toilet and shower block so that it is within the camping field. Therefore, in comparison to the previous approval, the current application for the relocation of the toilet/shower block does not result in any additional built form but merely seeks consent for a different siting than that previously approved. Consequently, there would be no additional impact on Green Belt openness arising from this development.
Layout / Design / Character of the Countryside
7.11 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 127 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping.
7.12 Policies EQ2 ‘Landscape Character’ and EQ3 ‘Rural Development’ are considered relevant. The site is within the ‘Settled Valley Pastures’ Landscape Character Area. This landscape character type is typified by densely scattered small woodlands of oak‐birch with hazel, mixed species hedgerows and buildings of Gritstone with Welsh slate or stone slate roofs.
7.13 The proposed toilet and shower block is a very modest structure and as a result there is considered to be a limited impact on the character of the countryside and Green Belt arising from the proposed development. Its approved siting is adjacent to Cemetery
Page 95 7 Road close to the site entrance south of the new car park. Design improvements to the toilet block were secured as part of the previous application. It was originally proposed to be in rendered blockwork with a mono-pitched roof; the revised proposal is a more traditional pitched roof building which would be clad in gritstone walls with a slate roof and timber doors. It would resemble a small field barn which is more in keeping with the area.
7.14 The site has an open nature and is clearly visible from Cemetery Road and Woodhead Road and from longer range views, particularly to the east. It has a rural setting although there is a degree of urbanisation due to the garden centre and other development on the other side of Cemetery Road.
7.15 The revised siting of the toilet block within the camping field means that, rather than being adjacent to Cemetery Road, it will be set further away from the road and it will be located at a slightly lower level and will therefore have less impact when seen from this vantage point. A revised plan has been submitted which indicates that a new native hedgerow (Hawthorn, Holly and Blackthorn) will be planted along the existing stockproof fence which forms the south western boundary of the camping field. Once established the hedgerow will partly screen the new building and the camping field when viewed from Cemetery Road. The additional planting will also have the added benefit of providing some shelter to the campsite from the prevailing weather conditions. The revised siting of the building means that the facilities will be more accessible to visitors, especially for families with children or anyone with disabilities. The revised landscaping plan lacks some detail as to the number and locations of the planting and so it is recommended that these details should be specified as part of a revised landscaping condition (Condition 4), as recommended by the Arboricultural Officer. Therefore, subject to this planting being secured by way of the landscaping condition, it is considered that the revised siting of the proposal would not be detrimental to the character of the countryside.
7.16 The revised scheme is considered acceptable in terms of siting, scale and design. The impact on the character of the countryside would be acceptable and accords with the advice contained in Policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the Local Plan. In the context of the development as a whole, it is considered that the proposed revision to the scheme is of a “minor material” nature; the revised scheme would not be substantially different from the one which has been approved.
Amenity
7.17 Local Plan Policy EQ6 requires development to achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing effect, noise, light pollution or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity.
7.18 Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that development should create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
7.19 The site is a significant distance away from residential properties at Wimberry Hill Farm, Lanehead House and the recently constructed properties located at the North
Page 96 8 Road development. The relocation of the toilet block will not have any additional impact on the amenities of nearby occupiers.
7.20 It is noted that a neighbouring farmer has objected to the proposals on the basis of the possible contamination of private water supplies; and additional surface water run-off from new hard surface areas/ car parks.
7.21 The issue of the impact on private water supplies was dealt with to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Officer as part of the previous applications and further details were required for the location of the package treatment plant which will deal with foul drainage. The treatment plant remains in the same location as previously approved (and the previous consent is extant) and it is only the toilet block that is proposed to be re-positioned. The plant is a Vortex 20 which has a sufficient capacity to cater for campsites, restaurants, offices and pubs. It will process sewage until it is classed as cleaned water which is then released into the soakaway, unlike traditional septic tanks. The plant will be installed and designed in accordance with the relevant standards and guidance.
7.22 The Environment Agency’s formal consultation response was not available at the time of the preparation of this report. However, the EA has indicated that it would not be looking to object to the proposals but will highlight that the package treatment plant will be likely to require an environmental permit. The Environment Agency will not issue an environmental permit for the discharge unless they are satisfied that the discharge will not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and controlled waters. The Environment Agency’s consultation response will be provided via the Update Sheet.
7.23 Therefore, given the proposed use of a treatment plant which will need to comply with Environment Agency standards, and subject to the Environment Agency raising no objections, it is considered that the development does not pose a risk to the nearest private water supply.
7.24 With regard to the objector’s comment regarding flooding, the site is located within Flood Zone 1, which is the zone at the lowest risk of flooding. Given that only a small area of the overall site area would be hard surfaced and that the car park, apart from the first 5 metres of the access road, is proposed to be surfaced with grasscrete which is a permeable surface, it is not considered that the proposals will lead to any significant issues with flooding or surface water drainage.
Other matters
7.25 With regard to land ownership, the applicant has provided evidence that the whole of the application site is within their ownership.
7.26 Biodiversity enhancements on the site are to be secured through the new landscaping proposals agreed as part of the previous application. The relocation of the toilet and shower block will have no additional impact on ecological interests.
7.27 Highway safety matters were addressed as part of the previous application, including provision of adequate off road parking space. Conditions were attached to the
Page 97 9 previous approval to secure modifications to the site access to ensure requisite exit visibility sightlines.
8. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
8.1 The development of the site has been accepted by the granting of the previous applications. The changes proposed are considered to be minor material amendments to the approved scheme and their scale and/or nature would not result in a development which is substantially different from the one which has been approved. Therefore it is considered that a fresh application is not required and these can be dealt with via the Section 73/ Variation of Condition application.
8.2 Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Local Plan 2016.
8.3 As with the previous application, the proposal would result in some minor loss of Green Belt openness and therefore ‘very special circumstances’ should be demonstrated in order for the development to proceed. The benefits of the scheme, as previously outlined, are considered to constitute ‘very special circumstances’ which outweigh any limited harm that the development will have on the intrinsic character of the Green Belt and countryside. The application is therefore compliant with LP Policy EQ4 and relevant Green Belt policies within Chapter 13 of the NPPF, and thus represents a sustainable form of development in the Green Belt.
8.3 The revised scheme would have no additional impact on landscape character, highway safety or ecological interests. The proposals would have no additional impact on amenities of neighbouring properties. Subject to the Environment Agency raising no objections in respect of the impact on water supply, drainage and flooding it is considered the proposals do not present a significant pollution or flood risk.
8.4 Overall, it is considered that the scheme is a sustainable form of development which complies with the relevant Local and National Planning Policies set out at the beginning of this report and, in the absence of any other material considerations, accordingly it is recommended that this application for the variation of Condition 2 be approved. It is recommended that the conditions attached to the previous consent be re-imposed, with Condition 2 to be revised to reference the revised plans, and the landscaping condition (Condition 4) should be amended to specify the details of the new hedgerow.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
A: APPROVE, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions
Page 98 10 Condition ref number Brief description Comment
TL01 Development to begin within 3 years AP01 Development in accordance with the revised plans. NSTD Materials of external construction of the toilet and shower block shall be natural gritstone to the walls with natural slate roof and it shall be fitted with timber doors. NSTD Implementation of landscaping scheme including specification of new native hedgerow along south west boundary of the camping field. NSTD Space to be provided within the site for storage of plant and materials, site accommodation, loading and manoeuvring of employees and visitors vehicles. NSTD The existing vehicular access with Cemetery Road shall be modified in accordance with the approved application drawing and provided with exit visibility sightlines extending from a point 2.4 metres from the carriageway edge, measured along the centreline of the access, for a distance of 84 metres to the south east and 103 metres to the north west measured along the nearside carriageway edge. NSTD The campsite shall not be taken into use until space has been provided for parking/loading and
Page 99 11 manoeuvring of visitors / staff/ customers/ service and delivery vehicles. NSTD No gates or other barriers within 12 metres of the highway boundary and any gates shall open inwards only. NSTD If during development any contamination or evidence of likely contamination is identified that has not previously been identified or considered, then the applicant shall submit a written scheme to identify and control that contamination. NSTD Any artificial lighting shall conform to the Institute of Light Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting. NSTD Any lighting shall be fitted with motion sensors and shall be fitted so as to direct light downwards to minimise light spill. NSTD No caravans / motorhomes NSTD Holiday accommodation only. No permanent residential accommodation. NSTD The development shall not be occupied by any person(s) for a period of longer than 2 calendar months and no person(s) who has occupied the site shall occupy the site at any time within six months of the day of the last occupation of the site. NSTD Notwithstanding previous consent only 1 toilet and shower block shall be erected on site
Page 100 12 B In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Informative
This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicants. In accordance with Paragraph 38 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
Site Plan
Page 101 13 Page 102 14 Agenda Item 8
HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
13th July 2020
Application HPK/2020/0171 No: Location Market Hall, Market Place, Glossop, SK13 8AR Proposal Refurbishment of the existing pitched roof coverings, comprising of removal and salvage existing slates, new battens and counter battens, new breathable membrane, re- installation of salvaged slate and import new slate where required. Replacement leadwork, flashings and valley gutters. Making good timber fascias and soffits, replacement rainwater gutters. Replacement patent glazing and glazed lanterns. Replacement flat roof coverings with built-up mineral felt system. Installation of new glazed lanterns over existing atriums. Installation of roof access ladder and walkway system. Internal works to the Market Hall will comprise of removal of existing suspended ceiling systems, isolation and removal of M&E services installations, removal of market traders stalls, partitions, raised access floors.
Applicant High Peak Borough Council Agent Mr Jamie Wildgoose, AHR Building Consultancy Ltd Ward/Parish Date registered 18.05.2020 If you have a question about this report please contact: Ailsa Berry [email protected] 07583122644
1. REFERRAL
1.1The application is referred to the Development Control Committee because HPBC is the applicant.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE subject to conditions
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
2.1 Glossop Town Hall, Market Hall and Municipal Building is a multi-use building in the centre of Glossop, Derbyshire providing offices for High Peak Borough Council and a covered market. The building in its entirety is Grade II Listed and lies in the Norfolk Square Conservation Area which includes a number of other listed buildings.
2.2 Each of the three parts of the building has a different style of construction with the Town Hall dating from around 1838 with several later modifications, while the
Page 103 1 Market Hall was constructed around 1845. The Municipal Building dates from around 1923.
2.3 This application relates to the Market Hall and Municipal Building.
2.4 The Market Hall and Municipal Building are of solid rusticated sandstone brickwork construction. The front elevation of the Municipal Building (southern elevation) incorporates a range of historic features including vermiculated quoins and stone columns with an ashlar plinth over the main entrance. The roof is made up of a series of pitched roofs with a natural slate covering and a flat roof to the Municipal Building with a felt covering below stone chippings incorporating two roof lanterns. The pitched roofs to the Municipal Building on the eastern side include two large rooflights offering borrowed light to the open-plan office areas below. There are two lightwells to either side of the main stairwell in the Municipal Building, with the left hand lightwell glazed at first floor level with a modern aluminium framed patent glazing system. The walls of the lightwells differ to the external facades and are of painted brickwork construction. Windows are of painted timber sliding sash construction to the external elevations with metal crittal style stained glass windows which face into the lightwells.
2.5 The Municipal Building includes a basement level comprising a number of chambers which are accessed via a narrow staircase below the main stairs. The main chamber housing the boiler plant and providing access to the lightwell and smaller chambers used for storage.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
3.1 Listed Building Consent is sought for the following works to the Market Hall and Municipal Building (no works are proposed to the Town Hall):
Refurbishment of the existing pitched roof coverings, comprising of the removal and salvage of existing slates, new battens and counter battens, new breathable membrane, re-installation of salvaged slate and import new slate where required. Replacement leadwork, flashings and valley gutters. Making good timber fascias and soffits. Replacement rainwater gutters. Replacement patent glazing and glazed lanterns. Replacement flat roof coverings with built-up mineral felt system. Installation of new glazed lanterns over existing atriums. Installation of roof access ladder and walkway system. Internal works to the Market Hall will comprise the removal of existing suspended ceiling systems, isolation and removal of M&E services installations, removal of market traders stalls, partitions, raised access floors.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
HPK/0003/7187 Alterations to arcade Approved 29/06/1998
Page 104 2 HPK/0003/7205 Refurbishment of Glossop arcade Approved 29/06/1998
5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
Adopted High Peak Local Plan 2016
S1 Development Principles S1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development S5 Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy EQ6 Design and Place Making EQ7 Built and Historic Environment
Supplementary Planning Guidance
High Peak Design Guide
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11: The Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Section(s) 4, 12 and 16
6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
Site notice Expiry date for comments: 16/06/2020 Neighbour letters Expiry date for comments: 09/06/2020 Press Notice Expiry date for comments: 18/06/2020
Neighbours
None received.
Consultations
Consultee Comment Officer response Glossop & The trust welcomes the Council’s decision to District proceed with replacement of the roofs of the Heritage Market Hall and Municipal Buildings. Their Trust condition has been a cause for concern for at least 17 years, and so this work is long overdue. These buildings are very important to the town, both as local heritage assets and for the role they can potentially play in its future development, and without this work they would be at serious risk.
The Trust then outlines a comprehensive history of the buildings.
Page 105 3 A survey in 2009 states that the roof trusses are ‘lightweight steel’. If this is correct, and is true of both the central roof (no. 2) and the roofs of the side aisles, it would indicate that the entire pitched roof structure has been renewed since first construction, as the original trusses would have been of wrought iron, and not ‘lightweight’. The roofs of the side aisles at least may have been replaced in 1920-21 in conjunction with the creation of the Municipal Buildings, as the repairs in 1902, when Lord Howard still held the freehold, are likely to have been the minimum necessary to bring the building back into use. Although original slates may well have been re-used, the roof structures themselves are therefore not of great heritage significance relative to the original interior features.
47 years ago the changes to the interior were probably seen as introducing welcome modernity to a town which was trying to shake off its industrial past and reinvent itself as a commuter suburb of Manchester, and the provision of heating throughout the building would certainly have been seen as a step forward. However, the space now seems cheap, tacky and gloomy, lacking the natural light for which Matthew Ellison Hadfield had made provision, and once through the doors visitors lose any sense of being in a Victorian building, all the historic features being hidden. The proposal to strip out all the 1970s alterations is therefore to be welcomed – provided, that is, that whatever takes their place is sympathetic to the building’s history and character.
Since it has been invisible for 47 years, we have no knowledge of the condition of the 1850s ironwork which was once the most prominent aspect of the interior. An architect’s report in 1967 said that “the cast iron columns and traceried arch supports to the roof are an attractive feature” but went on to say that “unfortunately, the whole structure of columns and roof members is now rather suspect” and our understanding is that the lower tier of columns at least was subsequently boxed in with concrete, suggesting that restoration may not be practicable. There is no reference in this application to the removal of the concrete or repair or replacement of ‘suspect’ ironwork, and
Page 106 4 we presume therefore that this is an issue which will be addressed in a subsequent application.
Conservation Comments dated 18/06/2020: Officer The building is Grade II Listed and stands within the Glossop Conservation Area. I visited the site earlier this year to look at the works and discuss the specification.
The roof structure to this part of the building has been renewed since first construction and incorporates a network of light steel trusses and purlins. This is of limited heritage significance. There does however, remain the original 1850s ironwork columns and decorative arch supports which are currently obscured by the suspended ceiling and part boxed in with concrete so the surviving extent and condition is unknown.
Most of the works involve ‘like for like’ repairs which are well specified. The alterations include the following: Replace valley gutters with mineral felt (Roof 1,2,3): No details of existing material Install an access gantry along valleys with access stair (Roof 1,2,3). The full details of the handrail are not provided but I can’t see that this will be visible from the ground. Lead-line coping stones (Roof 2): Is there a need to do this? I am concerned that any cracking of the lead in future may trap damp in thereby concealing any problems. Further detail will be required by condition 2 Replacement 8-panel rooflights (Roof 3). Will these be flush with the line of the roof? We need a detail to demonstrate that this will be flush 2 New glazed lanterns over lightwells with lead cladding (Roof 4). This is a design flaw and maintenance issue so the enclosing of this space with a glazed lantern is supported. 3 pyramid lanterns (Roof 4 & 6) Removal of old services and suspended ceiling/frame: Fully support New amenity lighting suspended from trusses: Details required by condition Rainwater goods: Details required by
Page 107 5 condition
New glazing systems are powder-coated metal with slim sections.
Subject to clarification on the details in red above, the work is well specified and will not affect the historic significance of the building.
Conditions: Samples of new facing materials to be submitted. Details of lead detailing to coping stones. Sample of in-line tile vent. Details of valley access gantry, handrail and details of installation of access stair. Scheme of works to trusses once suspended ceiling has been removed. Details of amenity lighting & fire alarm system.
On 24/06/2020, the Conservation Officer made the following comments in red against the additional information provided by the planning agent:
Replacement valley gutters – the existing valley gutters are lead lined. Our drawings noted them to be replaced with mineral felt however this is incorrect and has been amended to confirm the valley gutters will be replaced with a Code 5 lead again. The error has been highlighted during the procurement process which is currently running its course. We attach the revised drawing ref GTH-27-008(B) to confirm the change. Accepted
Access Gantry – this shouldn’t be visible from ground level. The final design responsibility has been given to the contractor (when appointed). The contractor will have responsibility to produce fabrication drawings for the access walkways and these will in-turn be submitted for review and approval before works commence. We presume the submission of the drawings can be made a requirement by the conditions. Deal with by condition
Page 108 6 Lead cappings to copings – we are replicating the approach that has been undertaken to the adjoining areas of the Town Hall that were refurbished last year whereby the copings have been lined with lead and use a welt joints at required intervals along the length of the gable capping. The design requires that the lead will be laid over a suitable underlay to protect against corrosive attack from the stone and reduce the risk of moisture trapped between the lead and substrate. Leadworks will be in compliance with LSA guidance and BS6915 code of practice. Accepted
Replacement 8-panel rooflights – See attached in-line rooflight details. The existing rooflights are not currently in-line so we will be governed by the level of the existing rafters. The capping to the glazing bars can either be flat or heritage/moulded type if there is a preference. Image of the existing rooflights attached ref IMG_5697. The upstand should be no greater than the current model. Deal with by condition
Amenity Lighting – See attached Cooper Tufflite luminaire data sheet. The light fittings are proposed to be suspended from chains and positioned uniformly within the market hall to provide 200 Lux lighting levels. The final design responsibility has been given to the contractor (when appointed). The contractor will have responsibility to produce lighting plots and these will in-turn be submitted for review and approval before works commence. It is worth noting that the lighting is proposed to be temporary as part of a ‘shell and core’ specification to provide general purpose lighting to the market hall until such time it is decided how the market hall will be developed further. Deal with by condition. I note that this is temporary pending a review of how the space will function. It would be good to achieve a sensitive lighting scheme which reflects the period of the building and enhances the quality of the environment
Page 109 7 Rainwater goods – the rainwater goods to the outer facing roofs appear to be relatively new and as such these will be retained. The rainwater goods to the inner roofs are currently pvc. We propose to change to Alumasc Aqualine moulded gutters, as per the attached brochure extract. This appears to be what has been used on the outer roofs already. Accepted
7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE
Policy Context
7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004 requires proposals to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan taking into consideration any material considerations relevant to the determination of the application.
7.2 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in assessing planning applications the Local Planning Authority has a duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest.
Principle of Development
7.3 The principle of development can only be deemed acceptable if the existing character and appearance of the listed building will be preserved or enhanced.
Impact on the Heritage Asset
7.4 The Market Hall and Municipal Building is a Grade II listed building and as such is subject to policy EQ7 of the High Peak Local Plan and restrictive policies set out within Chapter 16 of the NPPF (2019) which relate to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.
7.5 Local Plan policy EQ7 states that the Council will conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. This will take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and will ensure that development proposals contribute positively to the character of the built and historic environment. Particular protection will be given to designated and non- designated heritage assets and their settings, including listed buildings.
7.6 Paragraph 193 of the NPPF (2019) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019) requires that where
Page 110 8 a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
7.7 The submitted Design, Access & Heritage Statement provides a useful overview of the condition of the existing roofs, the need for the proposed works and the works that are proposed. This is as follows:
1.6.1 The roof to the Market Hall and Municipal Building is made up of three pitched roofs, side-by-side, separated by valley gutters. A flat roof is located over the main stairwell and surrounding rooms. The flat roof incorporates two Georgian wired roof lanterns within the roof structure, both of which have been identified as fragile.
1.6.2 The pitched roofs have a natural slate covering with clay ridge tiles. Generally, these roofs are in a poor condition with numerous broken and delaminated slates approaching the end of their serviceable life. A netting covers the majority of the roof area, presumably with the intention of preventing slates from falling onto the ground below although, this is in a poor state of repair and not performing as intended. The undulation of the roofs is evident along their entire lengths suggesting that the timber battens below are approaching the end of their serviceable life and as a result is compromising the nail fixings to the slates. Gaps between slates at eaves level are exposing the timber tilting fillet and fascia, both of which appear to be suffering from decay. The mortar bedding to the clay ridge tiles is in a poor condition, which appears to be impacting on the slates at ridge level. Undulation of the ridge tiles is evident which is also increasing the chance of water ingress within the building. Flashings and leadwork to the roof is in a poor condition with evidence of patch repairs being carried out using inadequate flash-band tape. Significant attention is required to the pitched roofs in the short term including the re-fixing or replacement of slipped or missing tiles, the re-bedding of the clay ridge tiles and the replacement of sagging slate battens. The verge boards are in a very poor condition, in particular at the North facing gable ends where they have effectively fallen off and are held in place by the netting.
1.6.3 There are large roof lights within the East side pitched roofs, directly over the large office to the first floor. The glazing bars appeared to be a mixture of timber and metal with a mixture of lead and flash-band linings over. The visible timber appears to be decaying and the flash-band lining is considered to be an inadequate temporary repair solution. The rooflight on the opposite pitch is in a similar state of repair and both appear to have a large build-up of debris at the head/apex of the rooflight.
1.6.4 The flat roof has a felt covering below stone chippings and incorporates two roof lanterns of metal construction with single Georgian wired glazed inserts and felt upstands. Due to the presence of the stone chippings the roof is heavily concealed but where visible appears to be approaching the end of its serviceable life. Some large areas of visible
Page 111 9 and tactile blistering is evident suggesting that water has penetrated through the cap sheet. Pigeon netting has been installed over the light wells and fixing points have been made through the shallow roof parapet effectively compromising the weather tightness of the felt covering. This was evident to the area of flat roof around to the West side light well where it is clear that some repairs have been carried out through the use of a liquid waterproof system as a result of water ingress to the wall in the stairwell directly below.
1.6.5 The roof lanterns to the flat roof are in a poor condition with flash- band tape being utilised in place of leadwork which will provide a very limited lifespan, and copper tingles securing glazing sections which will increase the risk of water ingress into the stairwell directly below.
1.6.6 There is a chimney stack and two ventilation stacks located on the East and West side pitched roofs. The stonework to the chimney stack is in a weathered condition due to its exposed location.
1.6.7 The left-hand side light well is enclosed by a mono pitch patent glazed roof at first floor level. This glazed roof appears to be of recent construction (and is likely to be associated with the recent internal refurbishment works carried out). Damp penetration is evident suggesting a possible defect at the interface of the glazing and light well walls. Due to the presence of pigeons in the light well, the glazing and frame are heavily soiled.
1.7.0 Proposed Works – Overview
1.7.1 Roof 1 & 3 Full roof replacement: including slate (salvaged), battens & counter battens, underlay, repairs to sarking boards (where necessary), new ridges. Reinstatement of lead verge detail. Repair and redecoration of verge boards. Repairs and decoration fascia boards. Temporary removal and reinstatement of metal gutters (to outer roof line). Re-pointing to vent-stack and redecorate timber louvers, including replacement lead flashings, saddles etc. Modify section of roof to facilitate new roof lantern.
1.7.2 Roof 2 Full roof replacement, including slate (new), battens & counter battens, underlay, repairs to sarking boards (if needed), new ridges. Salvaged slate to be used on Roofs 1 & 3. New lead flashings at abutment with gables. Replacement valley gutters with mineral felt system. Replacement vertical slate at side wall of valley gutters. Install access gantry along valley with access ladder from ground level in the void between Roof 5 & 6.
Page 112 10 Lead line the coping stones to the gable walls.
1.7.3 Roof 4 Infill the roof access hatch. (Roof access will now be via the new gantry/ladder system). Make good roof construction. Replacement flat roof with built-up mineral felt system. Remove existing glazing to western void. Cover over the lightwells with new raised glazed lanterns. (Internal finishes of lightwells are to be made good to suit existing internal corridor environment, including, re-plastering, decoration, boxing-in RWP etc.). Upstand walls to be weathered in lead.
1.7.4 Roof 5 Full roof replacement, including slate (salvaged), battens & counter battens, underlay, repairs to sarking boards (where required), new ridges. Repairs and decoration fascia boards. New gutters. New lead flashings at wall abutments.
1.7.5 Roof 6 Replacement flat roof with a built-up mineral felt system.
1.7.6 New Roof Glazing 2nr. Thermally-enhanced hip-ended roof lanterns. 3nr. Thermally-enhanced pyramid roof lanterns. 2nr. 8-panel structural rooflights.
1.7.7 Internal Works to the Market Hall Removal of M&E services installations. Removal of suspended ceiling systems. Removal of market traders stalls. Installation of amenity lighting suspended from roof trusses. General making good and reinstatement subsequent to the above works.
1.7.10 As much of the good quality slate as possible will be salvaged and re-used. This slate will be used on the outer facing roof pitches. New imported slate will be of the same type, quality and origin as the existing and will be used on the inner roofs.
1.7.11 With reference to the new glazed lanterns over the atriums, the objective was to resolve ongoing issues with a build-up of debris and bird droppings. A number of options were considered such as a) refurbishment like-for-like with more robust bird netting; b) infilling with a sunken flat roof and small glazed lantern or; c) raising the atrium wall parapets and installing a raised glazed lantern. Option C was decided as the most suitable solution as it offered the most durable remedy whilst addressing
Page 113 11 some complicated building interfaces and retained the character of the building.
7.8 As detailed, the proposed works are required to facilitate the repair of the existing roofs to both the Market Hall and Municipal Building, thereby ensuring the buildings are water-tight and safeguarded for the foreseeable future. The majority of the works will involve like-for-like replacements, which the Conservation Officer notes are well specified.
7.9 The interior works will largely comprise the removal of the 1970s additions to the Market Hall. These are not original features of the building and therefore their removal will not cause any harm to the listed building.
7.10The Conservation Officer has confirmed that, subject to a number of conditions, the proposed works will not affect the historic significance of the listed building. In this regard, the proposed development would not result in any harm to the listed building and therefore a balancing exercise does not need to be undertaken.
8. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
8.1 No harm to the significance of the listed building has been identified from the proposed works and there is clear and convincing justification for the alterations in order to facilitate the repair and sympathetic re-use of the building. The works will retain the significance of an important heritage asset and preserve its historic and architectural features. It is therefore considered that it will comply with the relevant policies contained in the High Peak Local Plan 2016 and the NPPF (2019).
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
A: That planning permission is APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
Condition Number Brief description Comment TL01 Time Limit – 3 years
AP01 Approved plans
DE01 Samples of new facing materials to be submitted.
Non-Standard Sample of in-line tile vent.
Non-Standard Scheme of works to trusses once suspended ceiling has been removed.
Non-Standard Details of amenity lighting & fire alarm system.
Page 114 12 Non-Standard Details of valley access gantry, handrail and details of installation of access stair.
Non-Standard Details of replacement 8-panel rooflights
B In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Site Plan
Page 115 13 This page is intentionally left blank