Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Meeting to be held in The Ceres Suite, Worksop Town Hall, S80 2AH on Wednesday, 11th September 2019 at 6.30 p.m.

(Please note time and venue)

Please turn mobile telephones to silent during meetings. In case of emergency, Members/officers can be contacted on the Council's mobile telephone: 07940 001 705.

In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, audio/visual recording and photography at Council meetings is permitted in accordance with the Council’s protocol ‘Filming of Public Meetings’.

1 PLANNING COMMITTEE

Membership 2019/20

Councillors H Brand, D Challinor, M Charlesworth, S J Fielding, G Freeman, G A N Oxby, D G Pidwell, M W Quigley MBE, M Richardson, N Sanders, L Schuller, B Tomlinson.

Substitute Members: None

Quorum: 3 Members

Lead Officer for this Meeting

John Krawczyk

Administrator for this Meeting

Bethany Pinkney

NOTE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

(a) Please do not take photographs or make any recordings during the meeting without the prior agreement of the Chair.

(b) Letters attached to Committee reports reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the District Council.

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 11th September 2019

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

(a) Members (b) Officers

3. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 14TH AUGUST 2019 * (pages 5 – 10)

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 22ND JULY AND 5TH AUGUST 2019 * (pages 11 – 20)

5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST * (page 21)

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

None

Other Decisions

6. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION *

(a) Public Interest Test: (Ms B Alderton-Sambrook, Head of Regeneration, has deemed that all Items on the Agenda are not confidential) (b) Appeal Decisions Received (Pages 23 – 28) (c) Proposed Confirmation of an Article 4(1) Direction for Woodend Farmhouse, Coach Road, Shireoaks (pages 29 – 48) (d) Planning Applications and Associated ltems (pages 49 – 116) (e) Development Management Performance Report Quarter 1 2019-20 (pages 117 – 122)

Exempt Information Items

The press and public are likely to be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

SECTION B - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None

Other Decisions

None.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

G:\REPORTS\Planning\11th September 19\Final\1 index.doc3

NOTES: 1. The papers enclosed with this Agenda are available in large print if required. 2. Copies can be requested by contacting us on 01909 533252 or by e-mail: [email protected]

G:\REPORTS\Planning\11th September 19\Final\1 index.doc4

Agenda Item No. 3

D R A F T PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 14th August 2019 at Retford Town Hall

Present:

Councillor D G Pidwell (Chair) H Brand, D Challinor, M Charlesworth, S Fielding, G Freeman, G A N Oxby, N Sanders, L Schuller and B Tomlinson.

Officers in attendance: J Krawczyk, B Pinkney and S Wormald.

(Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.)

(The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and read out the Fire Evacuation Procedure. He also enquired as to whether any member of the public wished to film the meeting or any part thereof; this was not taken up.)

22. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M W Quigley MBE and M Richardson.

23. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(a) Members

Councillor D Challinor raised a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 18/01609/VOC.

(b) Officers

There were no declarations of interest by officers.

24. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17TH JULY 2019

It was noted that Councillor G A N Oxby did attend the meeting on 17th July and the electronic minutes have been updated.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 17th July 2019 be approved.

25. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 1ST JULY AND 15TH JULY 2019

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 1st July and 15th July 2019 be received.

26. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes List be received.

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

27. REPORT(S) OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS

(a) Public Interest Test

The Head of Regeneration had deemed that all Items on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature.

(b) Appeal decisions received

Members were presented with one appeal decision.

RESOLVED that the appeal decisions be received.

(Councillor D Challinor left the meeting)

Application No Applicant Proposal

18/01609/VOC Mr R Bennett Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 17/00102/VOC which related to the change of use of land from agricultural land to one gypsy and traveller pitch for one family (3 caravans) to allow the siting of 3 mobile homes and 24 caravans on the land. Land north of Hayton Smeath, Smeath Road, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary condition 2 of planning permission 17/00102/VOC which related to the change of use of land from agricultural land to one gypsy and traveller pitch for one family to allow the siting of three mobile homes and 24 caravans on the land, and to retain the timber storage and utility building, septic tank and an area of hard surfing. Slides were used to show the location of the site and photographs of the site were shown. The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

The applicant and his family have occupied the site since February 2014. The site is located outside the Clarborough and Hayton development boundary as defined in Bassetlaw Local Development Framework, approximately 1kn from the edge of the village or Clarborough and Hayton, and 1.4km from the edge of Retford.

The site is bounded by hedgerow along with some trees that are subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

The relevant planning history and consultee responses were listed in the report. Highways have raised concern that having an additional 21 caravans permanently occupied would result in increased number of pedestrian movement to and from the site, which could cause highway safety issues. In order to mitigate this, the Highways Authority have requested that a condition be imposed to ensure that the occupancy of the additional caravans is restricted to a temporary period of 21 days.

The applicant’s agent has stated that the variation of condition would allow friends and family to visit the site, without breaching the existing conditions. He also stated that there is an unmet need for gypsy/traveller sites in the area.

It was noted that the site is in an isolated location, around 500 metres from the nearest dwelling. Therefore, the proposal will have no impact on residential amenity.

Councillor Roger Smith spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the Parish Council, he commented the following:  He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to give the views of Hayton Parish Council.  He expressed his surprise and dismay that the planning department have been willing to deal with this proposal to vary the condition.  The proposal is significantly different from the existing approved use and will have a major impact on Hayton Parish.  They struggle to believe that any family in Bassetlaw would require accommodation for 24 relatives, to visit them on a monthly basis.  They accept that the application has to be dealt with and are entitled to make a judgment to strike a different balance and come to a decision different from the recommendation.  The proposal is demonstrably not a ‘suitable development’.  The Parish Council makes a strong recommendation that the planning committee refuse the application, based on the sound policies in its approved development plan.  The Parish Council consider that it should be primarily assessed if it is a sustainable development using paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy ‘DM6: Gypsy Travellers and Travelling Show people’.  Under the NPPF it is clearly unsustainable to encourage additional development in the open countryside remote from any facilities, amenities or public transport.  The site does not have easy access to the very limited facilities in Hayton and is a significant distance from Retford.  The scale and design of development is not appropriate for a high quality agricultural area.  The boundary treatment is wholly inadequate for this scale of development and does nothing to enhance the local environment as required by policy.  Highway safety is a problem, introducing non-local traffic is hazardous.  There is a clear objection from the internal drainage board – it is both contrary to your criteria and an unreasonable assumption that it can be resolved by a planning condition.  Based on past experience the proposed conditions are naïve, unworkable and fail the government’s 6 criteria for acceptability.

Councillor Ben Sofflet spoke in objection to the application as the Ward Member, he commented that:

 Firstly, he would like to commend the applicant for his desire and success to date in living sustainably. His efforts to serve as blueprints for how we should all be striving to live, minimising our carbon footprint and working with the land.  However, what is sustainable from an ecological standpoint is not necessarily sustainable in terms of planning.  The traffic concerns cited by the Highways Authority as to the sustainability of the site, and which caused the number of pitches on the original submission to be restricted to three, have only increased with the current development off Tiln Lane.  This is the only route for north bound high sided vehicles on the A620 due to the railway bridge at Welham.  The application states that there is an unmet need for gypsy/traveller sites in the area. The Councils reports forecasts for the next 5 years that there is a likely requirement for less than four pitches across the district, when taking into account private and council run sites.  As an authority it seems that private developments are being granted to shoulder the burden of statutory obligations to provide more pitches and transit sites.  Provisions should be driven and met by the authority, regulated and maintained accordingly, with investment and improvements, healthcare provisions and education services going into existing sites, in preference to new ones being approved.  In order to recommend a grant decision for the variation, condition 1 and 4 will require the applicant to hold sensitive information as defined under GDPR, and for the applicant to act as data controller. The District would then also by default become data controllers.

 Under article 9 of the GDPR, processing of such data is prohibited as per paragraph 1, with the exceptions noted under paragraph 2.  He does not feel that this has been given consideration and leaves both the authority and the application open to breaching GDPR.  Condition 11 calls for a retrospective provision of a plan for foul water disposal, this should be laid out and agreed from the outset to remove any potential conflict and ambiguity in the future, and to act in accordance with the requirements of the drainage board.  He asks planning committee to refuse the application.

Mr Bennett spoke in support of the application as the applicant, he commented that:

 He thanked the planning department for doing a thorough job in preparing the report.  He, his wife and children all stand for equality and diversity.  His son is currently in the United States and has been granted an award for diversity and equality.  The gypsy/traveller community is very large, with thousands of family members.  The gypsy/traveller community keep in touch frequently and often discover new members of family through conversation.  They have received lots of objection since owning the site and have had people turn up on site unannounced.  Various people have been invited to the site including Hayton Parish Council to discuss objections raised but no one has turned up.  The site is in an isolated location so will not have any impact on the surrounding area.

Members raised the following comments/concerns; the applicant as already breached the current conditions as 13 caravans was on the site during the site visit, highway safety is an issue around the bend and the busy road, have GDPR obligations been considered? And how will conditions be enforced and managed?

Members also commented that they would have preferred for the foul water disposal system to be agreed before the planning permission is agreed. The site may not be able to handle the waste from an additional 21 caravans.

It was suggested to defer the application until a gypsy/traveller site assessment has been carried out to see if there is a need for more sites within the districts. In response to questions raised regarding the assessment the Planning Development Manager advised that they do not know the precise time scale for the completion of this assessment and that applicant would be able to appeal non-determination of the application if Members deferred the decision for an unspecified period of time. The Planning Development Manager advised Members that the Highway Authority had not raised concerns in respect of the access arrangement and that concerns regarding pedestrian movements could be addressed by restricting the site occupancy period. The Planning Development Manager also stated that concerns regarding the disposal of foul sewage would be overcome by the recommended condition requiring details of the method of disposal.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as detailed within the report.

Voting for taking this course of action:

FOR: Councillors S Fielding, D G Pidwell and N Sanders. AGAINST: Councillors H Brand, M Charlesworth, G Freeman, G A N Oxby, L Schuller and B Tomlinson. ABSTAIN: None.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the reasons as follows:

 The proposal will create highway safety issues.  The foul water disposal has not yet been put into place, the site may not be able to deal with the proposed increase of occupancy on the site.  The entrance to the site is in a dangerous position.  The gypsy/traveller site assessment should be carried out first to establish if there is a need for more sites within the district, therefore the applicant’s statement there is a demonstrable need is not justified.

FURTHER RESOLVED that the final wording of the reasons for refusal be approved at the Planning Consultation Group.

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

None.

28. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(Meeting closed at 7.32pm).

Agenda Item No. 4(i)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 22nd July 2019 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors H Brand, S Fielding, D G Pidwell and M W Quigley.

Officers in attendance: C Hopkinson and J Krawczyk.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

36. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence received.

37. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no Declarations of Interest received.

38. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

19/00705/FUL Erect 6m high CCTV column, The Canch, Memorial Avenue, Worksop

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a 6m high CCTV column. The Council is the applicant. A location map and drawings were tabled.

Members were advised that the column would be erected on the corner of Memorial Avenue, just inside of the Park. The location has been selected for maximum viewing range without undertaking any tree works.

The Conservation Officer has no objection and no other comments have been received.

In response to questions raised Members were advised that the maintenance would be carried out with the use of a mobile platform. The camera would link to the Councils CCTV control room.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00567/FUL Erect three shepherd huts for use as holiday lets and change of use of dwelling into bed and breakfast accommodation (3 bedrooms), Hill Top Farm House, Park Lane, Holbeck

Members were advised that the application sought permission for change of use of the existing farmhouse into bed and breakfast accommodation; part of the dwelling would remain as residential. The application also sought permission to erect three shepherds huts for holiday lets. The application also sought to alter the vehicular access. A site map, photographs, elevations and floor plans were tabled.

Highways have raised concerns regarding the visibility onto Park Lane and have requested larger visibility splays be provided. They have also requested that the lane be widened to accommodate two-way traffic for the first 8 metres.

Members were advised that officers have concerns that if the lane was widened and the visibility splays were increased part of the hedgerow would be lost, which would be to the detriment to the rural character of the area. Given the amount of traffic that passes the site officers do consider that there is an issue and feel the application is acceptable for the area. The site could currently operate as a farm with farm traffic.

Members asked questions in relation to the length of the lane, passing points and the potential number of vehicles using the lane.

The Development Team Manager advised that the recommendation is balanced between the potential impact on highway safety and the impact on the surrounding area.

Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00363/HSE Proposed side, rear and first floor extensions, 138 North Road, Retford

Members were advised that the application sought to erect side, rear and first floor extensions to an existing bungalow. The bungalow is set back from the road on a large corner plot, which is well screened by hedges. A layout plan and photographs were tabled.

The property has currently fell into some disrepair, the proposal seeks to modernise the dwelling.

A neighbour has raised concerns that the dwelling will be in closer proximity to their property and has raised concerns in relation to the footings of their garage and its stability. Members were advised that issues raised in relation to the garage are not a planning consideration.

The Development Team Manager that a condition would be imposed to agree materials.

Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00649/OUT Outline application with some matters reserved (approval sought for access) for one dormer bungalow, land adjacent to Ashfield Lodge, Stockwith Road Walkeringham, Doncaster, South Yorkshire DN10 4JF

Members were advised that the application sought outline permission with some matters reserved for one dormer bungalow. A location map and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that the site is within an existing row of dwellings outside of the development boundary. The dwellings at either side of the site are bungalows. The site currently belongs to the neighbouring property, Ashfield Lodge.

The neighbouring property has raised concerns regarding windows on the side of the property. Officers feel that the impact can be mitigated.

In response to questions raised regarding the busy road, Members were advised that Highways have raised no concerns. The road is straight with plenty of visibility. As part of the proposal off

12 street parking would need to be provided to comply with standards, this would be considered at the reserved matters stage

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

39. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4.22pm.)

Agenda Item No. 4(ii)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 29th July 2019 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors H Brand, S Fielding, G Freeman, D G Pidwell and M W Quigley MBE.

Officers in attendance: C Hopkinson and J Krawczyk.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

40. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence received.

41. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor G Freeman declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application 19/00706/HSE. She left the Item during the Item.

42. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

18/01411/RES Reserved matters application for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline application 16/00505/OPUT for 17 No. Dwellings comprising of six 3 bed bungalows, six 2 bed houses, four 4 bed house and one 5 bed house, Manor Farm, Brecks Lane, Mattersey

Members were advised that outline application was granted in 2016 for residential development. An application was presented to Members recently to vary the S106 Agreement to amended the definition of affordable housing to the current NPPF definition. A location map, layout plan, access, house types, elevations and floorplans were tabled.

Members were advised that no objections have been received. The layout has been amended to address Highways comments. Landscaping has been amended and is considered acceptable. An element of affordable housing would be provided.

Members commented on the good amount of parking to be provided and the landscaping scheme.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

(Councillor G Freeman left the meeting)

Application No Proposal

19/00706/HSE Erect single storey rear extension, Dunlochin, Church Lane, Clarborough

Members were advised that that the application seeks to erect a single storey rear extension. A site map, elevations, floorplans and photographs were tabled.

The application was presented to the Group as the agent is related to a District Councillor. No objections have been received and the site is well screened.

Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

43. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4.10pm.)

Agenda Item No. 4(iii)

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 5th August 2019 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors H Brand, S Fielding, G A N Oxby, D G Pidwell and M W Quigley MBE.

Officers in attendance: D Jones and B Pinkney

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

44. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence received.

45. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor D G Pidwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 19/00299/FUL.

46. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

19/00455/FUL Demolition of an existing church hall and conversion of a ruined church to create 10no. Duplex apartments with associated parking and erect garages to the rear. The Church Of St Alban, London Road, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish an existing church hall and to retain the remains of the church, add a new roof and convert the building into 10 apartments. In addition, a new parking area with garaging would be constructed. The existing and proposed elevations were tabled.

Members were advised that a listed building consent is also required.

It was noted that the applicant has had meetings with the Conservation Officer.

Members were advised that two letters of objections have been received from local residents raising concerns regarding potential asbestos during demolition and the increase in cars on the highway.

Three letters of support have been received commenting that the improvement is welcomed.

Members were advised that the cost of renovations are too significant to ask for contributions.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00456/LBA Listed building consent for demolition of an existing church hall and conversion of a ruined church to create 10no. Duplex appartments. The Church Of St Alban, London Road, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought listed building consent for the demolition of an existing church hall and the conversion of a ruined church to create 10 no. duplex apartments.

It was noted that the listed building consent is linked with the previous application.

Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00299/FUL Erect a two-bedroomed detached dwelling with an integral garage, The Manor, Sturton Road, South Wheatley.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a two-bedroomed detached dwelling with an integral garage. A site location map, and photographs were tabled.

The Parish Council support the application.

Two letters of support have been received from local residents.

Bassetlaw’s Conservation Officer raised no objections.

Members were advised that the application is recommended for refusal on the following grounds:

 The site contains trees with Tree Preservation Orders on them.  No ecology assessment has been carried out.  Harmful to wildlife.  The proposal is harmful to the setting of the nearby listed building.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse planning permission.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00483/ADV Display pole-mounted welcome sign, Maltby Road, Oldcotes. 19/00484/ADV Display pole-mounted welcome sign, Great North Road, Scrooby 19/00485/ADV Display pole-mounted welcome sign, Gainsborough Road, Bawtry Bridge 19/00486/ADV Display pole-mounted welcome sign, Flood Road, Gainsborough Bridge 19/00482/ADV Display pole-mounted welcome sign, Broad Lane, Worksop

Members were asked to consider the erection of five display pole-mounted welcome signs. Photographs were tabled.

Highways have no objections.

Members were advised that the welcome signs have been reconsidered as the original plans just read ‘North Nottinghamshire’, Members requested for the signs to include ‘Bassetlaw’.

It was noted that the signs will be in addition to the existing signs.

Members raised concerns regarding the outcome once the North Notts Bid had gone in 5 years’ time.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00644/FUL Erection of 111 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping, land north of Turner Road, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect 111 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping. A location map was tabled.

Members were advised that the land is heavily contaminated, the scheme is privately rented properties and the applicant don’t want to pay any contributions as the cost of remediating the land is so high.

It was noted that significant objections have been received.

Members were advised that discussions are still underway regarding the liability, once this has been considered the recommendations for the application may change.

Members agreed to defer the application to a future Planning Consultation Group when financial decisions have been made.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Defer to a future PCG.

Application No Proposal

19/00741/HSE Remove existing gates, block up opening in reclaimed bricks and create pedestrian access, White Cottage, Church Street, Misson.

Members were advised that the application sought to remove the existing gates, block up the opening in reclaimed bricks and create a pedestrian access. A location map and photographs were tabled.

One letter of objection has been received from a local resident on the grounds that the site is overdeveloped and the lack of parking.

It was noted that the new gate will be in keeping with existing dwelling, old bricks will be used for to build the wall and the colour of the new gate will match existing gates.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

Application No Proposal

19/00745/HSE Single storey front and rear extensions with first floor extensions to the side, 11 Elmwood Close, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect single storey front and rear extensions with first floor extensions to the side. A location map was tabled.

One letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring property on the grounds that the proposal is harmful to their living conditions.

Members were advised that the proposal is a significant distance away from surrounding properties with trees and hedgerows around the site.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

47. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 4.41pm.)

20 Agenda Item No. 5

PLANNING COMMITTEE

11th September 2019

OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

Members please note that the updated positions are shown in bold type following each item. (DTM = Development Team Manager)

Min. No. Date Subject Decision Officer Responsible 59(d) 05.12.18 Planning Services; The process to be reviewed and DTM Establishment of a reported back to Planning viability Protocol Committee in 12 months. Report to be presented to a future meeting

66(d) 09.01.19 Development The Scheme of Delegation is DTM Management Scheme monitored with a report of Delegation for presented to Planning Determining Planning Committee in 12 months’ time. Applications Report to be presented to a future meeting

Agenda Item No. 6(b)

PLANNING COMMITTEE

11th September 2019

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

18\01357\FUL Mrs Anne Lander, Snowcroft, Water Lane, Carlton-in-Lindrick

Appeal against the refusal of planning permission to erect one dwelling, Snowcroft, Water Lane, Carlton-in-Lindrick.

DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector

The Appeal Inspector considered that the main issue was the effect of the development on highway safety.

The Inspector considered that the principle of residential development was acceptable and the design of the proposed dwelling would not be incongruous within the Conservation Area and it would not be detrimental to living conditions of nearby occupants.

The Inspector, however, considered that the visibility splays had not been clearly established to demonstrate that there would be no increase in the likelihood of collisions between vehicles and\or pedestrians on Water Lane, thus unacceptably compromising highway safety. He concluded that the proposed development would be contrary to Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 108 of the NPPF.

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letter follows this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\11TH SEPTEMBER 19\FINAL\COMMITTEE APPEAL REPORT SNOWCROFT.DOC

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 July 2019 by Matthew Woodward BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 August 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/19/3229677 Snowcroft, Water Lane, Carlton in Lindrick, Worksop, S81 9EU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Ann Lander against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council. • The application Ref 18/01357/FUL, dated 27 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 April 2019. • The development proposed is a new dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The appeal site lies in an area covered by the made Carlton in Lindrick Neighbourhood Plan which forms part of the development plan. Whilst the Council did not refer to the Neighbourhood Plan in their decision notice, I have been provided with a copy of it, and had regard to its contents in reaching my decision.

3. The appellant’s name in the banner heading above is taken from the appeal form as a full name is not given on the application form.

Main Issue

4. The main issue is the effect of the development on highway safety.

Reasons

5. The proposal would comprise the erection of a two-storey detached dwelling. It would lie within the defined settlement of Carlton in Lindrick, thus residential development in this location would be acceptable in principle. The appeal site, comprising an area of grass and vegetation associated with the adjacent lying property, Snowcroft, lies on the northern side of Water Lane, alongside several other properties. Generally open fields lie on the southern side of the road.

6. It is put to me by the appellant that, when taken from the site access, the proposal would ensure that visibility splays of 2.4 m x 12 m to the east and 2.4 m x 16 m to the west along Water Lane would be achieved. According to Manual for Streets (MfS), the visibility splays suggested by the appellant would

25 represent an appropriate stopping distance for vehicles travelling along Water Lane at approximately 10 mph1.

7. Even though no traffic count or speed survey information has been provided to clarify the typical traffic characteristics, on my site visit I observed that Water Lane was lightly trafficked and vehicles passed the appeal site at relatively low speeds. As it is a no-through road, most of the drivers of vehicles travelling along it are likely to be familiar with it. The Council accepts that visibility is already restricted for drivers of vehicles exiting out onto Water Lane from the majority of existing properties on the street. In addition, I have not been provided with any evidence to show that there have been any accidents on this road, nor that the road is dangerous.

8. Manual for Streets 2 (MfS 2) states that, unless there is local evidence to the contrary, a reduction in visibility below the recommended levels will not necessarily be a problem. Given my foregoing observations, I see no reason why, in the particular circumstances of the case, steadfast adherence to the recommended horizontal visibility requirements set out in MfS1 would be necessary.

9. However, I have not been provided with a copy of a plan demonstrating that the visibility splays stated by the appellant are achievable. The appeal site was overgrown on my site visit which, combined with a lack of plan or other information accurately quantifying the extent of obtainable visibility from the site access, limited the extent to which I was able to accurately assess the visibility along Water Lane which would be available to drivers when exiting the appeal site, particularly given the positioning of the existing built form at Snowcroft to the west, a boundary wall to the east, and the intervening vegetation, which may permanently impede the extent of horizontal visibility thus compromising the ability to achieve the levels purported by the appellant.

10. Although Water Lane is narrow, limiting the speeds at which vehicles pass the appeal site, it would also limit the scope for users of the highway to manoeuvre out of the way of a vehicle entering or leaving the proposed driveway. Whilst the increase in traffic arising as a result of the proposal would be modest, an appropriate level of visibility would be required in order to ensure that there would be no unacceptable increase in the likelihood of collisions between vehicles and/or pedestrians, thus unacceptably compromising highway safety.

11. I have considered whether the use of a planning condition could achieve the visibility splays necessary to ensure a safe point of access and egress. I accept that, as the land to the west associated with Snowcroft is under the control of the appellant, visibility splays are, in principle, capable of being secured across this land by use of a planning condition. However, due to my aforementioned concerns relating to the proposed site access, the imposition of such a condition would fail to meet the tests of reasonableness and enforceability2.

12. I note the Council’s concerns regarding the intensification of Water Lane and the restricted visibility for vehicles associated with the proposed development when exiting out onto the classified road, Greenway. However, I find that such a modest increase in vehicular movements arising from the proposal would not lead to capacity issues along Water Lane, nor would it be detrimental to

1 Manual for Streets – table 7.1 2 The Planning Practice Guidance - Reference ID: 21a-003-20190723

26 highway safety at the junction of these roads, particularly as there is no evidence to suggest that the junction is unsafe based on current circumstances.

13. The proposal would result in the reduction in the height of the wall which fronts the appeal site, thus improving visibility for vehicles entering and exiting Snowcroft. However, these improvements do not detract from my findings concerning the highway safety impact associated with the appeal scheme.

14. For the foregoing reasons I conclude that the development would be contrary to Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2011. The proposal would also fail to satisfy paragraph 108 of the Framework which requires that development provides safe and suitable access for all users. It would conflict with paragraph 109 of the Framework which states that development resulting in an unacceptable impact on highway safety should be refused.

Other Matters

15. The appeal site lies within the Carlton in Lindrick Conservation Area (CA). I find that the rustic style of the proposed dwelling, and its height and position relative to the varied and individual style of other dwellings in the street, would not be incongruous. There is nothing before me to suggest that the development would harm the significance of the CA, thus I agree with the Council that the development would accord with the duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

16. The dwelling would be positioned in front, and to the side of, the neighbouring property which lies to the east, and set away from the rear of several other properties. The proposed dwelling would contain no windows at first-floor level in the side elevations facing the neighbouring dwellings and gardens. Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I see no reason why it would result in a material deterioration of living conditions for nearby occupants by reason of loss of daylight, sunlight, or outlook. The Council raises no concerns in this respect.

17. The proposal would include sufficient space for the parking of vehicles, thus reducing the likelihood of parking taking place on Water Lane.

Conclusion

18. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Matthew Woodward INSPECTOR

27 28

Agenda Item No. 6(c) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

11th September 2019

REPORT OF HEAD OF REGENERATION

PROPOSED CONFIRMATION OF AN ARTICLE 4(1) DIRECTION FOR WOODEND FARMHOUSE, COACH ROAD, SHIREOAKS

Cabinet Member: Regeneration Development

Contact: Michael Tagg Ext: 3427 1. Public Interest Test

1.1 The author of this report, Michael Tagg, has determined that the report is not confidential.

2. Purpose of the Report

2.1 To seek Planning Committee approval for the confirmation of an Article 4 Direction under Paragraphs 2(6), 2(7), 1(9) and 1(10) of Schedule 3, Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, to restrict permitted development rights in respect of Woodend Farmhouse, on Coach Road, Shireoaks. This accords with the Constitutional powers vested in the Planning Committee at Part 3, Page 3.27, para 17.

2.2 To seek approval from Planning Committee Members upon such approval, to confer delegated authority to the Head of Regeneration to implement the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Woodend Farmhouse, Coach Road, Shireoaks’ Article 4(1) Direction.

3. Requirements for Article 4 Directions

3.1 An Article 4 Direction (made under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended) may be made by the Local Planning Authority where the authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development (as specified in the Direction), which would ordinarily be permitted by Schedule 2 of the Order, should not be carried out unless permission is granted pursuant to an express application. Such a Direction withdraws the permitted development rights as set out in the Direction.

3.2 Schedule 3, Part 2, Paragraph 1(a), of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, states that Local Planning Authorities should consider making Article 4 Directions only in those circumstances where it considers: “that the development to which the direction relates would be

prejudicial to the proper planning of their area or constitute a threat to the amenities of their area”.

3.3 The two main types of Article 4 Directions are ‘immediate’ Directions and ‘non-immediate’ Directions:

 Immediate Directions – can be made immediately without consultation, although they do require a final confirmation before a 6 month deadline. Immediate Directions only cover development permitted within Parts 1 to 4 and part 11 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended).  Non-immediate Directions – can cover any of the types of development within the 2015 order (as amended), although require consultation before being confirmed by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Development to which the Article 4(1) Direction is proposed to apply (Schedule 1)

4.1 Schedule 1 of the Direction (a copy of which is attached to this report) identifies the types of development that are covered by the Direction. This relates solely to the demolition of the two historic buildings on the site (coloured red on the map), the removal of the railings and gates on the eastern boundary, and the painting of the exterior brickwork and stonework. The Schedule contains the following:

 Schedule 2, Part 2 – Minor Works o Class C – Exterior Painting The painting of any part of the external brickwork or stone dressings.

 Schedule 2, Part 11 – Heritage and Demolition o Class B – Demolition of Buildings Any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building which is coloured red on the attached map.

o Class C – demolition of gates, fences, walls etc Any building operation consisting of the demolition of the whole or any part of any gate, fence or railings fronting Shrewsbury Road and Snipe Park Road.

5. Background to ‘making’ the Immediate Article 4(1) Direction in April 2019

5.1 As the Planning Committee report for 24th April 2019 stated, Woodend Farmhouse is regarded as a non-designated heritage asset, identified as such in accordance with the Council’s criteria which were approved at Planning Committee in January 2011. The specific criteria which are attributed to this building is: 1) historic interest, 2) architectural interest, 3) aesthetic appeal and 4) association.

5.2 The building was constructed in the late-18th century for Reverend John Hewitt of Shireoaks hall, one of a number of stone farmhouses, barns and cottages built for the Hewitt estate during this period. It is modest in scale, being one and a half storeys in height, built from the local Magnesian limestone and with a pantile roof. Architectural features include segmental stone arches, stone cills, brick gable stacks, gabled dormers and timber plank doors. Although the windows are 1960s/70s timber casements, the building retains much of its significance.

5.3 In terms of the planning history of the site, the following applications are of relevance:

 Outline Planning Permission was granted, by way of 16/00968/OUT, for residential development on the surrounding site. The design and access statement clearly showed the farmhouse to be retained, and therefore Conservation’s comments were supportive (subject to details) for this reason.  A Reserved Matters application was approved, reference 18/00648/RES, for the outstanding details. This was subsequently amended by way of 18/01502/RES (the amendments did not relate to the farmhouse).  A Certificate of Lawfulness for the demolition of the farmhouse was refused on 30th January 2019, reference 18/01539/CTP, the Council’s Legal advice clearly demonstrating that the outline permission did not authorise the demolition of the farmhouse, only the outbuildings.  A full planning application, reference 19/00372/FUL, was received in March 2019 for the demolition of the existing farmhouse and the erection of two dwellings standard similar to those permitted surrounding the site. This application was refused on heritage grounds on the 9th May 2019.

5.4 Although the Council was within its rights to refuse the latest application on heritage grounds, without an Article 4(1) Direction, it could not stop the building being demolished under the permitted development ‘prior approval’ process should the applicant wish to pursue that option. The building is at immediate risk as the applicant is clearly intent on demolishing rather than retaining, so it is considered likely that the prior approval route would be pursued after the 6 month time limit should this Article 4(1) Direction not be confirmed.

5.5 In accordance with Schedule 3, Part 2, Paragraph 1(a), of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, it is considered that the loss of this building would cause harm to the amenity of the locality. That amenity includes both visual and historic, which the farmhouse contributes to significantly. Although previously screened from the main road by trees and hedges, these are being removed as part of the wider development of the surrounding land. The farmhouse would therefore be more prominent. In addition, the farmhouse would be adjacent to one of the new roads within the wider development site, again increasing its prominence. The farmhouse is an important part of the architectural and historic interest of the area, and its unjustified loss would fail to comply with the aims and objectives of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and the Revised NPPF. Its loss is also likely to cause a degree of local objection, as has been identified during the consultation on the ‘made’ Direction and on the consultation of application 19/00372/FUL.

5.6 The making of Article 4(1) Directions is common practice across the country with respect to the protection from demolition or alteration of non-designated heritage assets. Amongst the most recent examples are the Council’s making of a Direction for the former North Border school in Bircotes, and Leicester City Council’s Directions on a range of its non-designated heritage assets in 2016 & 2017.

5.7 There is also a degree of urgency with this report, as the immediate Article 4(1) Direction made on the 25th April 2019 will expire on the 24th October 2019, i.e. exactly 6 months from the date the Direction was ‘made’. If the Direction is not confirmed, then the Council cannot refuse a ‘prior approval’ application for the demolition of the building for heritage reasons. Hence, without the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction, the Local Planning Authority cannot properly consider the demolition of a heritage asset against the relevant national and local planning policies (i.e. paragraphs 192 & 197 of the NPPF and Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy).

6. Summary of consultation responses received for the ‘immediate’ Article 4(1) Direction

6.1 Public consultation on the immediate Direction was carried out between 25th April 2019 – 28th June 2019. This consultation comprised the following:

o Two site notices erected adjacent to the site on Shireoaks Common (25th April 2019); o A notice in the Worksop Guardian (17th May 2019); o Letters/emails with copies of the direction and map were sent 25th April 2019 to: . The landowner; . Stancliffe Homes (the proposed developer); . The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government; . Nottinghamshire County Council; . Shireoaks Council; and . All local district councillors.

6.2 The outcomes of the consultation were overwhelmingly positive. The results of the consultation are set out below:

Local residents 6.3 Two local residents (including a parish councillor) responded directly to the site notice, highlighting the importance of the building to the heritage of Shireoaks. One resident provided the following information:

“The farm itself can be identified as early as 1773 on a map of the Hewitt lands. The ad hoc appearance of the building should not detract from the fact that the farm house helps to illustrate the architecture and functionality of the estate of the once lord of the manor, Thomas Hewitt who had the farm house built for one of his tenants in the 18TH century. Alteration to the building were most likely carried out as the tenant family’s changing need were adapted to, giving a number of extensions and adaptions to the building. The building therefore illustrates how in north Nottinghamshire, a farm on a landed gentry estate came about and adapted to its function. Comparing the house today with a photo from around 1890 it can be seen that the basic form of the building has altered very little and therefore it is a good representation of its type”

Photograph of the building of c1890 provided by the respondent.

Parish Council 6.4 Shireoaks Parish Council submitted the following comments in support of the Article 4:

“At the last meeting of the Parish Council Councillors unanimously agreed to support the article [4] and to oppose the demolition of the farmhouse which the builder promised would stay at the original planning meeting with councillors.

The building is early and shown on the Sanderson map of 1835 and a Shireoaks survey map of 1773. It is one of the few limestone farmhouses left standing in the village which helps depict the 18 and 19 [century] character of the village. It was built by Hewett, Lord of the manor as one of a number of farm houses on his estate and is therefore of historic interest.

In the heritage impact statement 2016 (Philipa Cockburn) stated it is important to retain the farmhouse as it enhances the heritage landscape and character. it is of historical, architectural interest and aesthetic appeal by its association in the landscape.”

Nottinghamshire County Council 6.5 Nottinghamshire County Council’s Senior Practitioner for Historic Buildings provided the following comments:

“I very much support the proposed Article 4 (1) Direction, it is absolutely in line with the preservation of the significance of the heritage assets as required by the NPPF. It is essential that the house is retained, conserved in a manner appropriate to the vernacular materials and detailing so that it can continue to function as a dwelling that contributes to the local distinctiveness of this part of Bassetlaw.”

District Councillors 6.6 The following response was received from a District Councillor:

“I write in support of the Article 4 (1) Direction for the Woodend Farmhouse Coach Road Shireoaks. The Farmhouse was built in the 18th Century and is part of the History of Shireoaks and the Demolition would be detrimental to the whole of the area around the old Farm. This Article will also protect the house from any changes by developers in the future. The residents of Shireoaks need to keep all these old buildings so that the children of the village and beyond can see the craftsmanship and work needed to preserve such great houses.”

Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government 6.7 The MHCLG responded by acknowledging receipt of the immediate Direction and asked to be notified whether the Direction was confirmed or otherwise.

Stancliffe Homes 6.8 The planning consultant for the developer provided the following comments:

“We note that there is an error in 4.1 of the report to planning committee in that it states that ‘this relates solely to the demolition of the two historic buildings on the site (coloured red on the map) …’ It is only Woodend Farmhouse that is relevant to this direction, which the map correctly identifies.

Schedule 3(2)(1)(a) of the Orders prescribes that an Article 4(1) direction should only be made in circumstances where: ‘the authority consider that the development to which the direction relates would be prejudicial to the proper planning of their area or constitute a threat to the amenities of their area’. In this particular case this would include the following development as set out in Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Order:

• The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse; • Chimneys, flues etc on a dwellinghouse; The Direction also removes permitted development rights set out in Schedule 2, Part 2 as follows: • Exterior painting;

The Order, under Part 11 also allows ‘any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building’, except in certain prescribed circumstances; this does not include non designated heritage assets.

We object to the Article 4(1) Direction as it is considered entirely disproportionate to what the Council are trying to achieve i.e the retention of the Farmhouse. We would dispute that the Farmhouse is at risk, as Stancliffe have not acted in a way that would suggest that they were proposing to demolish the farmhouse without prior consent as is evidenced by their recent submission of a planning application to replace the farmhouse with two bungalows.

Furthermore, the demolition of the farmhouse does not present an immediate threat to local amenity or prejudice the proposed planning of an area.

At all times Stancliffe Homes have acted in a proper manner and there has been no indication from them that they would resort to acting in an underhand manner. It has always been their wish to resolve the issue of the status of Woodend Farm through either settling the lawful interpretation of the outline planning permission or through seeking permission for full planning permission. Whilst it is true that Stancliffe are keen to see the farmhouse demolished and replaced with two bungalows, they have gone through the appropriate channels of seeking planning permission to do this (ref: 19/00372/FUL). Having sought Counsel’s opinion, it is our client’s view that the outline planning permission granted on appeal permits the demolition of Woodend Farmhouse along with the other farm buildings on the site. We appreciate that the Council do not agree with this interpretation, borne out in their refusal to issue a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development, which they are entitled to do, however this particular matter is now being resolved through the appeal system.

Our clients have acted within their rights and have sought the necessary planning permissions to seek the demolition of the locally listed farmhouse building, although as the Council acknowledges in their report to Planning Committee the Farmhouse could have been demolished using permitted development rights. Following the Option to Purchase the site, it became evident to Stancliffe Homes that there was a difference of opinion between themselves and the council regarding the status of the Farmhouse and throughout the process Stancliffe Homes have tried to resolve this matter.

The most recent planning application submitted in March 2019 was refused 9th May 2019, following this Article 4(1) Direction. We do not consider that our client’s actions or behaviours have put Woodend Farm at risk. Even if the demolition of Woodend Farm were to take place or had taken place we do not consider that this ‘development’ would be prejudicial to the proper planning of the area. The land associated with Woodend Farm was granted planning permission for 73 residential dwellings on appeal. The key issue of that appeal was the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the village of Shireoaks. In the Inspector’s decision letter there is no mention of the potential impact of the proposal on Woodend Farmhouse (demolished or otherwise) and no reference to the Council’s policy on the historic environment (Policy DM8). We would at least expect that during the course of the appeal that the Farmhouse would merit a reference within the Inspector’s report. Whether or not the outline permission allows the demolition of the Farmhouse is still to be determined, however the appeal decision clearly does not consider that the impact of the development on the heritage asset is a material consideration. The Council’s current view is at odds with the Inspector’s report and the imposition of the Direction is considered disproportionate and is not required to ensure the proper planning of the area.

With respect to the threat to local amenity, the Council states that: ‘That amenity includes visual amenity, which the farmhouse contributes to significantly’

The report to Planning Committee continues:

‘Although currently screened from the main road by trees and hedges, these will not be in place when the permitted scheme is completed, and the farmhouse would be alongside a road. In addition, the farmhouse is an important part of the architectural and historic interest of the area…. Its loss is also likely to cause a degree of local objection.’

This statement is incorrect as the approved Reserved Matters application for the wider site retains the boundary trees and hedgerows and therefore as was the case prior to the development of the site, Woodend Farmhouse will not be visible from the road.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that the use of Article 4 Directions should be limited to situations where it is necessary to protect local amenity or the well being of the area. This is reiterated in Planning Practice Guidance which also states local authorities should identify clearly the potential harm that the direction is intended to address. The council note in their report to Committee that the ‘loss is likely to cause a degree of local objection’. During the course of the site’s numerous planning applications, including the most recent demolition application, no comments of objection were received from local residents to the protection of the farmhouse. Whilst we do not dispute that there is some historical interest in Woodend Farmhouse, we consider that the importance attached to the architectural and historical interest attributed to it by the Council is very much overstated. Additionally, advice from ARS our heritage specialists notes that the “historical and evidential significance of the building were of a value which would not facilitate conservation in such a case”. On this basis, it is considered that the Article 4 Direction is not necessary and should not be confirmed by Planning Committee. We also consider that the proposed replacement new bungalows are considered a suitable alternative which would provide additional benefits to the site and surrounding area in respect to additional housing and in particular housing for the older population.

The proposal meets the government’s Housing White Paper and Housing for Older People inquiry objectives and would assist Bassetlaw in meeting their own need for high quality smaller houses available to residents looking to downsize. Planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character. The demolition of the farmhouse for the proposed new dwellings would assist with making efficient use of the land. Further the proposed new dwellings better accord with the prevailing character of the wider development site.

We are disappointed that the council have gone to such extremes as our clients have not acted in a way to necessitate an Article 4(1) Direction and have always tried to work positively with the Council; the steps taken are entirely disproportionate.

We also note that the Local Planning Authority can be liable under Section 108 of the 1990 Act to pay compensation to those whose permitted development rights have been withdrawn, but only if, within 12 months of the effective date of the Article 4 Direction it:

1. Refuses planning permission for development which would otherwise have been permitted development; or 2. Grants planning permission subject to more limiting conditions than the General Permitted Development Order.

The compensation which can be claimed relates to abortive expenditure or other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. Abortive expenditure includes the preparation of plans for the purposes of the work and other similar preparatory matters but no more. ‘Other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of permitted development rights’ includes the depreciation of the value of the land.

If our client decides to appeal the decision of the Council and is successful, our client reserves the right to seek compensation from the council in respect to this Article 4(1) Direction.”

6.9 No response was received from the landowner/occupier.

7. Conservation Team responses to consultation

7.1 Conservation welcomes the comments from all consultees. The consultation process has resulted in a range of comments which are responded to below.

Local residents 7.2 Conservation thanks the two local residents for their comments, and agrees with the overall summary of the building’s significance provided by one of the residents. It was also very useful to see a photograph from c1890, which shows the building with the same appearance as its current form, although with side-hung timber flush-casements with horizontal glazing bars.

Shireoaks Parish Council 7.3 These views were put together following a discussion held at the Shireoaks Parish Council public meeting. These views are therefore taken as a good representation of the views of local residents, with the parish council being democratically elected by them. In terms of the issues raised, Conservation agrees with the assessment of the building’s significance and thanks the Parish Council that in Stancliffe Homes’ own Heritage Statement in 2016, their consultant acknowledged the significance of the building and the desire for its retention.

Nottinghamshire County Council 7.4 It is useful to have the views of the County Council’s heritage team, as this helps set out the context of this site across the wider area. It is also important that the comments discuss the impact of the Revised NPPF and in particular, the requirement to conserve heritage assets appropriate to their significance.

District Councillors 7.5 The comments of a local District councillor were partly based on conversations they had previously had with local residents. Further, Conservation acknowledges the importance of local councillors in upholding one of the key objectives of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy.

Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government 7.6 As requested, Conservation will notify the MHCLG, whether the Direction is confirmed or not.

Stancliffe Homes 7.7 Conservation appreciates the comments received from the developer’s consultant on this matter. On the specific issues raised:  The error in referring to two buildings instead of one is acknowledged, and is rectified in the draft final version (at the end of this report).

 Conservation would disagree with the stance taken that the loss of the building would not be contrary to the proper planning of the area. This is a heritage asset, identified using a set of widely-consulted criteria which were approved at planning committee. The strength of public opinion against the loss of the building is testament to its importance in the locality, as a building of considerable age and character and part of the wider story of the Hewitt estate over the 18th and 19th centuries.

 Part 11 of the GPDO covers the demolition of all types of buildings, other than those specifically excluded (i.e. Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, etc). The non-designated heritage asset status of the building has no effect on this part of the GPDO. In other words, Part 11 of the GPDO applies here, unless an Article 4 is made/confirmed. Historic England share this view, their guidance on Article 4s stating that: “Article 4 directions may be used to require planning permission for the demolition of a non-designated heritage asset (such as a locally listed building outside of a conservation area), by removing the demolition rights under part 11 of the GDPO” (see https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/historic- environment/article4directions/).

 The Article 4 is not considered disproportionate. This is the only mechanism open to the Council where a non-designated heritage asset is threatened with demolition. The threat to the building is evident here, with both a Certificate of Lawfulness and a planning application for redevelopment both being refused in the past few months. In addition, the developer’s agent acknowledges their desire to see the building demolished.

 The loss of the building would be detrimental to the amenity of the area. The Government’s own Planning Portal gives a definition of amenity as: “A positive element or elements that contribute to the overall character or enjoyment of an area. For example, open land, trees, historic buildings and the inter- relationship between them, or less tangible factors such as tranquillity.”

 In terms of the use of Article 4s for unlisted buildings outside of Conservation Areas, the Council confirmed an Article 4 recently in Harworth to retain an important inter-war school from being lost. This is also common practice around the country, including at Mansfield (the Fourways building on the A60) and Leicester (see the Leicester City Council website: https://www.leicester.gov.uk/planning-and-building/conservation/heritage- conservation/local-heritage-asset-register/).

 Whilst the non-designated heritage asset status of the farmhouse was not mentioned in the committee report, this is not uncommon where the reason for refusal is not heritage-related. In this case, the planning committee report clearly set out the Council’s position regarding heritage, i.e. with the retention of the farmhouse, there were no heritage concerns subject to details. The Inspector will have been fully aware of this.

 With regard to the trees and hedges screening the building from Shireoaks Common, these have clearly been at least pruned back as the building is now visible from the road from several locations. In addition, the building would be very prominent from the new roads within the wider housing development. However, being visible from the highway is itself not a reason for a building to be considered lacking in significance.

 The significance of the building has not been overstated. The building clearly complies with the Council’s approved non-designated heritage asset identification criteria, which went through public consultation in 2010. In addition, these criteria have been found sound by the Planning Inspectorate in a number of appeals in recent years, including: APP/A3010/D/12/2178976

(BDC reference 43/12/00005), APP/A3010/A/11/2164722 (BDC reference 32/11/00014), APP/A3010/W/15/3067570 (BDC reference 15/00282/FUL) and APP/A3010/W/16/3153702 (BDC reference 15/01546/OUT). The criteria are also acknowledged as best practice by Historic England, appearing as a case study in their ‘Good Practice Guide for Local Listing’ document (2012). The developer’s previous consultant also recognised the significance of the building in 2016 as part of the outline application.

 With regard to the Council’s liability to compensation, this is set out in the GPDO. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance, specifically the section on ‘When is Permission Required?’, reiterates this in Paragraph 42:

If a local planning authority makes an article 4 direction, it can be liable to pay compensation to those whose permitted development rights have been withdrawn, but only if it then subsequently:

o refuses planning permission for development which would otherwise have been permitted development; or

o grants planning permission subject to more limiting conditions than the General Permitted Development Order

The grounds on which compensation can be claimed are limited to abortive expenditure or other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of permitted development rights.

The above requirements are somewhat limited, and relate only to either a) abortive expenditure, of which no details have been provided by the developer, this proposal clearly being part of a speculative development to place a further two open-market dwellings on this site; or b) where permission is refused where it would otherwise be permitted development, all within 12 months from the date the Direction is confirmed. The recently refused application has yet to be appealed, and no requests for compensation (or correspondence indicating such a request) have been received. In addition, research published by the Historic Towns Forum in 2008 found that no incidences of claims for compensation had been made to the authorities consulted (72 in total) in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. This research found that: “The only known cases where this has occurred, have been in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights for car boot sales and Sunday markets”.

8. Responses received for application 19/00372/FUL

8.1 Although not part of the Article 4(1) Direction, it should also be mentioned that the recent application for the demolition of the building and its replacement with 2 standard dwellings, reference 19/00372/FUL, which was refused by the Council on the 9th May 2019, received the following objection from Shireoaks Parish Council:

“Councillors object to this application as the farmhouse is a heritage asset limited in its type in this locality and it was in the original plans . We were led to believe from the initial application that this farm building would be retained and be part of the character of the development.”

8.2 In addition to the above, Nottinghamshire County Council’s Senior Practitioner for Historic Buildings submitted the following comments relating to that application:

“I have the following comments from the built heritage perspective. Woodend Farmhouse is recorded as a non-designated heritage asset on the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record. It is a pre-Victorian farmstead that is of both historic and architectural interest, displaying local vernacular building materials and traditions that contribute to the local distinctiveness of this part of the county. I note that the application is accompanied by a Heritage Assessment that states the following:

The standing structures remaining on the farm, as they were constituted, were of low historic and architectural interest with conservation of the farmhouse considered to require a level of investment exceeding its local significance and architectural character alone. The historical and evidential significance of the building were of a value which would not facilitate conservation in such a case. Lack of public amenity space in sight of the building, later alterations and poor state of repair had substantially curtailed the buildings aesthetic and communal value; no significant architectural or historical features were present which would be enhanced adequately in these respects….

I would very much disagree with this assessment. The detailed examination of the building provided in the heritage assessment includes a (very brief) description of the interior (without photos or floors plans) that supports the assessment that the farmhouse has C18th origins and contains features internally (such as a C19th staircase) and externally that contribute to the local heritage interest of the building.

In view of this evidence, the ‘executive summery’ (quoted above) is clearly wrong and totally biased towards removal of a building which has demonstrable early C19th architectural features and heritage interest. The redevelopment of the surrounding farm is precisely the opportunity to conserve the farm and bring it back into use. It would be completely contrary to the NPPF section 16 to ignore this opportunity to conserve and enhance the heritage asset identified by BDC through a robust and appropriate mechanism. It is worthy of note that BDC’s criteria based approach to the identification of heritage assets of local interest has been highly praised by Historic England.

There is absolutely no case to be made for demolition of the farmhouse. Subject to appropriately undertaken heritage focussed repairs, it is clear that the farmhouse would make a very considerable and clear contribution to historic character and distinctiveness of Bassetlaw. For a developer’s ‘heritage advisor’ to attempt to argue that the economics of repair outweighs the heritage value is very seriously concerning as it is so very demonstrably incorrect to ignore that the conservation of this building is essential to the acceptability, in NPPF and local policy terms, to the proposed housing development.

I am pleased to see that BDC have begun the process of protecting the heritage asset through the use of an Article 4(1) Direction. I would suggest further steps to ensure that the developer alters their scheme to include the conservation of the heritage asset. It would be appropriate to use of a Section 106 agreement linked to the wider development, that requires a full specification to ensure proper conservation techniques and materials are used throughout its repair. If the developer prefers not to pursue the restoration directly, the farmhouse

(and suitable curtilage land) should be offered on the open market and to a Building Preservation Trust (along with an endowment suitable to address any conservation deficit that the BDC/BPT identifies, and subject to appropriate scrutiny).

Demolition of the farmhouse should be the very last resort and would not be required in order to realise any housing development that BDC considers acceptable or desirable on this site. On the contrary, the desirability of conserving the farmhouse should merit the same weight during consideration of the planning case for the development.”

8. Reasons for seeking approval for the ‘Confirmation’ of the Article 4(1) Direction

8.1 As stated previously, the existing building, Woodend Farmhouse, is regarded as a non- designated heritage asset, identified in line with the Council’s approved criteria. The local heritage significance of the building, as a non-designated heritage asset (and not listed or part of a Conservation Area), is not in doubt. The loss of the building would clearly be contrary to Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Paragraphs 192 & 197 of the Revised NPPF. At no point has the developer sought discussions with the Conservation Team regarding possible re-use of this building, including extensions or other suitable alterations. Further, the developer’s consultant has made it clear that they desire to see the building demolished and replaced with 2 bungalows.

8.2 In the absence of any other planning mechanism, or a separate agreement with the developer, in these circumstances the Council has little option but to apply an Article 4 Direction on the building. This was also the case at the former school in Harworth, where the owner was also intent on demolition again the Council’s and public’s wishes.

8.3 In summary, Conservation has considered the consultation responses (and has also had mind of the responses to the recent planning application detailed above) and would recommend that, due to the building’s historic and architectural interest, and its aesthetic appeal and association (with the Hewitt estate), in addition to the strong local support and also support from the parish Council and Nottinghamshire County Council received, the site should be protected from demolition or harmful alterations by the confirmation of the Article 4(1) Direction.

9. Implications

a) For service users

The number of alterations that may be carried out without planning permission (under permitted development) will be reduced, namely the demolition of the two main buildings, the painting of the exterior brickwork and stonework and the removal of the railings/gates on the eastern boundary. However, any planning application made for development subject to the Article 4(1), i.e. demolition, painting or railings/gates removal, is currently exempt from a planning fee (unless the Local Planning Authority decides to introduce a fee for these types of applications).

b) Strategic & Policy

With regard to the Article 4(1) Direction, the local planning authority would have increased powers with which to control the demolition and inappropriate alteration of this important non-designated heritage asset. Over time, this will

help to preserve and enhance the significance of the heritage asset, a key objective of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Article 4(1) Direction will also help to achieve broader planning objectives for environmental enhancement and the protection of the District’s heritage assets, as set out in the Bassetlaw Core Strategy. There is also evidence to suggest that conservation and enhancement of environmental assets helps to promote economic prosperity, in support of the Council’s strategic objectives (see recent studies by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, Historic England and the Heritage Alliance, amongst others). c) Financial - Ref: 20/710

Printing costs will be met from approved budgets. In terms of staffing levels, it is unlikely that there would be any significant impact from the Article 4(1) as only 1 property (2 buildings) would be affected. However, should there be a measured impact in the future, this would be reported to a future Cabinet meeting at that time.

Planning Committee should be aware that the withdrawal of permitted development rights by an Article 4 Direction may give rise to a claim for compensation if a planning application submitted within 12 months of the date of the Direction coming into force is either refused, or if an application is granted subject to conditions. The recently refused application has yet to be appealed, and no requests for compensation (or correspondence indicating such a request) have been received. However, research published by the Historic Towns Forum in 2008 found that no incidences of claims for compensation had been made to the authorities consulted (72 in total) in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. This research found that: “The only known cases where this has occurred, have been in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights for car boot sales and Sunday markets”. d) Legal – Ref: 98/09/2019

The confirmed Article 4(1) Direction shall be a local land charge in accordance with the 2015 Order, as amended.

Schedule 3 (‘Procedures for Article 4 Directions’) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015, as amended, requires that the Local Planning Authority gives notice to the Secretary of State on the confirmation of any Article 4(1) Direction. After being confirmed, notice of the Direction shall also be made by local advertisement, by site display in no fewer than two locations within the affected area and by serving the notice on the owner/occupier of every part of the land to which the direction relates. The Parish Council and Nottinghamshire County Council will also be notified. e) Human Resources

The confirmation of this Article 4(1) Direction is likely to result in a small increase in the number of planning applications received, and it is predicted that the work load for Development Control, Enforcement and the Planning Policy & Conservation Team will also increase by a small amount as a result.

The most significant impact will be upon the Conservation Team’s resources, including the responsibility for carrying out regular surveys of the Article 4(1) Direction and providing advice to the owners/occupiers of the building covered by the Article 4(1) Direction. However, this is not considered to be significant, being only 1 building.

f) Community Safety, Equalities, Environmental

The Article 4(1) Direction will have no impact on community safety or equal opportunities.

The Article 4(1) Direction will help to preserve and enhance the historic and architectural significance and visual, social and cultural amenity of this area.

g) Data Protection Regulations

The Article 4(1) Direction does not include any proposals to store, utilise or share data. Therefore, no data protection implications from this report.

h) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number.

No, this is not a key decision.

10. Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations

10.1 Option 1: Approve the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction as set out in this report. This will provide additional planning tools to enable the preservation, conservation and enhancement of the significance of the farmhouse, both in respect to ongoing development proposals, and for the longer term. The Article 4(1) Direction will allow the Local Planning Authority to properly consider the proposed demolition of the heritage asset on the site against local and national planning policies. The Direction will also provide greater control over external alterations to the building.

10.2 Planning Committee should be aware that the withdrawal of permitted development rights by an Article 4 Direction may give rise to a claim for compensation if a planning application submitted within 12 months of the date of the Direction coming into force is either refused, or if an application is granted subject to conditions. However, research published by the Historic Towns Forum in 2008 found that no incidences of claims for compensation had been made to the authorities consulted (72 in total) in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. This research found that: “The only known cases where this has occurred, have been in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights for car boot sales and Sunday markets”.

10.3 Option 2: Do not approve the ‘confirmation’ of ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction. Failure to confirm the Article 4(1) Direction carries a risk that after the 24th October 2019, when the immediate Direction expires, the significance of the non- designated heritage asset could be completely lost by the demolition of the building without requiring planning permission. Not confirming the Article 4(1) Direction could also undermine the distinctive visual, social, historic and cultural amenity of the area.

11. Recommendations

11.1 That Committee approve the ‘confirmation’ of the ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction.

11.2 That Committee confer delegated authority to the Head of Regeneration to implement the making of the ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction. Please note that following the expiry of the consultation period and after consideration of public responses, a further report shall be brought to a future Planning Committee to authorise confirmation of the Article 4(1) Direction or otherwise.

11.3 Any future cost implications for employee structure would be reported to Cabinet.

Appendix A – Draft Confirmed ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction

Appendix B – Draft Notice for Confirmed ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction

48 Agenda Item No. 6(d) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL INDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 11.09.2019

Sheet No. Ref No. Applicant Location and Proposal Recom. Decision A1 19/00765/OUT Mr T & M Land North Of Bracken Lane, Strawson & Retford. Grant Pages 51-80 Horrocks Outline Planning Application with Some Matters Reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for Residential Development of up to 71 Dwellings (Resubmission of 18/00747/OUT)

A2 18/01585/RSB Mr S Difuria Land Between Walkeringham Road And Vicarage Lane, Grant Pages 81-96 Beckingham.

Proposed Outline Application (All Matters Reserved) For Residential Development and Community Allotments (Resubmission of P.A. 17/00962/OUT)

A3 19/00611/FUL Stancliffe Homes Land South Of Woodend Farm, Ltd East of Shireoaks Common, Grant Pages 97- West of A57, Shireoaks. 116 Erection of 27 Dwellings with New Access from Shireoaks Common and Associated Landscaping Works

50 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: A1

Application Ref. 19/00765/OUT Application Type Outline Planning Application Site Address Land North Of Bracken Lane, Retford.

Proposal Outline Planning Application with Some Matters Reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for Residential Development of up to 71 Dwellings (Resubmission of 18/00747/OUT)

Case Officer Dylan Jones Recommendation Grant - Subject to a Legal Agreement Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

THE APPLICATION

Site context

The application site is adjacent to Bracken Lane which lies within the south eastern part of the market town of Retford. Bracken Lane leads off the A638 London Road and serves the Bracken Lane Primary Academy School and the surrounding residential area as well as providing a route out to the surrounding countryside.

The site is an undeveloped field of an irregular rectangular shape and occupies a stated area of 3.99 hectares. It lies to the north of Bracken Lane, behind the Bracken Lane Primary Academy School and to the east of and to the rear of the existing dwellings on the adjacent London Road frontage.

There is a gap in the substantial hedge which runs along the Bracken Lane frontage of the site which provides access into the field. It can also be accessed via an existing track which lies adjacent to Spruce Drive on London Road. This access abuts the South Retford Conservation Area on London Road.

Proposal

Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of up to 71 dwellings with all matters reserved save for access to the site. The site will be accessed from the existing access from the west for three dwellings with the main access serving the remainder of the site to the south from Bracken Lane. The indicative site plan for this scheme shows that 0.78 hectares of the site will be put over to public open space with a network of footpaths and amenity areas for informal recreation opportunities and to provide biodiversity enhancements.

This application is identical to one that was refused permission under planning reference number 18/00747/OUT at the Planning Committee on the 5th December 2018. That case is now at appeal and will be heard by an Inspector via the Informal Hearing method on the 26th November 2019.

51 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows:

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied.

Paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role.

Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with an up to date development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission shall be granted unless: i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The following paragraphs of the framework are applicable to this development:

Para 7 – Achieving sustainable development Para 8 – Three strands to sustainable development Para 10 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 11 – Decision making Para 12 – Development plan as the starting point for decision making Para 33 – Strategic policies in development plans should be reviewed every 5 years. Para 38 – Decision making should be done in a positive way. Para 55 – Planning conditions to be kept to a minimum and to meet the tests. Para 56 – Planning obligations Para 59 – Councils to boost housing supply Para 61 – Meeting housing need Para 73 & 74 – All Councils to have a minimum 5 year supply of housing to meet demand. Para 91 – Planning to achieve healthy, safe and inclusive communities. Para 94 – Provision of sufficient school places Para 96 – provision of high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity. Para 108 – 110 – Highway safety Para 117 – Making effective use of land Para 124 – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Para 127 – Development should reflect local characteristics. Para 130 – Poor design should be refused permission.

52 Para 155 – Inappropriate development at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development to parcels of land at less risk of flooding. Para 163 – New development must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Para 170 - Decisions should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural and local environment. Para 178 – Planning and pollution Para 180 - Development and its effect on health. Para 190 – Assessing the significance of a heritage asset Para 201 – Not all part of Conservation Areas will contribute to its significance.

BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):

 CS1 - Settlement hierarchy  CS3 - Retford  DM4 - Design & character  DM5 – Housing Mix and Density  DM8 – The Historic Environment  DM9 - Delivering open space and sports facilities  DM11 - Developer contributions and infrastructure provision  DM12 - Flood risk, sewage and drainage  DM13 - Sustainable transport

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN (INCLUDING STATUS AND RELEVANT POLICIES)

Retford isn’t a Neighbourhood Plan area and as such, there isn’t an adopted Neighbourhood Plan in place for consideration as part of this scheme.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/01/80/00009 - Residential Development and access. Refused AP/01/80/00009 - Appeal against refusal. Dismissed 19.3.91 18/00747/OUT – Outline application for the erection of 71 dwellings – Permission refused on 5th December 2018. This case is now at appeal and will be heard by an Inspector via the Informal Hearing method on the 26th November 2019.

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

BDC Environmental Health –

Noise – As the site lies adjacent to residential properties, a condition is requested limiting the hours of construction on site to protect the living conditions of the surrounding residents.

Lighting – Additional street lights will be proposed as part of this scheme, but it is not considered that their impact will be any different to any other residential area and this will not be harmful to the living conditions of the residents of the site and the surrounding area.

53 Contaminated Land – Does not raise any objections to this scheme but wishes the applicant to carry out a contaminated land assessment of the site before any works to implement this scheme occur. This should be secured via a planning condition.

BDC Heritage Officer – Comments that this scheme is similar to the previous one for this site which was refused planning permission. No objections were raised in relation to the original scheme and as this one is similar no objections are raised in relation to this scheme.

BDC Parks and Open Space Officer – Advises that a contribution of £22,632.25 will be required towards improvements to the existing play facility on Gatemoor Lane to meet the requirements generated by this scheme.

BDC Strategic Housing – The scheme will generate the need for affordable housing at the rate of 25% as advised in the Council’s SPD on affordable housing.

BDC Waste and Recycling Team – Does not raise any objections to this scheme.

NCC Highways – Comments that the details in support of this scheme appear to be identical to that previously submitted. That scheme was with the Council at the time the application for the Kenilworth Nurseries site was being considered. That scheme has now received a resolution to approve permission, but neither that scheme nor this one consider their cumulative impacts on the Bracken Lane/Whinney Moor Lane junction. However, this scheme is adding traffic onto the quietest arm of the junction and there is capacity on the Bracken Lane arm to accommodate this development without impacting negatively on the performance of the Whinney Moor Lane/Bracken Lane junction. Therefore, there is no need for the applicant to update his transport assessment in this situation. As such, the Highway Authority has no objections to this scheme subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the technical details of the access points and the provision of an additional length of footway along Bracken Lane. The Highway Authority has confirmed that it will not be requesting a contribution to improve the Whinney Moor Lane/Bracken Lane junction as part of this scheme as its impact is not significant enough on the surrounding road network to justify it.

NCC LLFA – Does not raise any objections to this scheme subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of the technical details of the approved Flood Risk Assessment to be submitted for agreement prior to works commencing on the scheme.

NCC Planning Policy –

Waste and minerals - There are no waste or minerals sites in sufficiently close proximity to this site to be impacted by this development.

Bus services – A contribution towards local bus services is not considered to be necessary in relation to this scheme.

Bus stop infrastructure – Advises that the scheme is of a sufficient size to warrant the following improvements:

BA0649 Primary School (Bracken Lane) - Install Raised Boarding Kerbs. BA0936 Primary School (Bracken Lane) - Install Bus Stop Pole and Raised Boarding Kerbs. BA0100 Whinney Moor Lane (London Road) – Install Real Time Bus Stop Pole & Displays including Associated Electrical Connections. BA0728 The Elms Hotel (London Road) – Install Real Time Bus Stop Pole & Displays including Associated Electrical Connections, Polycarbonate Bus Shelter (subject to footway width) and Raised Boarding Kerbs.

54 BA1009 The Elms Hotel (London Road) – Extend Footway, Install Polycarbonate Bus Shelter and Raised Boarding Kerbs.

Education –

Primary - The development is in the catchment of Retford Planning Area and would generate 15 additional places. There is currently capacity in the planning area to accommodate the additional pupils generated by this scheme and as a result, the County Council will not be seeking a contribution for primary school provision.

Secondary - The development is in the catchment of Retford Oaks Academy and would generate an additional 11 places. There is insufficient capacity to accommodate the additional places generated. As a result, the County Council would seek a secondary education contribution of £247,720 (11 places x £22,520 per place) to be used to expand provision at the Retford Oaks Academy.

The above requirements would be delivered via a S106 agreement.

NCC Public Rights of Way – Advise that there are no public rights of way within the application site.

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – notes that the submitted ecology report is the same as that submitted for the previously refused application. States that they do not object to the scheme and would request the imposition of conditions requiring the site to be developed in line with the recommendations of the approved ecology report and that a suitably qualified ecologist is present on site during the clearance phase to check for hedgehogs and to provide advice on the best methods to develop the site to prevent harm occurring to them.

Retford Civic Society – Raise the following points:

 The land is outside the town boundary as defined in the local plan and this development is therefore unnecessary.  The land floods substantially and there is nothing with the application to indicate what steps are taking place to avoid flooding from the site impacting elsewhere.  Additional traffic generated would lead to congestion on London Road particularly at the Bracken Lane junction which could lead to increased accidents.  There is insufficient capacity at Bracken Lane School to accommodate the additional children who would live in the proposed houses.

Retford Gamston Airport – Doesn’t have any comments to make on this scheme.

SUMMARY OF PUBLICITY

This application was advertised by neighbour letter, site notice and press advert and 49 letters of objection have been received raising the following points:

Highways/Traffic  Bracken Lane already struggles with access and egress of traffic especially at school pick up and dropping off period.  Bracken Lane is narrow in parts with vehicles having to take to the pavements to pass each other sometimes. This scheme has its access at the narrowest point and that will exacerbate the situation.  The erection of 71 new houses will have a negative impact on accident rates in the area.

55  People park their cars inconsiderately on Bracken Lane, especially some parents who are picking up or dropping their children off at school. Vehicle users have also been known to speed outside the school also. This scheme will exacerbate that problem which may cause either vehicular or pedestrian accidents along Bracken Lane.  Child safety next to the school should be a priority over building houses in this area.  Bracken Lane also provides access for large agricultural vehicles and an additional 71 dwellings will cause even further conflict in this area.  It is hard to believe the traffic flow figures quoted in the Transport Assessment for this scheme. It also doesn’t take account of the Kenilworth Nurseries site which received permission earlier on this year.  Signalisation of the Whinney Moor Lane/Bracken Lane junction will not solve the congestion and safety concerns which will be exacerbated by this scheme is approved.  Additional dwellings in this area will generate more cars which will increase pollution levels in the locality to an unacceptable level. This will be particularly harmful to young children at the school.  A drop off lane should be provided adjacent to the school as part of this development.  The London Road/Bracken Lane/Whinney Moore Lane junction needs to be radically redesigned to cope with this and other consented schemes in the area.  The private driveway which will serve 3 dwellings is dangerous with obstructed vision especially when the sun is low. This will be hazardous to both pedestrian and vehicular uses in the locality.

Flooding  This is a field and it should continue to be used as such as it is permanently wet and is prone to flooding in wet weather.  A substantial increase in drain capacity will be needed to serve this development; an attenuation basin will not be sufficient to cope.  The Retford Beck has no capacity within it to cope with drainage from this development.

Trees  There is a Tree Preservation Order for the protection of trees within the site of Lorne House School, London Road. This identifies that the trees along Bracken Lane and along the pedestrian access track/track to access three of the dwellings are protected and it is likely that these will be impacted to some degree by this development.

Policy  The site is outside the development limits for Retford and it should be refused as it was previously on this basis.  The Council has a 5 year supply of housing and this proposal is therefore not needed.

Infrastructure  Bracken Lane Primary School will need extending to provide school places for this development. Increasing its size would be harmful to the close family feel that the school currently has.  Ordsall School cannot take the children from this development either as it cannot accept S106 contributions due to being in special measures.  Thrumpton Primary Academy is also full and cannot accept children from this development.

56  GP surgeries in the locality are stretched to the limits. Adding extra people to their caseload will make matters worse.  Over 200 houses have been approved for this part of Retford and the local infrastructure cannot cope with any more houses.  Whilst the site is close to a bus stop, the local bus service is poor with the railway station being a 20 minute walk away from the site.  The nearest shop to this site is Aldi which is a mile away. This is unacceptable.  Local services are too far away from the site and this will result in people having to drive. How will the Council meet its social objectives as required by the NPPF?  Any monies which are required to improve local infrastructure should be paid before the permission is granted. 47% of Council’s do not get the money promised by developers. How will BDC guarantee that it gets the money required?

Living conditions  The new access point will be close to residential properties and will impact on the living conditions of the surrounding residents by virtue of vehicle noise, pollution and traffic generation.

Other  The impact of all of the other approved developments in the area must also be considered in assessing this scheme.  Additional development on this land will impact on the surrounding countryside as there will be more people using it to the detriment of the amenity of the walkers, cyclists, horse riders and runners that use the existing area for their enjoyment.  The land should be used as a car park for the school to ease existing traffic and parking issues rather than for new housing which will make matters worse.  Social housing in the surrounding area in new built schemes is not social housing. Will this be the same?  Construction works on site will have a negative impact on children attending the Bracken Lane Primary School.  The development may result in greater trespass opportunities for the Retford Athletics Club site. Measures need to be in place to prevent this from occurring.

CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES

PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision making.

Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy states that until the adoption of the site allocations DPD, development in the settlements identified in the hierarchy will be restricted to the area inside defined settlement boundaries. However, additional permission may be granted where the development proposal would address a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply or its employment land supply.

Policy CS3 of the council’s Core Strategy identifies Retford as a Core Service Centre which should cater for levels of housing employment and development which should maintain and enhance its wider service role as the main market town in the district. The application site lies within the south eastern part of Retford to the north of Bracken Lane off the A638 London Road, adjacent to but not within the designated development limits for the settlement.

57 Since the decision was made to refuse application 18/00747/OUT in December 2018 which is an identical scheme for 71 dwellings to that proposed here, it is important to note and understand the Council’s current thinking on decision making with planning applications which differs to that which was in place when application 18/00747/OUT was being considered.

The outcome of an appeal against Doncaster MBC’s decision to refuse permission in relation to 650 houses on land at Mere Lane in Edenthorpe is a material consideration in determining housing applications where sites are outside the designated development limits and where the strategic policies in the adopted development plan hasn’t been reviewed in the last 5 years as required by paragraph 33 of the NPPF.

The Secretary of State disagreed with the Council’s reasons for refusal (inappropriate type of development outside of a settlement limit) and stated that due to the age of their Core Strategy and Unitary Development Plan (2012 and 1998 respectively – i.e. not reviewed in the last 5 years as required by the NPPF), this meant that there were no up to date allocations for housing in place in the district and that the decision of the Council was unsound as it didn’t meet the government’s requirements for continued future housing growth as identified in the then new 2018 NPPF. The Secretary of State also clarified that whilst the Council had a deliverable 5 year supply of housing (with 5 years being the minimum rather than the maximum needed), as its strategic housing policies were considered to be out of date, this could not be solely relied on to refuse permission for the scheme. Due to this, the Secretary of State considered it appropriate to consider the scheme under the planning balance test in paragraph 11d of the NPPF where the presumption is to approve the scheme other than in circumstances where the negative aspects of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The Secretary of State concluded that the provision of up to 650 houses had to be approved as the positives that it brought significantly outweighed the negatives outlined by the Council in the case (i.e. outside the settlement limits and with a deliverable 5 year housing supply).

The Secretary of State’s decision as outlined above was published in February 2019 and post-dates the decision previously made by Bassetlaw District Council on application 18/ 00747/OUT for 71 dwellings on this site and as stated previously, is a material consideration in the determination of this case.

The Bassetlaw Core Strategy dates from 2011 and its policies have not been reviewed in the last 5 years as required by paragraph 33 of the NPPF as the Council is working on a new local plan to replace it. In this situation, paragraph 213 of the NPPF states that policies in an adopted development plan do not become automatically out of date because they were published before the framework; policies must be considered having regards to their consistency with the framework. The Core Strategy was prepared using a settlement hierarchy which included development limits to control development and does not have any new site allocations in it and as such, it is considered that this approach is similar to that identified in the Doncaster appeal and is now out of step with that identified in the NPPF and the weight given to policy CS1 has to be reduced.

Whilst this scheme as previously is contrary to the requirements of policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, the appeal decision makes it clear that part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged as policy CS1 is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process and this scheme must be considered under the planning balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole.

58 Therefore, having regards to the material considerations contained in the Doncaster appeal case, it would be difficult to defend a refusal of this scheme under the requirements of policies CS1 and CS3 of the Core Strategy as requested by the objectors for the reason that the site is outside of a development limit line as this is now considered to be out of date.

In relation to the supply of housing, the NPPF requires Councils to identify and update, on an annual basis, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide for five years’ worth of housing provision against identified requirements (paragraphs 73 & 74). For sites to be considered deliverable: they have to be available; suitable; achievable and viable. Under the requirements of the new NPPF, the Council can demonstrate 7.9 years’ worth of housing and as such, a deliverable 5 years supply of housing can be achieved. The fact that the Council has a 5 year supply will be given weight and considered as part of all of the relevant material considerations in the tilted balance test assessment to this scheme and as identified in the Doncaster appeal case, this cannot be used as a defendable reason on its own to refuse permission for this scheme as requested by some of the objectors.

Having regards to the overall policy position as outlined above and the fact that the planning balance test in paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies, consideration of whether this proposal constitutes sustainable development will be assessed in relation to the matters outlined below and a balanced decision will be reached in the conclusion to the report.

Sustainability of the Proposal

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions for sustainable development, economic, social and environmental:

“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;

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 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

an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making 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.

In reaching a decision on this case, the NPPF at paragraph 9 makes it clear that the objectives referred to above should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions and are not criteria against which every planning application should be judged against.

The settlement of Retford is defined as a Core Service Centre in the Core Strategy where the settlement is expected to be a focus for commercial, economic and residential development which is commensurate with its status as a market town in the district.

59 The erection of 71 new dwellings on this site will make a significant and positive contribution to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy through the creation of temporary construction related jobs on site and the on-going contribution to the local economy both in terms of employment, spending and service usage from the creation of 71 additional household in the area. This scheme will also generate contributions towards local service infrastructure improvements, Council Tax and also New Homes Bonus money for Bassetlaw District Council which can potentially be reinvested into the local economy. In assessing the impact of a scheme in terms of the social objective as outlined in the NPPF, it must be remembered that this development meets this requirement as it will provide 71 new houses to meet the existing and future housing needs of the residents of Retford and the wider district.

Objections have been received to this scheme on the basis that the site is remote from the centre of Retford and as such by granting permission for this scheme, the new residents will be forced to use their cars to access local services. Retford is a market town and has a number of employment, retail, community and social facilities within it which will be available for use by the new residents of this site should it get planning permission. The objectors have pointed out themselves that the railway station is a 20 minute walk away from this site and the nearest food store is a mile away from the site. A 20 minute walk which is equal to approximately a mile is not an unreasonable distance for residents to walk to access local facilities. The residents could also choose to cycle this distance and the site is close by to bus stops to access the town centre or to go elsewhere. Due to this, it is not agreed with the objectors that the site lies in an unsustainable location where the new residents have no choice other than to drive to access necessary local services. Therefore, it is considered as outlined above that the scheme does meet the social objectives of the NPPF.

DESIGN, LAYOUT & VISUAL AMENITY

Section 12 of the NPPF refers to achieving well designed places. Specifically, paragraph 124 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; it creates better places in which to live and work in and helps make development acceptable to local communities. Paragraph 127 states that decisions should aim to ensure that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong sense of place, create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit, optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses and support local facilities and transport networks. Furthermore it provides that development should respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. The NPPF goes on to state it is “proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness” (para 127) and 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” (para 130).

Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy provides general design principles which should be applied to all schemes. The policy states that all development proposals will need to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the wider area and when they are in historic locations, they should respect existing development patterns. All schemes must respect their context and not create a pastiche development which would be incorrect in their context.

This scheme is an outline application for 71 dwellings, therefore the layout, style and design of the site and the dwellings are not for consideration at this stage. The applicant has however submitted an indicative layout plan to show how the site can be developed.

60 The proposal will not result in new development projecting into the surrounding open countryside as it would be viewed in the context of the existing residential properties on the London Road frontage, Bracken Lane Primary School and the existing development to the south of the site. The indicative plan shows that a suitable layout can be proposed at reserved matters stage which would be in keeping with the layout, character and appearance of the surrounding area as required by paragraph 127 of the NPPF and policy DM4 of the Core Strategy.

HERITAGE MATTERS Part of the existing access point into the site from London Road is in the Retford South Conservation Area with the site itself being separated from it by other existing housing which are behind those which front onto London Road. This site is adjacent to the Conservation Area, but does not directly abut its boundary. Para 190 of the NPPF requires Councils to identify the significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal to ensure that harm to the asset is avoided or is minimised. Policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy requires schemes that affect heritage assets to be of a scale, design, materials and siting and not have a negative effect on views towards the heritage asset.

The Council’s Conservation Team has been consulted on this application and they have advised that as the site does not directly adjoin the Conservation Area and cannot be viewed in the same context as it that the proposal will not cause any harm to its setting which is in line with the requirements of paragraph 190 of the NPPF. As this scheme is in outline form, there are no details of scale, design materials and siting to review and consider at this point. However the indicative masterplan for the site as submitted by the applicant shows that the scheme will retain existing trees and vegetation on its western side as well as on the access road from London Road into the site which will retain and not negatively affect the views towards the Conservation Area which is a heritage asset.

Having regards to the above, the proposal is not considered to cause harm to the character, appearance or setting of the Retford East Conservation Area in line with the requirements of paragraph 190 of the NPPF and policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

An objection has been submitted as part of this scheme raising concerns that the new access point is close to existing residential properties on Bracken Lane and its use will generate noise and pollution from the additional traffic arising from this site and this will impact on the living conditions of the residents.

It is agreed that the scheme will generate additional levels of traffic and that these vehicles will generate emissions and noise as they come in and out of the site. However, it is not considered that this will be so demonstrable to cause a significant level of harm to the living conditions of the surrounding residents.

61 As stated earlier, sustainable transport options such as walking, cycling and public transport are available to the residents of the site to access local services, therefore it cannot be automatically assumed that all new residents will choose to drive to and from this site as suggested will be the case by a number of objectors.

Having regards to the above, the proposal complies with the contents of policy DM4 of the Core Strategy and the requirement of the NPPF at paragraph 127.

HIGHWAYS MATTERS

Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that schemes can be supported where they provide safe and suitable access for all. This requirement is also contained in policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF makes it clear 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.

The County Highway Authority has been consulted in relation to this scheme and they have advised that they have no objections to it. They have confirmed that it is unnecessary for the applicant to review his transport assessment to take account of the Kenilworth Nurseries site as it is known to the Highway Authority that there is spare capacity at the Bracken Lane part of the London Road/Bracken Lane/Whinney Moor Lane junction (it is described as the quietest arm of the junction by the Highway Officer) and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate this development without impacting on the performance of the junction. Therefore, it is clear that the Highway authority does not support the comments made by the objectors to this scheme that the cumulative impact of this development on the road network will be severe.

In terms of highway safety, the Highway Authority has not raised any objections to the scheme and has suggested conditions which are found at the end of this report to control the technical details relating to the access and parking facilities for the site to ensure that they are safe in highway safety terms.

The County Highway Authority has also made it clear that unlike for the Kenilworth Nurseries site, they will not be requesting a contribution from this scheme to alter the London Road/Bracken Lane/Whinney Moor Lane junction. This is on the basis that contributions have been received from other schemes to fund the works and monies will also be allocated from other funding streams open to the County Highway Authority to facilitate the works. Also, as indicated earlier, there is capacity in the road network and in the junction to facilitate this development and as such, it is not necessary or justified to ask for a contribution under a S106 agreement for improvements to the London Road/Bracken Lane/Whinney Moor Lane junction in relation to this application.

The majority of the objectors to this scheme raise concerns over the impact of it on the local highway network. For ease of clarity in assessing the objections made on highway safety grounds, the comments made by the objectors are below in the left hand column of the box with an assessment of their comments in the adjacent column:

Objection Assessment Bracken Lane already struggles with access This comment relates to the existing and egress of traffic especially at school pick situation on site and the County Highway up and dropping off period. Authority has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the network to accommodate this scheme.

62 Bracken Lane is narrow in parts with vehicles This comment relates to the existing having to take to the pavements to pass situation on site and the County Highway each other sometimes. This scheme has its Authority has not raised any issues in access at the narrowest point and that will relation to highway safety in relation to exacerbate the situation. the access point into the site.

The erection of 71 new houses will have a The County Highway Authority has negative impact on accident rates in the assessed the scheme and has not raised area. any concerns in relation to highway safety in connection with this scheme. People park their cars inconsiderately on This is an existing situation on Bracken Bracken Lane, especially some parents who Lane. Inconsiderate parking on yellow are picking up or dropping their children off lines and speeding can be controlled by at school. Vehicle users have also been the relevant traffic enforcement authority known to speed outside the school also. This and travel plan measures can also be scheme will exacerbate that problem which implemented by the Primary school to may cause either vehicular or pedestrian help to reduce vehicle trips to the site to accidents along Bracken Lane. drop off and pick up children. It is unlikely that the proposed development will contribute to this issue as the residents of the 71 new dwellings are unlikely to drive their children a short distance from their dwellings on the new estate to the school. Should some parents who live on the new estate choose to drop off and pick up their children by car on their way elsewhere (such as to work), then this figure is unlikely to be high, and the impact is unlikely to be significant and demonstrably negative on existing traffic flow and highway safety in the locality. Child safety next to the school should be a Child safety is one of the considerations priority over building houses in this area. that the Highway Authority review when developments are adjacent to schools. No safety concerns for children have been raised by the Highway Authority specifically in relation to the impact of the development of this scheme. Bracken Lane also provides access for large The County Highway Authority will be agricultural vehicles and an additional 71 aware that Bracken Lane starts in an dwellings will cause even further conflict in urban environment and then leaves the this area. built up part of Retford to access the surrounding countryside. They will also be aware that large vehicles, such as farm vehicles use Bracken Lane. However, in assessing this scheme they have not raised any concerns in relation to highway safety caused by any additional conflict between large vehicles and car users on Bracken Lane. It is hard to believe the traffic flow figures The figures have been assessed by the quoted in the Transport Assessment for this Highway Authority who are aware of scheme. It also doesn’t take account of the traffic flow numbers and the capacity of

63 Kenilworth Nurseries site which received the local roads and their junctions. They permission earlier on this year. have confirmed that whilst the applicant has not considered the Kenilworth Nurseries site in their transport assessment, the County Council has information to confirm that there is sufficient capacity in the local road network to accommodate this development. Signalisation of the Whinney Moor This scheme is being progressed by the Lane/Bracken Lane junction will not solve the County Council to deal with general congestion and safety concerns which will be capacity and junction flows along London exacerbated by this scheme is approved. Road. They have commented that this scheme does not need to contribute to that work as there is sufficient capacity in the Bracken Lane part of the junction as existing to accommodate this development. Therefore, the Highway Authority does not share the comments made by the objector that this scheme will exacerbate issues in the locality. Additional dwellings in this area will generate It is agreed that additional vehicles in the more cars which will increase pollution levels locality when using the road network will in the locality to an unacceptable level. This cause additional pollution. However, it is will be particularly harmful to young children not considered that an additional 71 at the school. dwellings with the commensurate amount of cars that their occupiers will own will increase pollution in the area by such a significant degree to significantly and demonstrably impact on the health of the adjacent existing residents or children in the adjacent primary school. Should air pollution become an issue in the future then the Council has the powers to declare the area as a clean air zone should it decide this is justifiable where targeted action can be taken to improve air quality. A drop off lane should be provided adjacent This has not been requested by the to the school as part of this development. County Council in making their education comments in relation to this scheme and is not considered to be justified on planning grounds. The London Road/Bracken Lane/Whinney A scheme to do this is being considered Moore Lane junction needs to be radically and worked up by the County Council at redesigned to cope with this and other present and a contribution from the consented schemes in the area. Kenilworth Nurseries application has been sought to help deliver this. The private driveway which will serve 3 The Highway Authority has commented dwellings is dangerous with obstructed vision that they would prefer all of the scheme especially when the sun is low. This will be to be served from the access point off hazardous to both pedestrian and vehicular Bracken Lane, but they are content that uses in the locality. as the access point is to only serve 3 new dwellings that its impact on highway

64 safety will not be unacceptable. They have requested a condition which will limit the use of the access to 3 dwellings only and this appears in the relevant section at the end of this report

Having regards to the above, the scheme can provide safe and suitable access for all in line with the requirements of paragraph 108 and 110 of the NPPF and the requirements of policy DM4 of the Core Strategy.

Trees/Ecological Impact

The content of paragraph 175 of the NPPF is applicable as it states that in dealing with planning applications, councils must consider the harm of a scheme on biodiversity. Some harm to biodiversity is allowed, but it states that significant harm should be avoided, adequate mitigation should be provided or if this is not possible, the loss should be compensated for. If none of the above is possible, then permission should be refused.

This application has been accompanied by an ecology appraisal and a tree constraints plan and the applicant has also outlined how they will extend the driveway from London Road whilst also protecting the Trees that are the subject of two separate group Tree Preservation Order that border it to the north and south.

The Wildlife Trust has been consulted on this scheme and they have not objected to it on ecological grounds. They have advised that they are happy for the scheme to progress subject to the imposition of a planning condition which will require the applicant to develop the site in line with the recommendations of the submitted ecology report and also to receive advice from an ecologist on how to develop the site without harming the hedgehogs that exist on site.

Concern has been raised by an objector over whether the works to improve the access path from London Road to the three dwellings proposed at the western extreme of the site will harm the trees that exist to its north and the south. These trees are protected by two separate group Tree Preservation Orders which date from the early 1990s. The applicant has surveyed the trees and none of the ones within the driveway which are in the control of the applicant will be removed as part of this development and they have confirmed that they will use a no dig method to alter and improve the access road so that the roots of the trees are unharmed. The applicant has agreed to this appearing as a planning condition on this application and the wording of the condition can be found in the relevant part at the end of this report. It must be noted that some of the trees referred to by the objector are outside of the application site and the applicant has no right to carry out any works on these without receiving subsequent permission from the landowner. It is understood, that works to the trees outside of the curtilage of the driveway are unnecessarily to facilitate improvements to the driveway in connection with this scheme. This scheme has been discussed with the Council’s Tree Officer and he has not raised any concerns in relation to it.

Having regards to this, it is considered that the proposal complies with the contents of paragraph 175 of the NPPF and the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

65 FLOODING/DRAINAGE

Objections have been received to this scheme on the grounds that the field is often wet, it regularly floods in poor weather and developing the land will exacerbate problems and cause increased flooding and surface water runoff into the surrounding area. Concern is also raised that other recently consented schemes in the area (the Kenilworth Nurseries site is specifically mentioned) will impact on surface water rates and if this scheme is also approved this could have a significant impact on flooding in the local area. Mention is also made that Retford Beck cannot accommodate any further discharge into it from this or any other site in the locality.

The NPPF at paragraph 155 and policy DM12 of the Core Strategy makes it clear that development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from the areas at the highest risk. The site lies in a flood zone 1 area as designated by the Environment Agency which is land at least risk of flooding from local rivers and this is where development is directed in the NPPF to minimise the risk of flooding.

Paragraph 163 of the NPPF requires that proposals do not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be developed in line with a site specific flood risk assessment which incorporate a Sustainable Urban Drainage solution. Should flooding events occur, the NPPF also requires that schemes demonstrate how the residual flooding impact would be dealt with. The county Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has been consulted on this scheme and they have reviewed the applicant’s submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and have not raised any objections to it. They have advised that the site is safe to develop in terms of surface water and drainage, and this can be achieved via a SuDS scheme. They have requested that conditions be imposed on this permission to ensure that the precise SuDS details are provided before works commence on site and are requesting that the scheme must limit surface water flow to within the site only and to a set amount, and that details of the future maintenance and management of the system is provided and agreed.

With the suggested conditions which can be enforced by the Council at any time if needs be, it is considered that the proposal can be made to comply with the requirements of paragraph 163 of the NPPF and the requirements of policy DM12 of the Core Strategy.

INFRASTRUCTURE/CONTRIBUTIONS

Paragraph 56 of the NPPF makes it clear that contributions can be sourced from schemes where they make the scheme acceptable in planning terms. Paragraph 61 requires that Councils plan to deliver a wide choice of housing to meet local needs and this includes the provision of affordable housing. Paragraph 94 of the NPPF makes is clear that it is important that there are sufficient school places to meet the needs of existing and new communities and that council’s should proactively work with school providers to resolve key planning issues relating to development. Paragraph 96 emphasises that access to high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important and this is a consideration in determining planning applications.

The scheme as submitted will provide the following requirements in line with the NPPF requirements outlined above:

66  Affordable housing provision equal to 25% of the total dwellings proposed  An education contribution of £247,720 to provide 11 new secondary school places at the Retford Oaks Academy.  A contribution of £22,632.25 to secure improvements at the existing play area off Goosemoor Lane.  A contribution of £36,000 towards improvements to the following bus stops:

o BA0649 Primary School (Bracken Lane) - Install Raised Boarding Kerbs. o BA0936 Primary School (Bracken Lane) - Install Bus Stop Pole and Raised Boarding Kerbs. o BA0100 Whinney Moor Lane (London Road) – Install Real Time Bus Stop Pole & Displays including Associated Electrical Connections. o BA0728 The Elms Hotel (London Road) – Install Real Time Bus Stop Pole & Displays including Associated Electrical Connections, Polycarbonate Bus Shelter (subject to footway width) and Raised Boarding Kerbs. o BA1009 The Elms Hotel (London Road) – Extend Footway, Install Polycarbonate Bus Shelter and Raised Boarding Kerbs

A number of objections have been received to this scheme in relation to its impact on local infrastructure. For ease of clarity in assessing the objections made on infrastructure grounds, the comments made by the objectors are in the left hand column of the box below with an assessment of their comments in the adjacent column:

Objection Assessment Bracken Lane Primary Academy School will The County Council has not requested an need extending to provide school places for education contribution for any primary this development. Increasing its size would places as part of this scheme. They have be harmful to the close family feel that the advised that they are now using the latest school currently has. projections and there is capacity at primary school level in the Retford education planning area to accommodate the students that will arise as part of this development. Contributions that are allocated or have been received from other consented schemes in the area will be used to expand Bracken Lane Primary Academy School in the future, but no additional payments are required as part of this scheme. Ordsall School cannot take the children from Please see above. this development either as it cannot accept S106 contributions due to being in special measures.

Thrumpton Primary Academy is also full and Please see above. cannot accept children from this development.

GP surgeries in the locality are stretched to The Council does not currently consult the limits. Adding extra people to their on schemes with the Primary Care Trust caseload will make matters worse. for health care requirements in the district as they have not wanted to be involved with the planning process to date. This is to change in the future as

67 negotiations are currently in place between the Council and the relevant PCTs so that their requirements are fed into the planning system at planning application stage and in formulating the Council’s new local plan. So currently, no data or information has been received from the PCT to be able to substantiate that there are issues in the locality with healthcare to justify that the applicant provides a contribution towards any improvements which would be necessary as a consequence of this scheme.

Over 200 houses have been approved for The applicant for this scheme is this part of Retford and the local contributing towards affordable housing, infrastructure cannot cope with any more improvements to the play area off houses. Goosemoor Lane as will the bus stops which are closest to the site as listed above. The County Council has confirmed that in its opinion the local bus service is sufficient to cope with the additional users which will arise from this development and a contribution towards new provision or enhancement to the existing is not warranted. Other developers of consented housing schemes have also had to contribute towards improvements to local infrastructure with some of these having already occurred and some still in the pipeline. These schemes have therefore mitigated their impact on local infrastructure as required by the planning system. It is important to note under the planning acts that it is unreasonable to expect new schemes to resolve existing problems in an area; these should be resolved and/or mitigated elsewhere by the relevant landowner or statutory undertakers. Any monies which are required to improve The moneys required by this and other local infrastructure should be paid before the similar schemes has to be justified and permission is granted. 47% of Council’s do forms part of a S106 legal agreement. The not get the money promised by developers. applicant, District Council and the County How will BDC guarantee that it gets the Council sign up to this agreement and the money required? development cannot legally go ahead without the developer of the site complying with the requirements of the S106 agreement. Should the developer break the terms of the agreement, the Council can take enforcement action to make the developer comply. The Council cannot legally ask the applicant to pay any contributions owing

68 to the Council before development receives permission. This could be seen as the applicant trying to buy the permission and would be unlawful.

It is clear from the above that this scheme will contribute towards the delivery of improvements to local infrastructure which will positively count towards the scheme when using the planning balance test. Furthermore, the scheme would be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy and this would deliver a further amount to the council which can he spent in line with that identified by the Council in its CIL regulation 123 list. The scheme will also deliver the New Homes Bonus for Bassetlaw District Council which can also potentially be reinvested into the local economy. Therefore, it can be seen that this scheme will contribute significantly towards delivering infrastructure improvements in the locality.

OTHER ISSUES

The following issues not addressed under any of the previous headings have been raised by the objectors to the scheme. As previously, the comments made by the objectors are in the left hand column of the box below with an assessment of their comments in the adjacent column:

Objection Assessment The impact of all of the other approved Retford is classified by the Council as a developments in the area must also be Market town in the Core Strategy where a considered in assessing this scheme. level of residential/commercial and industrial development commensurate

with this designation is expected. In considering planning applications the impact of the development on the surrounding area is considered and also consideration is given to the cumulative impacts of schemes in relation to other consented schemes in the area. In this case, the Council’s consultees are advising that there are no infrastructure or highway issues arising from approving this scheme when considered either on its own merits or in connection with other consented schemes in the vicinity of the development. Additional development on this land will This is the objector’s opinion and this impact on the surrounding countryside as may not be the case. there will be more people using it to the detriment of the amenity of the walkers, cyclists, horse riders and runners that use the existing area for their enjoyment.

The land should be used as a car park for The land is privately owned and is not the school to ease existing traffic and owned by the Bracken Lane Primary parking issues rather than for new housing School. Should the school wish to

69 which will make matters worse. purchase the land to make a car park out of it or to provide additional facilities for the school, then that is a matter for them to approach the landowner to discuss and negotiate. Social housing in the surrounding area in All social or affordable housing with new built schemes is not social housing. Will major applications are consented and this be the same? controlled via the requirements listed in the approved S106 legal agreement. All

affordable housing must be provided in line with the definition of such properties in Annexe 2 parts a) through to d) of the NPPF. Construction works on site will have a The Council’s Environmental Health Team negative impact on children attending the has suggested construction work hours Bracken Lane Primary School. to protect the living conditions of the nearest residential occupiers. However, it

is not possible to limit works during the working day as this would be unreasonable for the developer. It is not unusual in other areas for schools to be operational on housing estates where works are ongoing to build the new dwellings. In such a situation, the developer in conjunction with with the school may choose to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme so that the site can be developed in such a manner so that it minimises its impact on the operation of the school. The development may result in greater The northern boundary of the site is an trespass opportunities for the Retford existing hedge which is to be retained Athletics Club site. Measures need to be in and enhanced as part of the new scheme to make it denser than existing. Access is place to prevent this from occurring. currently possible into the field from either London Road or Bracken Lane and this situation won’t change if this new scheme is approved. Currently, should somebody wish to access the Athletics Club site through gaps in the northern boundary of the site, then this is possible. However, if the new scheme is consented, there would be approximately 12 properties overlooking this boundary and as such, there would be more natural surveillance and potentially more control over security than the existing arrangement. It must also be remembered that the Athletics Club has the option to better secure its site from within its own boundaries if it considers security to be a risk.

70 CIL CALCULATION

This is an outline application and the floor areas of the dwellings proposed are currently unknown. Therefore, the CIL calculation will be carried out and applied following the submission of the Reserved Matters details for this scheme.

CONCLUSION/PLANNING BALANCE

Whilst the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, case law has determined that strategic policies such as that contained in the Council’s Core Strategies that have not been reviewed within 5 years of their adoption are now out of date, so therefore the weight to be apportioned to the Core Strategy policies is considered to be limited in decision making.

As the Core Strategy is deemed to be out of date having regards to the contents of paragraph 33 of the NPPF, paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes it clear that the scheme should be considered under the planning balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole.

An assessment of the benefits and negatives provided by the scheme is given below with the weight apportioned to this in making a recommendation on this scheme:

Benefit/Negative of the scheme Weight given to the benefit/negative in decision making 71 new houses The Council has 7.9 years’ worth of housing supply and therefore the houses are not needed for the Council to meet its 5 year housing supply requirements. The benefit of delivering an additional 71 dwellings is considered to carry reduced weight in the decision making for this scheme 25% of the 71 dwellings to be affordable There is a requirement for affordable housing in the district and the applicant has agreed to a policy compliant amount. This therefore carries significant weight in the determination of this case. New residents into the area who will use and This meets the requirements of the help to sustain existing local services and economic and social objectives outlined in facilitate potential future growth opportunities paragraph 8 of the NPPF and as such it due to their spending power carries significant weight in the determination of this case. Construction related jobs Whilst this may only be a transient part of this scheme, it meets the requirements of the economic objectives outlined in paragraph 8 of the NPPF and as such it carries a medium level of weight in the determination of this case. Infrastructure contributions (public This meets the requirements of the social transport/education/local play space) objectives as outlined in paragraph 8 of the NPPF and as such it carries significant weight in the determination of this case. CIL/Council Tax/New Homes bonus The scheme brings with it payments to payments Bassetlaw Council that can be reinvested

71 back into the local economy. This is considered to carry significant weight in the determination of this case. Contrary to adopted policies CS1 and CS2 of This is considered to carry limited weight in the Council’s Core Strategy. the decision making process for this case due to the fact that the Bassetlaw Core Strategy Strategic policies are now considered to be out of date. Consultee responses to the case No objections have been received from any of the Council’s consultees to this scheme on any material planning grounds. As such, this support counts positively towards this scheme and great weight in the decision making process should be apportioned to it.

Having regards to benefits outlined above, and the scale and form of the development, it is considered that these when considered cumulatively outweigh any identified harm and as such, the proposal would constitute sustainable development as defined in paragraph 11 of the NPPF and accordingly the scheme must be granted planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant planning permission to subject to the following conditions and the execution of a S106 agreement/unilateral undertaking requiring the developer to provide the following:

 Affordable housing provision equal to 25% of the total dwellings proposed  An education contribution of £247,720 to provide 11 new secondary school places at the Retford Oaks Academy.  A contribution of £22,632.25 to secure improvements at the existing play area off Goosemoor Lane.  A contribution of £36,000 towards improvements to the following bus stops:

72 CONDITIONS/REASONS:

1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

a) The expiration of three years from the date of this permission: or b) The expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval of the reserved matters on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The scale and appearance of the building(s) and the layout and the landscaping of the site shall be only as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development commences.

Reason: This permission is granted in respect of an outline application which did not contain details of the matters hereby reserved for approval.

3. The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans:

 Red lined site location plan reference number 5885/ASP01 Rev A received on 10th June 2019  Proposed access plan (Bracken Lane) reference number 001 Rev A received on 10th June 2019  Proposed access plan (London Road) reference number 003 received on 10th June 2019  Tree constraints plan drawing number 1 received on 19 June 2019  Site survey plan drawing number 621 Rev A received on 19 June 2019

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

4. Concurrently with the submission of the reserved matters scheme for this site, an investigation into the history and current condition of the site to determine the likelihood of the existence of contamination arising from previous uses shall have been carried out and all of the following steps have been complied with to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (LPA). In order to comply with the above condition, the proposal should comply with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11" and "BS 10175 (2011) Code of Practice for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites".

A) A written report should be submitted to and approved by the LPA which shall include details of the previous uses of the site, surrounding contaminative land uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and a description of the current condition of the site with regard to any activities that may have caused contamination. The report shall confirm whether or not it is likely that contamination may be present on the site.

73 B) If the above report indicates that contamination may be present on or under the site, or if evidence of contamination is found, a more detailed site investigation and risk assessment shall be carried out in accordance with DEFRA and Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11" and other authoritative guidance. The report should fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land contamination and /or pollution of controlled waters and should be submitted and agreed by the LPA.

C) Where the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risk or risks, a detailed remediation strategy to deal with land contamination and /or pollution of controlled waters affecting the site shall be submitted and approved by the LPA. No works, other than investigative works, shall be carried out on the site prior to receipt of written approval of the remediation strategy by the LPA.

D) A validation report for the site remediation shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the LPA before completion of the development or occupation of the premises (whichever comes first).

Reason: To ensure that land contamination can be dealt with adequately prior to the use of the site hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority.

5. Construction work and ancillary operations including deliveries to and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site shall be carried out only between the following hours: 0800 Hours and 1800 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

6. The agreed landscaping scheme shall be fully implemented within nine months of the occupation of the last of the dwellings on site. Any existing trees that are to be retained as part of the landscaping scheme for the site shall be protected during the construction phase of the scheme in accordance with the provisions of BS5837 ("Trees in relation to construction - 1990") and BS 3998 ("Recommendations for tree works - 1989"). Any trees or shrubs (either existing or proposed) that are removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by trees or shrubs of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings.

7. Concurrently with the submission of the reserved matters scheme for this site, details of a 'no' dig' scheme of construction works to improve the surface of the existing access path/road from London Road into the site shall be submitted for consideration. The access path/road shall be constructed in full accordance with the approved schedule of works.

Reason: To safeguard existing trees to the north and the south of the access path which are protected by two separate group Tree Preservation Orders.

74 8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the submitted Ecological Appraisal report as prepared by Quants and dated October 2018.

Reason: To ensure that adequate wildlife protection measures are undertaken.

9. Prior to the commencement of any vegetation clearance and earth works on site, the applicant shall commission the services of a suitably qualified ecologist who shall be invited on site to check for hedgehogs and to provide advice on how to not harm hedgehogs during the clearance of vegetation from the site. The details of the ecologist and the date and time of the visit shall be made known to the Local Planning Authority in writing 48 hours before the visit and the advice given by the ecologist shall be fully adhered to on site.

Reason: To ensure that wildlife is unharmed in the development of this site in line with the requirements of paragraph 175 of the NPPF.

10. All site clearance work shall be undertaken outside the bird-breeding season (March - September inclusive). If clearance works are to be carried out during this time, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be on site to survey for nesting birds in such manner and to such specification as may have been previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that birds' nests are protected from disturbance and destruction.

11. Concurrently with the submission of the reserved matters scheme for this site, details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for agreement of the specification and siting of bat and bird boxes which will be incorporated into the fabric of 20% of the dwellings hereby approved. The submitted scheme shall also detail the timescale for their installation. All works shall be carried out in line with the agreed details and timescales and the bat and bird boxes shall be maintained and retained for the lifetime of the dwellings hereby approved.

Reason: For ecological enhancement reasons.

12. Concurrently with the submission of the reserved matters scheme for this site, a detailed surface water drainage scheme based on the principles set forward by the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy LBL-BWB-ZZ-XX- RP-CD-0001_SDS, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to completion of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall:

 Demonstrate that the development will use SuDS throughout the site as a primary means of surface water management and that design is in accordance with CIRIA C753.  Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage in accordance with 'Science Report SCO30219 Rainfall Management for Developments' and the approved FRA  Provide detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements.

75 Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods.  For all exceedance and existing flow routes to be contained within the site boundary without flooding new properties in a 100year+40% storm.

Reason: To ensure that the site adequately addresses surface water runoff and flood risk issues in line with the requirements of paragraphs 163 and 165 of the NPPF and policy DM12 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy.

13. Concurrently with the submission of the reserved matters scheme for this site, details of the bin collection arrangements for the dwellings hereby approved including the storage arrangements for the siting of the bins on collection day shall be submitted for consideration. The bin arrangements shall be as agreed and provision shall be in place prior to the occupation of each of the individual dwellings and the agreed provision retained for the lifetime of this development.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that adequate waste collection arrangements are in place.

14. Concurrently with the reserved matters scheme for this site, details of the provision made for Electric Vehicle charging points within each dwelling shall be submitted for consideration. The EV charge points shall be provided prior to the occupation of each of the individual dwellings and shall be maintained and retained as such for the lifetime of the properties.

Reason - To comply with the requirements of paragraph 110(e) of the NPPF

15. No dwelling to be served from London Road shall be occupied until such time as the driveway has been improved in accordance with the 'London Road Residential Access Way' plan Drawing No. 003, and which for the avoidance of doubt will included an extended drop kerb on London Road of 7.3m minimum length centred around the drive.

Reason: To ensure that the access is of an appropriate width to serve the additional dwellings in the interest of highway safety

16. The 'London Road Residential Access Way' detailed on Drawing No. 003 shall serve no more than three additional dwellings.

Reason: To ensure that the level of traffic does not exceed that appropriate for the standard of access in the interest of highway safety

17. The reserved matters for the development hereby permitted shall include detailed plans and particulars relating to the following items:  A detailed layout plan for the avoidance of doubt the submitted Master Plan and Design & Access Statement shall be considered to be for indicative purposes only) which shall be accompanied by a swept path analysis of a 11.5m refuse vehicle;  A footway generally 2.0m in width around the eastern site access junction radius extending a minimum distance of 2.0m from the radius in an easterly direction.  Cycle and bin storage facilities;

76  Wheel washing facilities and street cleansing (including full details of its specification and siting) that maybe varied from time to time with the approval of the Local Planning Authority and as made necessary by the works or ground conditions. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

18. No dwelling shall be occupied unless or until the Bracken Lane junction visibility splays has been provided as shown on Drawing No. 001 Rev A to the satisfaction of the District Council. Nothing shall be placed or be allowed to grow within the splay above a height 0.6m above carriageway level for the life time of the development.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety

19. The Bracken Lane footway detailed on Drawing No. 001 Rev A, or a revised footway as may be agreed in writing with the District Council, shall be provided in accordance with a programme to be submitted to the District Council prior to development taking place and which shall include amendments to the pedestrian guard rail at the school entrance such that the footway is continuous.

Reason: to ensure that the development provides adequate pedestrian facilities in a timely fashion in the interest of highway safety.

20. No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan ("the CEMP") for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the CEMP shall be implemented in full. The CEMP shall include:

i) Measures to minimize the creation and impact of noise, dust and artificial lighting including facilities for construction traffic; ii) Mitigation for bats, birds and hedgehogs; iii) The implementation of suitable stand-offs with appropriate protection measures for all retained hedgerows and trees.

Reason: development is carried out in a way which safeguards protected species, hedgerows and trees.

79 80 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: A2

Application Ref. 18/01585/RSB Application Type Resubmission Site Address Land Between Walkeringham Road And Vicarage Lane, Beckingham.

Proposal Proposed Outline Application (All Matters Reserved) For Residential Development and Community Allotments (Resubmission of P.A. 17/00962/OUT)

Case Officer Jamie Elliott Recommendation Grant subject to a S106 agreement. Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

THE APPLICATION

The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved for residential development and community allotments. The applicant has provided an illustrative layout of the site which demonstrates how the site could be developed with 34 dwellings. The Design and Access Statement indicates that the development would consist of a mixture of detached dwellings, semi-detached, bungalows and over-55 bungalow accommodation.

The indicative layout shows the allotments being provided to the easternmost portion of the site with its own parking area.

The applicant's agents have submitted a number of supporting documents which Include:

Planning Design and Access Statement; Preliminary Ecology Appraisal Report.

All these documents are available for inspection within the Council's offices.

SITE CONTEXT

The site is positioned outside of the Beckingham development boundary as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.

The site is located on northern edge of Beckingham between Walkeringham Road and Vicarage Lane. The site comprises a large rectangular grass field with mature hedging and a number of trees along each boundary providing a very enclosed feel. There is housing along the west side of Walkeringham Road from the start of the appeal site heading south into the village, and housing on the north side of Vicarage Lane. These houses front their respective roads and form part of linear development on the edge of the village

Beckingham Bridleway No. 15 runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

Marsh Road Pond located 444m to the north east is a Local Wildlife Site.

81 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows:

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied.

Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with an up to date development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission shall be granted unless: i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The following paragraphs of the framework are applicable to this development:

Para 7 – Achieving sustainable development Para 10 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 11 – Decision making Para 12 – Development plan as the starting point for decision making Para 33 – Strategic policies in development plans should be reviewed every 5 years. Para 38 – Decision making should be done in a positive way. Para 56 – Planning obligations Para 59 – Councils to boost housing supply Para 61 – Meeting housing need Para 73 & 74 – All Councils to have a minimum 5 year supply of housing to meet demand. Para 91 – Planning to achieve healthy, safe and inclusive communities. Para 94 – Provision of sufficient school places Para 96 – provision of high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity. Para 108 – 110 – Highway safety Para 117 – Making effective use of land Para 124 – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Para 127 – Development should reflect local characteristics. Para 163 – New development must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Para 170 - Decisions should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural and local environment.

82 BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):

 CS1 - Settlement hierarchy  CS8 - Rural Service Centres  DM4 - Design & character  DM5 – Housing Mix and Density  DM9 - Delivering open space and sports facilities  DM11 - Developer contributions and infrastructure provision  DM12 - Flood risk, sewage and drainage

Beckingham Neighbourhood Plan

The Neighbourhood Plan Area was designated in June 2016. It can therefore currently be afforded no weight.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

17/00962/OUT Planning permission refused for residential development in December 2017. The subsequent appeal was dismissed in August 2018. A copy of the decision notice and the planning Inspector’s decision letter follow this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (POLICY)

Minerals.

There are no Minerals Safeguarding and Consultation Areas covering or in close proximity to the site.

Waste

There are no existing waste sites within the vicinity of the site which could cause safeguarding issues for these waste management facilities.

83 As the development is likely to generate significant volumes of waste, it would be useful if the application were supported by a waste audit.

Public Transport

Whilst contributions towards local bus service provision will be not be sought, it is requested that a condition be applied to any subsequent permission, requiring the provision of two new bus stops.

Education

Both primary and secondary education contributions are required for the above development.

Primary

As the children of primary age from the development cannot be absorbed into Beckingham Primary School, a development of 34 dwellings ( which equates to 7 primary places) would require 7 x £13,656 = £95,594.

Secondary

As Retford Oaks Academy does not have the capacity to accommodate the children from the development, a development of 34 dwellings would require 5 secondary places at £17,753 = £88,765.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (HIGHWAYS)

The Highway Authority has no objection in principle to the development, subject to conditions securing: i.) Detailed layout; ii.) Provision of bus stops iii.) Provision of footways.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (VIA - Rights of Way)

Responsibility for the maintenance of the fencing, hedgerows and trees adjacent to the right of way should be established and secured.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL’S FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM

No objections subject to conditions securing surface water drainage.

The DISTRICT PARKS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

As there is an existing play area within the village, the Council’s preference would be to improve this, rather than on-site provision. The following contributions would therefore be required:

 Play equipped area of 400sqm would result in a contribution of £50,000 (based on providing 5 pieces of equipment).  As the proposed development should provide 126.14sqm (based on 30 houses), an off-site contribution of £15,767.50 will be required.

84 Therefore, a contribution of £15,767.50 towards the provision of play equipment for the play area at the Village Hall recreation ground off Southfield Lane should be secured.

The DISTRICT ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER

Should permission be granted, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the limitations on noise emissions from the site during construction works and requiring investigation into site contamination.

The DISTRICT OPERATIONAL SERVICES MANAGER (WASTE)

The development would need to provide sufficient access and manoeuvring facilities within the site `for refuse vehicles.

TRENT VALLEY INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD. Surface water run-off rates to receiving water course must not be increased as a result of the development. The future management and maintenance of the drainage system should be agreed with Lead Local Planning Authority.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST.

We fully support the recommendations made in the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, and hope that the following matters are secured through conditions: 1. Further bat surveys; 2. Barn owl survey; 3. Light mitigation strategy; 4. Ecological Enhancements.

BECKINGHAM-CUM-SAUNDBY PARISH COUNCIL

The parish council object to the development on the following grounds:

1. The cumulative impact of this development together with the existing permissions granted in the village would detrimentally change the rural character of the village; 2. The draft Bassetlaw Plan stipulates a housing cap of 20%; 3. If permitted all the outstanding application would increase the village by approximately 47%; 4. The existing infrastructure and services would struggle to cope with the increase in dwellings; 5. The existing sewage and drainage systems are at capacity and the village has a history of flooding. It is feared that any subsequent development would exacerbate matters further; 6. The development would be out of scale with its role as a Rural Service Centre; 7. The design and access statement would appear to be inaccurate; 8. The parish council has not been consulted on or agreed to the adoption/maintenance of the allotments; 9. Of all the applications received so far we believe that this one offers one of the best schemes in terms of housing mix, density and allowance for green space; 10. Had the application been submitted in isolation the parish council might have been minded to support the scheme. However given the number of planning applications received, we must object to further development proposals.

85 SUMMARY OF PUBLICITY

This application was advertised by neighbour letter, site notice and press notice and three letters of objection have been received raising the following points:

1. The land should be retained as green belt; 2. The land should only be used for agriculture; 3. The access road is too small; 4. The sewage system is limited and will need re-assessing; 5. Would result in a loss of privacy; 6. Increase in traffic would lead to congestion and safety issues; 7. Nearby dwellings are located in the flood plain; 8. Responsibility for the maintenance of drains should be established; 9. The site is located outside to the development boundary; 10. Houses remain unsold in the village; 11. A helicopter regularly lands in the adjacent field, 12. The development should be restricted to bungalows; 13. The school is full and cannot be enlarged; 14. Would appear overly developed; 15. Newts and toads inhabit the drains; 16. The adjacent beck is prone to flooding; 17. Is there any demand for allotments.

CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES

Principle of Development

Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision making.

Policy CS8 of the council’s Core Strategy identifies Beckingham as a Rural Service Centre. The application site lies adjacent to the designated development limits.

Paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that policies in development plans should be reviewed and where necessary updated every 5 years. The Bassetlaw Core Strategy dates from 2011 and its policies have not been reviewed in the last 5 years as the Council is working on a new local plan to replace it. In this situation, paragraph 213 of the NPPF states that policies in an adopted development plan do not become automatically out of date because they were published before the framework; policies must be considered having regards to their consistency with the framework. The Core Strategy was prepared using a settlement hierarchy which included development limits to control development and it is considered that this approach is now out of step with that identified in the NPPF and the weight given to policy CS1 has to be reduced.

86 Whilst this scheme is contrary to the requirements of policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged as policy CS1 is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process and this scheme must be considered under the planning balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole.

It must be clarified that recent case law and appeal decisions have made it clear that schemes cannot be refused solely on the grounds that a Council has a 5 year supply as the Government sees this as a minimum requirement that each Council should achieve and not a ceiling target where schemes are refused after the target has been achieved.

Sustainability of the Development

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions for sustainable development, economic, social and environmental:

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;

87 Previous Appeal Decision

The current application is identical to that which was the subject of an earlier appeal (ref: 17/00962/OUT)

At the time the inspector considered that the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing having regard to the availability of services and facilities, was of a scale appropriate to the settlement and would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

However, due to a lack of information relating to pooled contributions for education and open space provision, the Inspector was unable to take the planning obligations relating to these two elements into account. He concluded therefore that as these two elements were necessary in order to make the development acceptable, the lack of provision represented a significant adverse impact conflicting with BLDF Policies DM9 and DM11.

Visual Amenity and Landscape character

The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that all major development proposals will need to demonstrate that they make clear functional and physical links with the existing settlement and surrounding area and have not been designed as standalone additions. It also states that new development should respect its wider surroundings in relation to historic development patterns and landscape character. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 130 of the NPPF which 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,

Whilst the application site is currently an agricultural field, it abuts the northern limits of development on Walkeringham Road and lies adjacent to a site which gained full planning permission for the erection of 33 dwellings in July 2018. (16/00877/FUL) Any subsequent development would therefore be viewed in the context of the proposed residential development to the south, and the existing development to the west.

As the application is in outline with all matters reserved, the design and layout of the proposal would be determined at the 'reserved matters' stage. Notwithstanding this it is considered that an appropriately designed scheme could be achieved that would be sympathetic to the character and setting of this part of the village.

It is considered that for the reasons outlined above the development would not therefore appear unduly discordant in terms of landscape character.

In addition policy DM9 states that that new development proposals in and adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive to their landscape setting and expected to enhance the distinctive qualities of the landscape character policy zone in which they would be situated.

The site in question is identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment as Mid- Nottinghamshire Farmlands Policy Zone 03: Beckingham. As part of its aims to conserve the open rural character of the landscape, it recommends that new development should be of an appropriate design and scale and concentrated around the existing settlement of Beckingham.

On balance therefore, it is considered that if permitted, the development would accord with the aims of policies DM4 and DM9 above and paragraph 130 of the NPPF.

88 Residential Amenity

Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy requires that development does not materially or detrimentally affect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. This requirement also forms part of paragraph 127 of the NPPF. As indicated above the application is in outline form with all matter reserved. Whilst there are no specific details of the design and location of the new dwellings, it is considered that an acceptable scheme could be achieved that would have no adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking loss of privacy of domination. Detailed consideration of the above matters would however be undertaken at the reserved matters stage.

Highways Matters

The Highways authority have indicated that subject to conditions securing an appropriate road layout the proposal would have no adverse impact on highway safety. Accordingly it is considered that the development would comply with the provisions of the policies and guidance outlined above.

Open space and Community allotments

The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM9, which states that new development proposals will be expected to provide functional on-site open space and/or sports facilities, or to provide contributions towards new or improved facilities elsewhere locally, as well as contributions for on-going maintenance, to meet any deficiencies in local provision that will be caused by the development. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 91 of the NPPF which states that planning decisions should enable and support healthy lifestyles, through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure, sports facilities, with access to healthier food and allotments.

It is proposed to provide are area of community allotments that are indicatively shown to cover around 20% of the site area. The applicant has stated that the allotments will have a gated access and dedicated car park and would be enclosed by existing hedgerows and additional landscaping.

Monies in lieu of providing public open space on site would be directed towards improving the facilities on the existing recreation area on Southfield Lane.

These monies together with a scheme for the management and maintenance of the community allotments would be secured by a Section 106 agreement.

Flooding/Drainage

Policy DM12 of the Core Strategy Bassetlaw Development Framework states that proposals for new development in in Beckingham will only be supported where it is demonstrated to the council’s satisfaction that the proposed development will not exacerbate existing land drainage and sewerage problems.

89 Paragraph 163 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk not increased elsewhere. The Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that the subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Drainage Strategy, the proposed development would have no adverse impact on flood risk. The management and maintenance of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDs) would be secured through conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would comply with the provisions of the policies outlined above.

Local Infrastructure

The NPPF also makes it clear that the planning system must contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development and that it has three objectives: economic, social and environmental. In terms of infrastructure, the economic and social objectives of planning in the decision making are considered to apply. The economic objective requires councils when considering planning applications to consider the impact of the scheme on infrastructure and identifying and coordinating the provision of it. The social role requires schemes to support the needs of the community in terms of health, social and cultural well- being. Paragraph 34 of the NPPF is also applicable as it relates to developer contributions and states that the following should be identified in development plans: the level and type of affordable housing, the need for education, health transport, flood and water management and the green and digital infrastructure requirements.

Policy DM11 of the Core Strategy Bassetlaw Development Framework also states that all applications will be expected to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure (social, physical and green) will be in place in advance of, or can be provided in tandem with, new development and, where appropriate, that arrangements are in place for its subsequent maintenance. Arrangements for the provision or improvement of infrastructure required by the proposed development and/or to mitigate the impact of that development will, in line with national guidance and legislation, be secured by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge, planning obligation or, where appropriate, via conditions attached to a planning permission.

In addition, policy CS8 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan state that housing development within Beckingham will be required to contribute towards the achievement of an affordable housing target of at least 35%.

The development would require the following contributions:

 35% of the houses on site to be delivered as affordable  £95,549 Primary school contribution  £88,765 Secondary school contribution  £15,767.50 in lieu of public open space

In dismissing the appeal against the Council’s previous refusal of the development of this site the Inspector was unable to take the education and open space contributions in to consideration due to the lack of information in respect of the pooling of previous contributions. The amended CIL Regulations, which came into force on 1st September, have removed the restrictions in respect of pooling contributions and this evidence is therefore now unnecessary.

90 It is clear from the above that this scheme will contribute towards the delivery of improvements to local infrastructure, social and community facilities which will positively count towards the scheme when using the planning balance test. Furthermore, the scheme would be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy and this would deliver a further contributions which can be spent in accordance with that identified by the Council in its regulation 123 list. The scheme will also deliver the New Homes Bonus for Bassetlaw District Council which can also potentially be reinvested into the local economy. Therefore, it can be seen that this scheme will contribute significantly towards delivering infrastructure improvements in the locality.

Ecology/Nature Conservation.

Policy DM9 of the Local Development Framework which states that new development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they will not adversely affect or result in the loss of features of recognised importance such as protected species. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 174 of the NPPF which states that permission should be refused for development that would harm biodiversity.

Whilst the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal indicates that the site contains no important or protected habitats, it recommends that further surveys for protected species and ecological mitigation should be secured by condition. It is considered that such mitigation measures would comply with the provision policy DM9 of the LDF and paragraph 174 of the NPPF.

Conclusion

As the Core Strategy is deemed to be out of date having regards to the contents of paragraph 33 of the NPPF, paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes it clear that the scheme should be considered under the tilted balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole.

The benefits of the development would include up to 34 new dwellings, 35% affordable housing, education and open space contributions and the provision of allotments.

The application site would be located in a sustainable location on the very edge of Beckingham, adjacent to the development boundary, and is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, residential amenity or highway safety. Having regards to the overall policy position as outlined above, in this instance it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and the provision of new housing development is a significant benefit that weighs in favour of the scheme.

It is recommended therefore that planning permission be granted for the development subject to the conclusion of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which secures:

1.) 35% Affordable Housing 2.) £95,549 Primary school contribution 3.) £88,765 Secondary school contribution

91 4.) £15,767.50 in lieu of public open space 5.) Management and Maintenance of SuDs 6.) Allotment management

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to a S106 agreement.

CONDITIONS

1 Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:

a) the expiration of three years from the date of this permission: or b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval of the reserved matters on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The scale and appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto, the layout and the landscaping of the site shall be only as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development commences.

Reason: This permission is granted in respect of an outline application which did not contain details of the matters hereby reserved for approval.

3 The reserved matters for the development hereby permitted shall include detailed plans and particulars relating to the following items:

i) A detailed layout plan(for the avoidance of doubt the submitted Master Plan shall be considered to be for indicative purposes only) which shall be accompanied by a swept path analyses of circa 11.5m refuse vehicle throughout the development and including Vicarage Lane should vehicular access be proposed from that point;

ii.) The provision of north and south bound bus stops on Walkeringham Road including bus stop poles, hard standings, and raised boarding kerbs;

iii.) The provision of Footways connecting the site with the existing footway on Walkeringham Road and Vicarage Lane if pedestrian access is available from that point of generally 2.0m minimum width.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4 No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme based on the principles set forward by the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy LDA/DS/1079/01, 20th July 2019, Max Design Associates, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to completion of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall:

92 i.) Provide detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods. ii.) Limit the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 40% (for climate change) critical rain storm to a maximum 5 l/s rate for the developable area. iii.) Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage in accordance with 'Science Report SCO30219 Rainfall Management for Developments' and the approved FRA iv.) For all exceedance to be contained within the site boundary without flooding new properties in a 100year+40% storm. v.) Details of STW approval for connections to existing network and any adoption of site drainage infrastructure. vi.) Evidence of how the on-site surface water drainage systems shall be maintained and managed after completion and for the lifetime of the development to ensure long term.

Reason: A detailed surface water management plan is required to ensure that the development is in accordance with NPPF and local planning policies. It should be ensured that all major developments have sufficient surface water management, are not at increased risk of flooding and do not increase flood risk off-site.

5 The existing hedges and trees on the boundaries of the application site shall be retained. No part of the hedges or trees shall be removed unless that removal is authorised as part of this grant of planning permission or is the subject of written agreement by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings.

6 No development shall commence until such time as the trees and hedgerows located within or adjacent to the site have been protected, in a manner previously agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The trees shall be protected in the agreed manner for the duration of building operations.

Reason: To ensure that the trees and hedges are satisfactorily protected during the period when construction works take place on the site.

7 No development shall commence until a scheme and timetable for the implementation of ecological enhancements, including the provision of bird and bat boxes planting and landscaping within the development, has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The agreed ecological enhancements shall be completed and available in accordance with the agreed scheme and timetable.

Reason: To ensure that the optimal benefits of biodiversity are achieved.

93 8 All site clearance work shall be undertaken outside the bird-breeding season (March - September inclusive). If clearance works are to be carried out during this time, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be on site to survey for nesting birds in such manner and to such specification as may have been previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that bird's nests are protected from disturbance and destruction.

9 No development shall take place, until a survey has been carried out by a suitably trained person to establish whether or not any protected species of bat are present within the trees on the northern and eastern boundaries of the site and whether barn owls are present in the artificial barn owl box on the northern boundary. If the survey results confirm that protected species are present, details of working design, method and timetable to mitigate undue disturbance to the protected species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development. The mitigation measures shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection of any identified bat and owl habitat.

10 Development shall not commence until a Phase 1 Desk Study and, if required a Phase 2 Intrusive Site Investigation has been carried out to identify the nature and extent of any contamination at the site. The site investigation report shall include a risk assessment to assess the risks to the environment and to human health resulting from any contamination present at the site. Any necessary remedial measures identified by the investigation shall be carried out in full before the use of the site / the occupation of the buildings(s), hereby permitted, commences. The report shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In order to comply with the above condition, the proposal should comply with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11" and "BS 10175 (2011) Code of Practice for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites".

Reason: To ensure that the site, when developed, is free from contamination, in the interests of safety.

11 No construction works shall take place outside 8:00am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday, 9:00am - 1:00pm on Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of dwellings located in the vicinity of the application site.

12. Concurrently with the reserved matters scheme for this site, details of the provision made for Electric Vehicle charging points within each dwelling shall be submitted for consideration. The EV charge points shall be provided prior to the occupation of each of the individual dwellings and shall be maintained and retained as such for the lifetime of the properties.

Reason - To comply with the requirements of paragraph 110(e) of the NPPF

94 95 96 ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT

Item No: A3

Application Ref. 19/00611/FUL Application Type Full Planning Permission Site Address Land South Of Woodend Farm, East of Shireoaks Common and West of A57, Shireoaks.

Proposal Erection of 27 Dwellings with New Access from Shireoaks Common and Associated Landscaping Works

Case Officer Jamie Elliott Recommendation Grant subject to a S106 agreement. Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

THE APPLICATION

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 27 detached dwellings, consisting of seven 4 bedroom dwellings, ten 3 bedroom dwellings and ten 3 bedroom bungalows.

Four three bedroom semi-detached dwellings would be affordable housing offered to first time buyers at a minimum of 20% below its open market value.

After discussions with the applicants, the scheme has been amended from its originally submitted form, to reduce the number of dwellings from 32 to 27.

It is proposed to provide vehicular access into the site from a new priority T-junction to Shireoaks Common with a partial right turn lane. Footways are to be provided on both sides of the access road with the main access road serving a number of dwellings directly, with additional shared private roads/ drives providing access to the remaining properties.

The provision of footways along the access road will tie-in with the existing footway on Shire- oaks Common, the residential development to the north of the site will provide footways along the Shireoaks Common frontage on the southern side of the carriageway to tie-in with and improve the existing provision.

The applicant's agents have submitted a number of supporting documents which Include:

Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Materials Schedule Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Statement of Community Consultation Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Affordable Housing Strategy Noise Assessment Flood Risk Assessment Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

97 All these documents are available for inspection on-line or within the Council's offices.

SITE CONTEXT

The site is greenfield and is located outside of the Shireoaks development boundary as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.

The development site is located to the south east of Shireoaks and is positioned between Shireoaks and Worksop. The site is bound to the west and south by Shireoaks Common and to the east by the A57. The site is roughly triangular with the northern boundary formed by the edge of the existing development of 74 dwelling at Wood End Farm. The southern boundary of the site is formed by the roundabout junction of Shireoaks Common, the A57 and Claylands Avenue. The site is contained by hedgerows along the boundaries with mature trees also forming the western boundary along Shireoaks Common.

In terms of topography, the land rises as a gentle slope rising from the north to the south, the gradient change across the site is approximately 3m. The surrounding highway infrastructure sits at a slightly higher site level to the existing site

A gas pipeline runs along the eastern side of the site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows:

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied.

Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with an up to date development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission shall be granted unless: i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The following paragraphs of the framework are applicable to this development:

Para 7 – Achieving sustainable development Para 8 – Three strands to sustainable development Para 10 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

98 Para 11 – Decision making Para 12 – Development plan as the starting point for decision making Para 33 – Strategic policies in development plans should be reviewed every 5 years. Para 38 – Decision making should be done in a positive way. Para 56 – Planning obligations Para 59 – Councils to boost housing supply Para 61 – Meeting housing need Para 73 & 74 – All Councils to have a minimum 5 year supply of housing to meet demand. Para 91 – Planning to achieve healthy, safe and inclusive communities. Para 94 – Provision of sufficient school places Para 96 – provision of high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity. Para 108 – 110 – Highway safety Para 117 – Making effective use of land Para 124 – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Para 127 – Development should reflect local characteristics. Para 163 – New development must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Para 170 - Decisions should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural and local environment.

BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):

 CS1 - Settlement hierarchy  CS2 - Worksop  DM4 - Design & character  DM5 – Housing Mix and Density  DM9 - Delivering open space and sports facilities  DM11 - Developer contributions and infrastructure provision  DM12 - Flood risk, sewage and drainage  DM13 - Sustainable transport

SHIREOAKS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

The Shireoaks Neighbourhood Plan was made in November 2016. It can therefore be afforded full weight.

The relevant policies are as follows:

Policy 1: Sustainable development principles Policy 2: Conservation and Enhancement of Existing Natural Features Policy 3: Green Space, Landscaping and Major development Policy 4: Design Principles Policy 5: Reducing the risk of flooding Policy 6: Pre-application Community Consultation Policy 9: Promote sustainable movement and connections

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There is no relevant planning history.

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Nottinghamshire County Council (Policy)

Minerals

There are no current or permitted mineral sites close to the application site, therefore the county council does not wish to raise any objections.

Waste

In terms of the Waste Core Strategy, the site is, at its closest extent, approximately 650m to the south-west of an active recycling site, Fox Covert Dismantlers. This development though would not bring residential development closer to the active site and therefore it is unlikely that housing in this location would present a significantly additional sterilisation risk to the recycling centre in terms of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Core Strategy Policy WCS10.

Strategic Highways

The traffic generated from this application site is as the applicant’s Transport Assessment (TA) demonstrates not likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the operating conditions of the local and strategic highway network, however in combination with other planned development in Worksop the traffic impact is expected to be significant, especially at junctions along the A57 Worksop bypass. Bassetlaw District Council commissioned transport consultants to undertake a transport study of the likely transport impact of planned growth across the district.

100 This study has identified and recommended a number of junction improvements including a proposed upgrade of the A57 Worksop Bypass / Claylands Avenue / Shireoaks Common roundabout junction alongside which the application site sits. The Bassetlaw Transport Study does not however provide any detail nor any plans of the proposed junction upgrade, but instead recommends further study and assessment.

In order to fund the construction of necessary highway infrastructure improvements across the district Bassetlaw district council operate a Community Infrastructure Levy, in which the Reg. 123 List names the A57/Claylands Avenue/Shireoaks Common roundabout junction.

As the application site abuts the A57 there could be a direct impact upon the application site from any future enlargement of the A57/ Claylands Avenue/ Shireoaks Common roundabout junction. The LPA and highway authority are still to undertake further detailed assessment work (identified in the Bassetlaw Transport Study) to identify the nature of the required improvement of the existing roundabout. The form of the improvement is however likely to involve either widening of the existing roundabout circulatory carriageway and addition of more entry and exit lanes, or possibly the introduction of traffic signal control at the roundabout i.e. to form a signal controlled roundabout. The County Council is currently discussing this matter with officers of the district council as this work needs to be undertaken as a priority so that the roundabout improvement scheme can be finalised, and the applicant notified at the earliest opportunity. This will avoid the situation where prejudicial development could take place in the meantime which limits or prevents future highway improvement. Equally the situation where the highway authority needs to compulsorily acquire part of the residential development site should be avoided if at all possible.

The District Council should be reminded that if this planning application is granted permission allowing built development immediately adjacent to the A57 Claylands Avenue / Shireoaks Common roundabout could prejudice delivery of one of the strategic transport improvements contained on the Bassetlaw CIL Regulation 123 List to the detriment of the traffic efficacy and economic prosperity of Worksop and surrounds.

Public Transport

Nottinghamshire County Council would request a contribution via a Section 106 agreement for Bus Stop Improvements to the value of £18,000. This will be used towards improvements at the following bus stops to promote sustainable travel: BA1082 Coach Road; BA1083 Coach Road.

Education

In terms of primary, this proposed development would generate 6 additional primary school places and there is currently insufficient capacity to accommodate the additional pupils. Therefore, the County Council would request a primary school contribution of £101,352 (6 places x £16,892 per place).

For secondary, the site is located in the catchment of Outwood Academy Portland and would generate 4 additional places. The District Council has an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule and contributions towards the delivery of secondary education in this area will be undertaking using this approach.

101 Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways)

The Highways Authority have indicated that there would be no objections subject to conditions securing the following:

1. A Stage 2 Road Safety Audit; 2. Reduction in the speed limit on Shireoaks Common; 3. Management and maintenance of roads; 4. Surfacing of roadway; 5. Provision of wheel washing facilities.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Via)

There are no recorded Public Rights of Way which cross the site.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Flood Risk Management)

No objections subject to conditions securing surface water drainage scheme.

The District Conservation Officer

There are no heritage assets affected by the proposal.

The District Environmental Health Officer

On the basis of the Noise Assessment and the mitigation contained therein, there are no objections.

As there is potential for site contamination it is recommended that a condition be imposed on any subsequent permission requiring site investigation and mitigation.

The District Parks Development Officer

The following contributions are normally required to provide play equipment:  Play equipped area of 400sqm would result in a contribution of £50,000 (based on providing 5 pieces of equipment).  As the proposed development should provide 81.54sqm (based on 27 dwellings), an off-site contribution of £10,192.50 will be required.

Therefore, a contribution of £10,192.50 towards the provision and improvements of play facilities within the vicinity of the site should be secured.

The District Strategic Housing Officer

There would be a requirement for 15% of all units on site to be affordable, at least 10% of this should be available for affordable market homes, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. There is evidence of demand for Single / family social / Senior Citizen affordable or rented accommodation in Shireoaks as the stock levels are low. A mixed tenure would be beneficial to cover all the requested tenures listed.

102 The District Operational Services Manager

The development should be designed to provide sufficient access and manoeuvring facilities within the site `for refuse vehicles.

Natural England No comment.

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

We are satisfied that the ecologists assessment that the site is of low ecological value. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended that ecological mitigation and enhancements be secured in the form of tree and hedgerow retention, additional planting and the provision of bird and bat boxes.

Shireoaks Parish Council

The Parish Council objects to the development on the following grounds: 1. The village does not wish to see more large developments in the village; 2. Over 90% of residents who completed the questionnaire said that they did not want any further development in the village; 3. The development would conflict with the new Draft Bassetlaw Plan, in respect of its scale, historic and natural environments and rates of growth; 4. The rural and historic character of the village should be retained; 5. Would increase the likelihood of flooding; 6. The village has inadequate infrastructure to support additional housing; 7. The village is served by a single road, divided by a busy level crossing. There is only one road into the village; 8. The creation of a further vehicular access onto Shireoaks Common, would be detrimental to highway safety; 9. New development should be designed to benefit over 65’s; 10. Local residents are of the view their comments are being disregarded by the planning department.

A District Councillor has written objecting to the development on the following grounds:

1. Shireoaks is not a Town of 2 halves but a Village; 2. The development would appear over intensive and cramped; 3. The entrance to the site is too near to the roundabout exit, to the detriment of highway safety; 4. Would be out of character with the area; 5. The site is located outside of the development boundary; 6. The development would conflict with the emerging Local Plan; 7. There are insufficient services within the village to accommodate additional residential development.

SUMMARY OF PUBLICITY

This application was advertised by neighbour letter, site notice and press notice and no letters have been received in response.

103 CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES

PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision making.

Policy CS2 of the council’s Core Strategy identifies Worksop as a Sub-Regional Centre. The application site lies adjacent to the designated development limits.

Whilst this scheme is contrary to the requirements of policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged as policy CS1 is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process and this scheme must be considered under the planning balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole.

The Shireoaks Neighbourhood Plan was made following a referendum in November 2016. The Plan does not include any allocations for housing land. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states; In situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following apply:

104 a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan two years or less before the date on which the decision is made; b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; c) the local planning authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 73); and d) the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required9 over the previous three years.

Given the Neighbourhood Plan became part of the development plan more than 2 years ago and the that the plan does not contain allocations to meet an identified housing need the presumption in favourable of sustainable development still applies in this instance.

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions for sustainable development, economic, social and environmental:

105 Visual Amenity and Landscape character

Policy 4: Design Principles of the Neighbourhood Plan states that new development will be supported where it demonstrates consideration of local character in terms of street types, building detailing, colours, shapes and materials and relationships between public and private spaces.

Whilst the application site is currently an undeveloped agricultural field, it lies to the east of the Shireoaks triangle industrial estate and directly to the south of a site which gained planning permission for the erection of 73 dwellings at appeal in June 2017 (APP/A3010/W/17/3169450) and received a subsequent approval of reserved matters in September 2018. (18/00648/RES).

The western and northern boundaries of the site are currently screened by a relatively dense belt of trees and hedgerows. The eastern boundary adjacent to the A57 is also screened to a lesser extent by hedgerows on the adjacent highway verge.

It is considered that the proposed development would be viewed in the context of the existing residential development on the edge of the village. The site relates well to the existing settlement edge and would not therefore appear unduly discordant in terms of landscape character.

In addition it is considered that the imposition of conditions requiring the retention of trees and hedgerows and implementation of additional landscaping and planting on the site boundaries would help assimilate the new development into its surroundings and maintain the rural character of this entrance into the village.

It is considered that for the reasons outlined above the development would not therefore appear unduly discordant in terms of landscape character.

The site in question is identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment as Magnesium Limestone Ridge Policy Zone 08: Shireoaks, which seeks to conserve historic field patterns by containing new development within historic enclosed boundaries.

On balance therefore, it is considered that if permitted, the development would accord with the aims of policies DM4 and DM9 above and paragraph 130 of the NPPF and Policy 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

106 Residential Amenity

The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of a high quality design that does not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby residents. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 127 of the NPPF which states that development should provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

It is considered that that the siting and orientation of the new dwellings would ensure that the development would have no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, domination or overshadowing.

The District Council’s 'Successful Places’ Supplementary Planning Document' states that new dwellings should be normally have a minimum single are of private amenity space of; 50m2 for 2 bed dwellings, 70m2 for 3 bed dwellings and 90m2 for 4 bed dwellings.

The new dwellings would be provided with rear gardens that comply with the minimum sizes prescribed above.

In respect of the potential noise and disturbance from vehicular movements on the A57, the submitted ‘Noise Assessment’ recommends mitigation in the form of acoustic fences and earth berms on the boundaries together with double glazing. This would be secured through the imposition of an appropriately worded condition.

On balance it is therefore considered that the proposed development would accord with the policies and guidance outlined above.

Highways Matters

It is proposed to provide vehicular access into the site from a new priority T-junction to Shireoaks Common with a partial right turn lane. The access would be provided approximately centrally within the site frontage.

Policy 8 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that development proposals should include provision for walking and cycling routes within the development and where feasible provide for linkages to off-road routes adjacent to the site.

Footways are to be provided on both sides of the access road with the main access road serving a number of dwellings directly, with additional shared private roads/ drives providing access to the remaining properties.

The Highways Authority have indicated that subject to conditions securing an appropriate road layout the proposal would have no adverse impact on highway safety. Accordingly it is considered that the development would comply with the provisions of the policies and guidance outlined above.

107 Open space

The Council’s Parks Development Team have confirmed that a contribution of £10,192.50 towards the provision and improvements of play facilities within the vicinity of the site is required in order to mitigate the impact of this development and this will be secured through a Section 106 agreement.

Flooding/Drainage

The application site lies within Flood Zone 1, land that has lowest possibility of flooding and the applicant has submitted a drainage strategy that demonstrates that the development would not increase flood risk to surrounding land. Paragraph 163 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk not increased elsewhere.

Policy 5 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that the drainage infrastructure for all new developments in Shireoaks will be designed and constructed such that it does not increase the level of flood risk and, wherever possible, reduces flood risk in the area.

The Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that the subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Drainage Strategy, the proposed development would have no adverse impact on flood risk. The management and maintenance of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDs) would be secured through conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would comply with the provisions of the policies outlined above.

Ecology/Nature Conservation.

The site currently comprises an open agricultural field with mature trees and hedgerows appearing to the site boundaries.

Policy 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan states biodiversity enhancements through the installation of bat and boxes within buildings will be encouraged. Such enhancements will be secured through the imposition of a condition.

Whilst the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal indicates that the site contains no important or protected species or habitats, it is recommended that ecological mitigation and enhancement be implemented in the form of tree protections measures, tree planting and the provision of bird and bat boxes.

108 In addition to the above, the applicant proposes a ‘Wildlife Area’ on the northern edge of the site between the development proposed and that at Woodend Farm to the north of the site.

It is considered that the mitigation measures would ensure the development complies with the provision policy DM9 of the LDF and paragraph 174 of the NPPF and Policy 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Local Infrastructure

In addition, policy CS2 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan state that housing development within Worksop will be required to contribute towards the achievement of an affordable housing target of at least 15%.

The development would require the following contributions:

 Provision of 15% affordable housing  £101,352 Primary school contribution to provide the addition 6 school places that would arise from this development  £18,000 Bus stop improvements  £10,192.50 in lieu of public open space

The applicant has confirmed their willingness to sign a Section 106 agreement with these requirements.

OTHER ISSUES

Community Infrastructure Levy

This application attracts £20 per sqm as outlined in the Councils CIL charging schedule, adopted September 2013.

109 The Regulations 123 List for CIL identifies those infrastructure projects that the levy will be spent on within Bassetlaw, including improvements to roundabouts and Secondary school provision in Worksop.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of the development would include 27 new dwellings, 15% affordable housing, education and open space contributions and bus stop enhancements.

1.) 15% Affordable Housing; 2.) £101,352 Primary school contribution; 3.) £10,192.50 in lieu of public open space; 4.) Management and Maintenance of SuDs 5.) Bus Stop Enhancements

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to a S106 agreement.

CONDITIONS

1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with details and specifications included on the submitted application form and shown on the following approved plans:

Drawing No. 18-561-2-C00 Rev. A received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P01 Rev. D received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P02 received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P03 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P04 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P10 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P11 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P12 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P13 Rev. C received on 14 August 2019.

110 Drawing No. 19-561-2-P14 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P15 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P16 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P17 Rev. C received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P20 Rev. B received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P21 received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P22 received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P23 received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P24 received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 19-561-2-P25 received on 14 August 2019. Drawing No. 4287/SK01 Rev. B Received on 8 July 2019.

Reason: To ensure the development takes the agreed form envisaged by the Local Planning Authority when determining the application and for the avoidance of doubt.

3 No development shall commence above damp proof course (DPC) level, until details of the facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed facing and roofing materials.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development.

4 No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit has been carried out (in compliance with GG119) on the Shireoaks Common junction design as detailed on plan reference 42787/SK01 Rev B and the junction and associated footways are in place as detailed on the plan or revised plan as amended by the Road Safety Audit or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the junction design complies with the relevant standards and in the interests of road safety.

5 Prior to the commencement of the Shireoaks Common junction works, a binding application shall be made to reduce the speed-limit on Shireoaks Common to 40mph passing the site. The speed-limit signs shall be updated in accordance with the extent and timing of the Traffic Regulation Order.

Reason; In the interest of highway safety.

6 No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as the access and parking area to that dwelling has been provided in a bound material (not loose gravel) and which shall be drained to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water onto adjacent roads and footways.

Reason: To ensure appropriate access and parking arrangements are available.

111 7 No one phase of development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements and plan for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets including associated drainage contained within that phase of the development have been submitted to and approved by the District Council. The streets and drainage shall for the lifetime of the development be maintained in accordance with the approved private management and maintenance details unless an agreement has been entered into under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 at which point those street covered by the agreement will not be subject to the approved management and maintenance details.

Reason: To ensure that the road infrastructure is maintained to an appropriate standard

8 No dwellings within each phase of the development shall be occupied until the roads and footways affording access to those dwellings have been completed up to binder course level.

Reasons: To ensure that the roads serving the development are sufficiently completed and are available for use by the occupants and other users of the development in the interest of highway safety

9 On commencement of the development wheel washing facilities shall be in place and arrangements for street cleansing in accordance with details first submitted and which may be amended from time to time with the approval of the District Council.

Reason: To minimise the chance of mud and debris being carried onto the public highway and to remove any residue.

10 Screen fences/walls on plots 2, 5, 8, 11, 21 and 22 shall be constructed, in accordance with details and in positions previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, before occupation of the house to which each relates.

Reason: To ensure both the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and an adequate level of amenity for the houses in question.

11 No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme based on the principles set forward by the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy 43309-002, December 2018, Eastwood & Partners ltd., has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to completion of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall:

 Demonstrate that the development will use SuDS throughout the site as a primary means of surface water management and that design is in accordance with CIRIA C753.

 Limit the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 40% (for climate change) critical rain storm to the QBAR rates for the developable area.

 Provision of surface water run-off attenuation storage in accordance with 'Science Report SCO30219 Rainfall Management for Developments' and the approved FRA

112  Provide detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods.

 For all exceedance to be contained within the site boundary without flooding new properties in a 100year+40% storm.

 Details of STW approval for connections to existing network and any adoption of site drainage infrastructure.

 Evidence of how the on-site surface water drainage systems shall be maintained and managed after completion and for the lifetime of the development to ensure long term operation to design parameters.

Reason: To ensure that the site is drained in a satisfactory manner.

12 A scheme for tree planting on and landscape treatment of the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The agreed scheme shall be fully implemented within nine months of the date when the last dwelling on the site is first occupied. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings.

13 Before any dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied, a scheme and timetable for the provision, landscaping and planting of the earth berms on the boundaries of the application site as shown on drawing no 19-561-P01 Rev D shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings.

14 No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan ("the CEMP") for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the CEMP shall be implemented in full. The CEMP shall include: i) Measures to minimize the creation and impact of noise, dust and artificial lighting including facilities for construction traffic; ii) Mitigation for bats, birds and hedgehogs; iii) The implementation of suitable stand-offs with appropriate protection measures for all retained hedgerows and trees.

Reason: development is carried out in a way which safeguards protected species, hedgerows and trees.

113 15 Prior to development commencing, intrusive site investigation and risk assessment (Phase 2 site investigation) shall be carried out in accordance with DEFRA and Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11" and other authoritative guidance. The report should fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land contamination and /or pollution of controlled waters and should be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

Where the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risk or risks, a detailed remediation strategy to deal with land contamination and /or pollution of controlled waters affecting the site shall be submitted and approved by the LPA. No works, other than investigative works, shall be carried out on the site prior to receipt of written approval of the remediation strategy by the LPA.

A validation report for the site remediation shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the LPA before completion of the development or occupation of the premises (whichever comes first).

Reason: To ensure that land contamination can be dealt with adequately prior to the use of the site hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority.

16 All site clearance work shall be undertaken outside the bird-breeding season (March - September inclusive). If clearance works are to be carried out during this time, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be on site to survey for nesting birds in such manner and to such specification as may have been previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that birds nests are protected from disturbance and destruction.

17 No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management plan ("the BEMP") has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the BEMP shall be implemented in full. The BEMP shall include: i) details and timetable for the appropriate management of semi-natural habitats, including hedgerows and trees ii) provision of bird and bat boxes iii) hedgehog mitigation measures.

Reason: To ensure that the optimal benefits of biodiversity are achieved.

18. Before development commences above damp proof course level (DPC), details of the Electric Vehicle (EV) and Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) charging points within each dwelling shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The EV and ULEV charge points shall be provided prior to the occupation of each of the dwellings and shall be maintained and retained as such for the lifetime of the properties.

Reason - To comply with the requirements of paragraph 110(e) of the NPPF which relates to the provision of infrastructure for EV and ULEV charging.

114 115 116 Agenda Item No. 6(e) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

11th September 2019

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE REPORT

QUARTER 1 2019- 20

Cabinet Member: Economic Development Contact: John Krawczyk Ext: 3259

1.0 Public Interest Test

1.1 The author of this report, John Krawczyk has determined that this report is not confidential.

2.0 Purpose of the Report

2.1 To provide Members with a quarterly performance report recorded for the Development Management function for the first quarter of 2019/2020.

3.0 Background and Discussions

3.1 Following agreement at Planning Committee in June 2014 that performance reporting would be presented to Members on a regular basis. This paper provides details of the planning application performance for Quarter 1 of 2019/20.

4.0 Matters for Consideration

4.1 Once a planning application has been validated, the Local Planning Authority should make a decision on the proposal as quickly as possible after the consultation period has ended. The statutory time limit is set nationally and applications should be determined in this time unless a longer period is agreed in writing by the applicant.

4.2 Statutory time limits are usually 13 weeks for applications for major development, and 8 weeks for all other types of development (unless an application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16-week time limit applies). These times can be agreed to be extended with the applicant and this must be confirmed in writing.

4.3 Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced another measure of performance for major applications. If Local Planning Authorities are not meeting the standards then they will be a designated planning authority, which means applicants can submit planning applications directly to Secretary of State. Two criteria are used for measuring the performance of Local Planning Authorities.

117 These are timeliness, how many applications can be determined within the statutory timescale and quality, how many of the planning application decisions are overturned at appeal.

4.4 Major applications are defined as those where 10 or more dwellings are to be constructed (or where the number is not given, the site area is more than 0.5ha), or where the commercial floorspace proposed is 1000sqm or the commercial site area is 1000sqm or more.

4.5 The local targets are 70% within time for Majors and 80% for other applications

Quarter 1 Performance; Speed of Determination

Indicator Achievement Local 2019/20 Q1 2019/20 YTD 2018/19 Target % of “major” applications determined 96.4% 70% 88.24% 88.24% in 13/16 weeks (or (15/17) (15/17) authorised extended period) % of “non-major” applications determined 96.5% 80% 94.3% 94.3% in 8 weeks (214/227) (214/227)

4.6 The Quarter 1 application determination performance continues the theme of exceeding local or national targets for major applications with only two major applications being determined out of time. This has resulted in both the majors and non-majors returns continuing the 2018/19 trend of very strong performance. Indeed, only 15 applications out of 244 were determined out of time in Quarter 1.

Qualitative Measures - Appeals

4.7 During Quarter 1 of 2019/20 a total of 7 appeals were determined by the Planning Inspectorate. Out of these, 2 were allowed and 5 were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate, equating to a successful performance of 72% of appeals being dismissed.

4.8 Cumulatively, the year as a whole for 2018/19 the rate of dismissed appeals was 73.5%. The first quarter appeals performance continues that of the previous year but is still some way from the 20% local target. However, it must be borne in mind that given the relatively low number of appeal decisions, any allowed will have a significant impact on the percentage returns. In addition to this, the current figure is far below the 40%i allowed which is the national average of appeals allowed.

Costs Appeals

4.9 There was 1 cost application to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) during the first quarter of 2019/20 and this was partially allowed.

Whilst only one application for costs has been made to the Inspectorate during the first quarter, the relatively large number of cost applications during 18/19 suggest that officers must be vigilant to not leave themselves open to an award of costs for unreasonable behaviour.

118 Quality of Decision Making

4.11 In the absence of updated thresholds set by the DCLG, it can be reported that overall 2 out of 244 decisions made in Quarter 1 were overturned or 0.81%. This compares favourably with the average 1.9% recorded in 2018/19 as an average of both non- major and major appeals.

4.12 Decisions must be based on the relevant planning policy and the Planning Inspectorate is now determining appeals based on a recent High Court Decision, which placed more importance on Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The updated Framework contains this as paragraph 11 and this came into effect on 24th July 2018 (amended February 2019). This paragraph is provided below and needs to be considered in all decisions:

“Plans and decision should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development, For decision-taking this means: ● approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or ● where there are no relevant plan policies or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless: ---the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposal; or –– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole

The implication of this for decision making is that includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or where there are no up- to-date development plan policies, the ‘titled balance’ is engaged the balance is tilted in favour of sustainable development and granting planning permission except where the benefits are ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweighed by the adverse impacts of the development.

Planning Enforcement

4.13 Quarter 1 of 2019/20 continued to be a busy time for the Planning Enforcement Team. It is acknowledged that response times in respect of complaints are not as strong due to the back log of enforcement caused by the long-term illness of the Planning Enforcement Officer, however an additional Planning Enforcement Officer has been appointed on a temporary basis. This has resulted in the Enforcement Team responding to complaints much more quickly. The Development Team are continuing to assist with the management of ongoing cases with the most pressing and expedient matters being given priority. During quarter 1, 91 new enforcement cases were opened, 52 cases were closed and 4 Enforcement Notices were served comprising of 2 Stop Notices, 1 High Hedge Notice and 3 Listed Building Enforcement Notices.

5.0 Summary: How are we Performing?

5.1 This report has shown that in the first quarter of 2019/20, the standard of performance has continued to far exceed the local and national targets for both Majors and Non Major applications.

119

5.2 Overall during Quarter 1 of 2019-20 28% of appeals were allowed, which is above the local target of 20% but well below the 40% national average.

5.4 Despite staffing pressures which have now been resolved, the Planning Enforcement service has managed the caseload well and has had good results with formal enforcement action being taken in instances where it is has been considered expedient to do so. Furthermore, there is a high degree of resolution of alleged planning breaches through negotiation and retrospective planning applications rather than formal action.

6.0 Implications a) For service users Efficient and effective regular monitoring enables a consistent approach to ensuring a good quality of service delivery which benefits service users. b) Strategic & Policy The reporting of the Development Team performance meets with the Council Plan (2017-2020) ambitions of Supporting Business and Growth and Enhancing Home & Place through ensuring that the Service provides an efficient processing of applications to deliver sustainable growth. There are no strategic and policy implications arising from this report. c) Financial There are no financial implications arising from this report – Reference - 20/462 d) Legal There are no legal implications arising from this report – Reference - 96/09/2019 e) Human Resources There are no human resources implications arising from this report. f) Community Safety, Equalities, Environmental There are no Community Safety, Equalities or Environmental implications arising from this report. g) GDPR implications There are no data protection implications arising from this report. h) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number. This is not a key decision.

7.0 Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations

7.1 To ensure that appropriate monitoring and performance management procedures are in place and that the Council continues with its focus on achieving high performance, facilitating development and providing good service to all who use the Planning Service.

8.0 Recommendations

8.1 That the report be received and the Committee notes the current performance data.

120 Background Papers Location Development Management returns to Planning Services MHCLG Previous Performance reporting BDC Website / Planning Services

i Planning Inspectorate Appeal Statistics 2018

121

122