meeting Cabinet
date 28 April 2010 agenda item number 7
REPORT OF THE LEADER
STRATEGIC PLANNING OBSERVATIONS ON OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION AT LAND ADJACENT TO THE A617 MANSFIELD ASHFIELD REGENERATION ROUTE (MARR) BETWEEN NOTTINGHAM ROAD AND SOUTHWELL ROAD WEST, MANSFIELD. Purpose of the Report 1. To seek Cabinet approval of the Council’s comments set out in this report to be sent to Mansfield District Council in response to the request for strategic planning observations on the above planning application Introduction
2. On the 11th of February 2010 an outline planning application was submitted to Mansfield District Council for an urban extension, comprising mixed use development to include, residential, employment, leisure and retailing (See Map 1 – Site Plan).
3. Nottinghamshire County Council has been consulted for strategic planning observations on the application and this report compiles responses from Departments involved in providing comments and observations on such matters. On the basis of Cabinet’s decision, comments will be sent to Mansfield District Council and Newark and Sherwood District Council in response to this consultation.
4. This report is based on the information submitted by the applicant in the context of national, regional and local policy.
Description of the Development 5. The application was submitted by the Lindhurst Group and seeks outline planning permission for an urban extension on 169.3ha of Greenfield land on land adjacent the MARR. The proposal includes:
• Employment provision (23ha) • 1700 new dwellings (55.9ha) • New primary school (2.1ha) • Local retail centre (3.7ha) • Cemetery (8.9ha) • Commercial development (4.3ha) • Public open space, leisure and recreational opportunities (47.2ha) • New bus route, roads and associated infrastructure
6. The majority of the site lies within the boundary of Mansfield District Council, however, a small section of the site, situated centrally and to the north lies within the Newark and Sherwood District Council boundary. Within this part of the development site the applicants intend to develop the cemetery, part of a Green Infrastructure corridor and the Forest Stone Community Park. 7. The application site is Greenfield with a small section of the east part of the site designated as a landscape area (Mansfield Local Plan Policy NE4 (B)). To the immediate north of the site lies residential development and Sherwood Business Park, to the west of the site lies open countryside, Harlow Wood lies to the south-west of the site and to the south east is open countryside and Lindhurst Farm. The part of the site located within the Newark and Sherwood District boundary lies within the Greenwood Community Forest (Newark and Sherwood Local Plan Policy NE16), beyond which is Green Belt. 8. The application site lies within the Northern Sub-region as defined in East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) Policy Northern SRS 1. Planning Policy Context National Planning Policy 9. The proposal must be considered in the context of national planning policy statements and guidance notes (PPSs and PPGs), which set out the Government’s national objectives and policies on aspects of planning in England. The documents that are of particular relevance in assessing this application are listed, with a short description of their contents, in Appendix A. Regional Planning Policy 10. On 12th March 2009 the East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) was published and the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan ceased to be part of the statutory development plan for Nottinghamshire. 11. For the purposes of determining planning applications within the Districts of Mansfield and Newark and Sherwood, the RSS is therefore part of the statutory development plan for the area and decisions must be made in accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 12. The RSS has a number of policies which are of particular relevance to this application. These are listed in Appendix B. Strategic Planning Issues Sustainability and Location
13. RSS Policy 1 sets out the core objectives for the region and seeks to secure the delivery of sustainable development, provide housing, employment, protect and enhance the environment, provide for the health and wellbeing of the Region’s population, reduce the causes of climate change and increase levels of biodiversity within the Region. 14. RSS Policy 3 relates to the distribution of development within the Region and seeks to locate new development firstly within Principal Urban Areas (PUAs), then within the Sub-regional centres and then development in rural locations where there is a proven need. In addition the policy encourages development on previously developed land. 15. The application site is Greenfield and does not lie within a PUA or Sub- regional centre, however, its should be borne in mind that this application is for an urban extension and therefore, by its very nature, will not strictly conform to national and regional planning policy in relation to the location of development. The site, does however, adjoin an existing urban settlement. Paragraph 4.3.26 of the RSS states that, in relation to the provision of housing requirements, “…In Mansfield the provision figure recognises that while there is significant urban capacity and further job growth is expected, further Greenfield land is likely to be required…”
16. The Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary (NTS) states at paragraph 2.7 that, “All buildings will be designed to have minimal environmental impact, incorporating measures to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions, while sustainable urban drainage systems will be incorporated into the development. The proposed development will create a sustainable, well located community, making efficient use of land, distributing land use effectively and promoting low impact modes of travel. The development will exceed national standards for energy efficiency and resource consumption and work with the government’s evolving policy sustainability”. 17. RSS Policy Northern SRS 1 sets out the Sub-regional priorities of the northern sub-area and seeks to provide for growth in and adjoining the sub-regional centres, including Mansfield-Ashfield. The proposed development adjoins the Sub-regional centre of Mansfield and is therefore acceptable within the terms of Policy Northern SRS 1. 18. Mansfield District Council produced a discussion paper in June 2009 entitled ‘A Strategic Approach to Development’, which considers how the Council could meet the development requirements as set out in the RSS. It also provides a context for future decision making in relation to the potential need for urban extensions to meet this requirement. The proposed development site is assessed within the paper as Option G – South MARR, and it concludes that the site has a long history of being identified as an area capable of accommodating future regeneration, it forms part of the Sherwood Growth Zone, has clear ownership and developer interest in bringing forward a large scale-mixed use scheme and is well connected to the wider strategic road network. 19. Nottinghamshire County Council responded to the ‘Strategic Approach to Development’ Paper and stated that, in relation to Option G that, “There needs to be careful consideration of the relation of development here with links into Mansfield, and with the sensitive open countryside to the south. Because of the size and location of this option there is significant scope for developing green infrastructure, especially links to the countryside from the north”.
20. In terms of location it is considered that the proposed development would meet many of the regional policy requirements and is therefore acceptable within policy terms, however, many of the issues surrounding sustainability require further consideration and a clear commitment from the applicant in order to ensure that a highly sustainable development is delivered. Housing 21. Policy RSS 13a sets out the region’s housing requirements. Mansfield requires a total of 10,600 dwellings during the plan period 2006-2026, this equates to an annual apportionment figure of 530 dwellings. 22. The proposed development would provide for 1,700 dwellings in total providing 15% of the total housing requirement for Mansfield up to 2026. 23. It is considered that the proposed development would provide for a relatively high proportion of Mansfield’s overall housing requirement and is therefore acceptable on planning policy terms. However, this application is currently in outline form and therefore any detail concerning type, tenure, affordability and design will need to be addressed at Reserved Matters Stage, if the application is successful. Employment and Economic Regeneration 24. RSS Policy 18 sets out the region’s priorities in terms of the economy and seeks to encourage and foster the regional economy through implementing the Regional Economic Strategy. Particular attention should be applied to raising skill levels, developing the service sector, high value manufacturing and innovative business so the region can maintain economic competitiveness. 25. RSS Policy 19 sets out the regeneration priorities for the region and seeks to steer development towards areas of greatest need, which include PUAs and sub-regional centres and the northern sub-area, with its concentration of economic, social and environmental problems linked to the decline of the coal mining industry. 26. RSS Policy Northern SRS 3 relates to the sub-regional priorities for employment and regeneration and identifies “…along the MARR…” as a potential location for development that would assist the growth and regeneration objectives of the RSS. 27. Paragraph 3.2.8 of the RSS states that, in relation to the Northern Sub- area that, “The Quality of Employment Land Supply Study (QUELS 2002) and the Regional Employment Land Priority Study (RELPS 2003) highlighted a number of significant sub-regional variations in employment land supply and demand…[for the Northern Sub-region] there is an inadequate supply of office space particularly in a around existing urban areas. Much poor quality employment land has been de- allocated in recent years. However, selective public investment will be required to ensure an adequate supply of good quality land in the future to enhance regeneration priorities”. 28. Through the Sherwood Growth Zone Partnership, the County Council has been aware of the proposals to develop this site for some time. Through the Partnership, the County Council's property function (owners of the Rushley Farm site which forms part of the proposal) have been in discussion with the developers with a view to formally becoming a member of the developer consortium. 29. From a regeneration and employment perspective the proposal is supported as it could help to make Mansfield a more attractive place to live and work and bring new employment opportunities to the area - outcomes which formed the rationale for the investment of the construction of the MARR in the first place. It is considered that overall the proposals would meet the economic and regeneration aspirations of the RSS and are inline with national and regional planning policy. Local Centre 30. RSS Policy 22 relates to the regional priorities for town centres and retail development. The policy seeks to promote the vitality and viability of existing centres, and promote investment through design led initiatives in areas that are underperforming. 31. RSS Policy Northern SRS 2 ‘Supporting the roles of Town and Village Centres’ seeks to promote investment through design led initiatives and the development and implementation of Town Centre Strategies. 32. No retail assessment has been submitted with the planning application. The case for ensuring that the proposal is of an appropriate scale and that its impact on existing centres is appropriate and acceptable within policy terms is set out in PPS4 and its accompanying Practice Guidance. 33. PPS4 Policies EC15 and EC16 set out the criteria for assessing the impact of proposals for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan. These include ‘the impact on town centre vitality and viability’ and ‘whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres’. Although the PPS does not specifically address the scenario of a new centre being created in conjunction with new development these ‘tests’ are applicable in this case therefore the same principles should apply. 34. The Practice Guidance amplifies the importance of these issues. It states at paragraph 7.10. that, “Retail impact assessments undertaken to date suggest that the scale of development, degree of overlap between the proposed development and the role of nearby centres, proximity, and the state of health of nearby centres are all key factors which have a bearing on the level of town centre impact”. 35. There is a lack of justification as to why retail development in a sustainable urban extension should be of the proposed scale and it is not clear whether such retail development in this location would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the vitality and viability of the existing town centre. Libraries 36. The County Council has a statutory responsibility, under the terms of the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act, to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof. 37. The proposed Lindhurst development aims to build up to 1,700 new dwellings over the next few years. At an average of 2.4 people per dwelling this would mean a “new” population of 4,080 people. 38. From a buildings perspective, the library that this “new” population would most likely use is the one situated in Mansfield Town Centre. centre. 39. From a stock perspective, however, the new development would impact upon the existing Mansfield library. 40. The County Council would look for a developer contribution in respect of the additional stock to be purchased to meet the needs of the 4,080 population. This can be calculated at 4.08k (people) x 1,532 (stock items) x £10.53 (av. cost per item) = £65,818. Education 41. The County Council have been in discussions with the developers representative on these matters. Negotiations have reached an advanced stage and a contribution amount of £6,282,766 has been calculated as a contribution towards the provision of a new primary school on the site. 42. There is currently no requirement for a secondary school education contribution. The Natural Environment and Green Infrastructure 43. In terms of the natural environment and green infrastructure consideration should be given to RSS Policies 26 ‘Protecting the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage’, RSS Policy 28 ‘Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure’, RSS Policy 29 ’Priorities for Enhancing The Region’s Biodiversity’, RSS Policy 31 ‘Priorities for the Management and Enhancement of the Region’s Landscape’ and RSS Policy Northern SRS 4 ‘Enhancing Green Infrastructure Through Development’. 44. There are no national or local landscape designations on the site. Located to the south of the site is Harlow Wood, a designed Site of Important Nature Conservation (SINC). Overall it is considered that the proposed development would cause an adverse impact upon the landscape surrounding the site and as such a number of mitigation measures would need to be put in place in order to addresses this, including a Green Infrastructure Plan, delivered via a suitable S106 agreement and a maintenance plan. 45. A range of ecological survey work has been carried out on the development site. Coupled with information gathered as part of the desktop study, this has demonstrated that much of the site is of limited ecological interest, being dominated by intensively managed arable land. Nevertheless, parts of the site do have nature conservation interest, and adjacent statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites and certain notable species have the potential to be negatively affected by the scheme. A range of mitigation measures are proposed, including the creation of areas of green infrastructure. 46. The site has been surveyed for bats, and it was found that the majority of hedgerows on the site were used by foraging or commuting bats. In addition, at Firs Farm, a ‘small and occasionally used’ bat roost (brown long-eared bats) was found in one of the farm buildings and a high level of bat activity was recorded around these buildings during the bat survey, although no bats were observed emerging from any of the buildings. 47. Although mitigation is proposed for the loss of the roost, the County Council is concerned that the information presented is currently lacking in detail to properly judge whether the survey effort was sufficient to provide an accurate picture of bat use at Firs Farm. For example, there is no information provided relating to the date of survey, the number of surveyors used, or their positioning around and coverage of the farm buildings. 48. It is therefore the County Council’’s view that further survey work is required in relation to bats to properly assess the impacts of the proposal. The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat, and it should be noted that paragraph 99 of Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – ‘statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system’, which accompanies PPS9, states that: “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances…”. 49. A number of farmland bird species (breeding and wintering) of conservation concern were recorded on the site during the bird surveys, and habitat for these species will be lost as a result of the development. No specific mitigation is offered for these species, which include Tree Sparrow, Grey Partridge and Lapwing. However, it is stated that the creation of new habitat as part of the green infrastructure will increase the availability of suitable habitats for farmland bird species in the long term. This assertion is disputed, given that arable farmland (the foraging and nesting habitat for these species) will be replaced by other habitats which are not suitable for these species, and it should therefore be recognised that impacts on farmland bird species cannot be mitigated. 50. The County Council have not had access to the survey details pertaining to the Nightjar survey, but have seen a survey plan, which indicates that Nightjars are present within Harlow Wood immediately to the south of the development. In light of current uncertainty surrounding the status of sites holding Nightjar in the Sherwood area (in relation to the Rufford ERF public enquiry), and the as yet unanswered question as to whether such sites should be considered as if they were Special Protection Areas (and therefore subject to a strict protection regime), Natural England’s advice must be sought on this matter. 51. In terms of site-level impacts on Nightjar, the County Council is concerned about the increased level of recreational use that Harlow Wood will inevitably experience as a result of the development, given that Nightjars are very sensitive to disturbance. Some mitigation is proposed, including the creation of SUDS, ditches, and dense woodlands to act as a barrier along the northern edge of the wood and thus discourage uncontrolled access into the woodland, but concerns remain that a general increase in visitor numbers along permitted routes will have a detrimental impact on this species, even taking into account the fact that the Forest Stone Community Park is intended to ‘absorb’ these visitors. Indeed, the location of the Forest Stone Community Park and cemetery are such that they may well actually encourage more people to access Harlow Wood than if they were located elsewhere on site (the cemetery especially, which abuts a currently occupied Nightjar territory). 52. It is therefore suggested that the following should be considered:
• The creation of permanent open space in the southern half of Harlow Wood to allow Nightjars to exist at the site independent of the rotational nature of forestry activities at the site.
• The relocation of the cemetery to the western end of the scheme (south of the MARR), well away fromr occupied Nightjar territories.
• The implementation of a programme to monitor Nightjar numbers before and after development, including a contingency plan to be put into operation should it become evident that Nightjars have been affected as a result of the development through increased disturbance 53. There are concerns about possible down-stream impacts on Rainworth Water SSSI due to potential pollution events or nutrient loading of water within the SUDS system that will be created along the southern boundary of the development site (during both construction and operation phases). 54. It is understood that a water quality monitoring programme will be undertaken at the SSSI, which should be secured by a suitable planning obligation, and should include contingency measures to be put into operation should it become evident that the SSSI has been negatively affected as a result of the development due to changes to water quality. Such a monitoring programme and contingency plan should be developed in consultation with and agreed by Natural England. 55. In general terms, the range of mitigation measures proposed in sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 of the Environmental Statement Chapter 6 - Ecology and Nature Conservation is proportional to the impacts arising from the development (although note comments above relating to bats, Nightjar and Rainworth Water SSSI). 56. Such measures should be incorporated into the development through suitable mechanisms (e.g. a detailed site landscaping plan, detailed building design to incorporate bat roosts and bird nesting sites, lighting plan to reduce impacts on bats and other wildlife, SUDS design etc.), and should be secured by an appropriate planning obligation. 57. Paragraphs 2.10-2.13 of the Environmental Statement Non Techincal Summary sets out the applicant’s intentions for the natural environment and includes the provision of 47.2ha of public open space, natural footpaths and wildlife areas and Rainworth Lakes and Harlow Wood will be protected through the provision of landscape buffers. 58. It is stated that there will be substantial positive effects on biodiversity in the local area in the long term through habitat creation and the subsequent management of new and retained habitats, and that 47.7ha of green infrastructure will be created. 59. Whilst there will be some benefit to biodiversity, it is unclear what the level of meaningful habitat creation (i.e. Biodiversity Action Plan habitat which will benefit species of conservation concern, rather than generalist species) will be. For example, Forest Stone Community Park, the largest area of open space associated with the development, is described as an area of amenity space for formal and informal recreation for residents, suggesting that wildlife habitats will be marginalised, and subject to disturbance. Additional information to demonstrate the substantive value of the created habitats, including the types of habitats (according to UKBAP/LBAP definitions) and approximate extents should therefore be submitted. It should be noted that PPS9, in paragraph 14, states that; 60. “Development proposals provide many opportunities for building-in beneficial biodiversity or geological features as part of good design. When considering proposals, local planning authorities should maximise such opportunities in and around developments, using planning obligations where appropriate”. 61. In addition, whilst the green infrastructure links crossing north-south over the development will have value, especially for foraging bats, it is unclear where these links go when they hit the existing southern boundary of Mansfield. It is suggested that east-west links are therefore more important for the movement of wildlife, and that efforts should be made to improve the strength of such links by:
• incorporating the area of land adjacent to the south-west corner of the development into the green infrastructure, retained as arable land under current proposals, and developing it as an area of heathland, acid grassland and oak-birch woodland. This would strengthen ecological links through to Thieves Wood and Stonehills Plantation.
• bolstering the ecological link between Harlow Wood and Rainworth Water SSSI, by increasing the width of the corridor of habitat along the Foulevil Brook to the east of Lindhurst Lane, by converting a wide strip of arable land into grassland and scrub habitats to the south of the brook. This would also help to improve water quality by buffering the watercourse that feeds Rainworth Water SSSI. 62. The site lies within the Forest Sandlands sub-division of the Sherwood Character Area as designated in the Nottinghamshire County Council Landscape Guidelines (1997). The guidelines are currently being updated and the site lies within the Lindhurst Wooded Farmlands Policy Zone (the policy is to “Conserve and Create”). Characteristic features include undulating topography, coniferous forestry plantations with deciduous margins, intensive arable farming in large geometric fields, mixed species hedgerows with mature trees to farm tracks, heathland species, particularly to road verges and woodland rides. Information on the policy zone should also be consulted when this has been published – the southern section will be included in the Newark and Sherwood Landscape Character Assessment. 63. Although there are relatively few trees and hedgerows contain gaps in places, the development would result in the loss of an expansive area of undulating arable land with a distinctive rolling landform typical of the Sherwood Character Area. The change in visual character would be substantial adverse. 64. Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement concludes that the landscape within the site can be described as low-medium sensitivity as there are limited landscape features and potential for enhancement. 65. Due to the distinctive landform and proposed change from an agricultural to an urban landscape, we would assess the sensitivity as being medium-high. 66. Chapter 5 concludes that the impact on the character of the development site (South Mansfield Residential Ridge and Sherwood Way Farmland as shown on Figure 5.3) would be moderate adverse, reducing with establishment of the Green Infrastructure. 67. The impact of the development on the existing landscape and landscape character would be moderate/substantial adverse with permanent loss of open countryside. 68. Taking into account the above, providing the advice in relation to incorporating mitigation measures into planning conditions or obligations is adhered to, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with national and regional planning policy and would not therefore have a significant adverse impact upon the immediate and surrounding natural environment. 69. The section entitled ‘Pubic Access and Rights of Way’ in the Design and Access Statement (p32) states that the surrounding Rights of Way are infrequently used, this is refuted as the area is very popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders alike. There are a number of stables near to the development site that frequently use the Rights of Way network and Harlow Wood (to the south of the MARR) is particularly popular with dog-walkers. 70. Detailed comments in respect of landscape, biodiversity and visual impacts are attached at Appendix C. Open Space and Recreation 71. RSS Policy 41 relates to culture, sport and recreation within the region and seeks to ensure that such facilities are provided to meet the needs of the region. 72. A number of potential additional Rights of Way have been identified by the developer. These link a number of roads within the proposed estate, and provide useful links to the existing Rights of Way network. The developer should be asked to confirm that these routes will be dedicated as recorded Rights of Way. These additional routes should all be dedicated as (and constructed to the standards of) public Bridleway. The surrounding, existing Rights of Way network is Bridleway, so this would provide more useful links to the surrounding area. From the developers point of view this may also be beneficial as this would provide better sustainable transport links to the site (walking, cycling, horseback), especially when considering the future workforce for the industrial units/office space. It would also be of great benefit if the developer could provide a bridleway link from the development site to the roadside mutil-users routes on the A60 and A617, and the traffic light controlled crossings at the A60/A617 junction. This could potentially provide further safe off-road links to Mansfield centre to the North, and Harlow and Thieves Wood to the south. 73. Details of the design of the proposed road crossings for both the existing and the proposed Rights of Way have not been provided. This information is required to ensure that the safety of non-motorised users on the Rights of Way crossing the site has been considered, and that any potential risk has been prevented or at least kept to a minimum. 74. Detailed comments in respect of Countryside Access are attached at Appendix C. Transport and Accessibility 75. As proposed the planning application is heavily reliant on achieving a large public transport modal share, the Highway Authority must be convinced that this is feasible and this would have to be secured by S106 Agreement or else appropriate junction improvements would most likely be required across the local highway network to mitigate for the likely additional traffic. The County Council is therefore unable to support this application until the adequacy of the proposed bus services have been demonstrated and/or off site highway improvements have been agreed. 76. Nottinghamshire County Council will require a Section 106 contribution for integrated transport measures. This figure is currently being costed and will be made available in due course. 77. Notwithstanding the above, should the applicant be able to satisfactorily demonstrate that adequate sustainable transport measures and or adequate highway improvements can be put in place prior to this application being determined, the Highway Authority may be in a position to reconsider this not supporting the application. Public Transport 78. The Developers have been in discussion with the County Council’s transport team with regard to the new bus services which would operate on the site. The requirement from a County Council perspective and which would need to be included in a s.106 would be:
• The provision both of on and off site highway and customer infrastructure as now described, or as modified in agreement with Nottinghamshire County Council - installation costs to be met by the developer, and on going maintenance funded through a Capital lump sum.
• The installation on bus and at agreed locations, of real time and other passenger information in a style and to a specification consistent with County Council requirements in the Mansfield area generally - installation costs to be met by the developer, and on going maintenance funded through a Capital lump sum.
• The implementation by the developer of a (10 year) bus operating contract, to include routes, timetables, operator controls and quality features as now set out or as varied by agreement with the County Council. The cost, after offsetting revenue, to be met by a Capital lump sum.
• A travel planning service to be established by the developer to promote and manage the bus service provision, and to include a formal role for the County Council to secure development and evolution which is suitable, appropriate and sustainable in the longer term. Flood Risk 79. RSS Policy 35 relates to the region’s approach to managing flood risk and seeks to ensure that new development takes account of the potential impact of climate change of flooding and land drainage and generally follows the advice as set out in PPS25. 80. The site is situated within the catchment area of the River Trent with groundwater flowing into the Foulevil Brook and the site is classified as Flood Zone 1. 81. The Environmental Statement NTS states at paragraph 3.16 that, “The Project has been designed to avoid significant adverse effect upon the hydrogeological flow conditions. The principles of sustainable urban drainage systems will be used in developing the detailed drainage scheme to ensure that there will be no adverse effects on the water quality entering into the local watercourses…” 82. It is considered that the proposed development would not cause detrimental harm to water courses nor would it cause any unacceptable flooding on, or off site, the proposed development would therefore not be contrary to national or regional planning policy. Air Pollution 83. RSS Policy 36 relates to the region’s priorities for air quality and seeks to reduce air pollution, ensure new development has considered the effects it may impose on air quality in terms of increase in traffic and the impact on nature conservation sites. The Environmental Statement states at paragraph 3.22 that, “…the proposed development would not result in any significant adverse effects upon air quality. The proposed development will, as it adds traffic to the network, have adverse effects upon air quality in comparison with a no development scenario. However, the assessment has shown that due to the low levels of traffic generated by the proposed development compared with the existing traffic levels, air quality would be very minimally affected”. 84. It is considered that the proposed development, providing adequate measures to prevent air pollution are implemented, would be in accordance with national and regional planning policy. Design 85. RSS Policy 2 relates to promoting better design and seeks to ensure that all new development is well laid out, designed and constructed and provides for future resilience to climate change. Design is not a strategic issue and given that this application is in outline form the issue of design will need to be addressed via Reserved Matters, if the application is granted planning permission. The County Council therefore does not have any strategic comments to make in terms of the design of the proposed development at this time. However, it should be noted that the Design and Access Statement (D&A January 2010) states that the proposed development will provide a well designed urban extension which will be an attractive place in which to live, work and play and which protects and fully enhances landscape character, visual amenity and biodiversity. In addition, the Design and Access Statement makes considerable reference to the importance of quality design and ‘placemaking, reflecting the characteristics of local landscape and heritage and the creation and enhancement of local landmarks. 86. The County Council would therefore strongly advocate the role of artists in working with designers and design teams to create a high quality environment for people to work, live and play. 87. Public art can add visual quality to developments, promoting character and local distinctiveness. It can be both decorative and functional and has a strong role in the creation and enhancement of local landmarks and identity. 88. As well as reflecting local character and heritage in sculptural work, many essential elements that make up buildings and landscapes are suitable for artistic interpretation, for example entrances, fencing, signage, lighting, street furniture, and paving. (As the latter are more functional elements and will have been worked into overall development budgets, these are more financially viable in terms of artistic interpretation). Conclusions 89. There are a number of issues that will need to be resolved before the application can be determinded. For example there needs to be a Retail Assessment submitted for the proposed new local centre, the details of this should be agreed with the Mansfield District Council, as set out in PPS4 (December 2009) Policies EC15 and EC16 and also the Practice Guidance accompanying the PSS. In addition to the retail impact assessment an Employment Statement will be required to be submitted in support of the planning application. 90. It is considered that the proposed development, providing adequate measures to prevent air pollution and flooding are implemented, would be in accordance with national and regional planning policy. 91. It is considered that the proposed development would provide a high proportion of Mansfield’s overall housing requirement and is therefore acceptable on planning policy terms. However, this application is currently in outline form and therefore any detail concerning type, tenure, affordability and design will need to be addressed at Reserved Matters Stage, if the application is successful. 92. There are no national or local landscape designations on the site. Overall it is considered that the proposed development would cause an adverse impact upon the landscape surrounding the site and as such a number of mitigations measures would need to be put in place in order to address this, including a Green Infrastructure Plan, delivered via a suitable S106 agreement and a maintenance plan. 93. In light of current uncertainty surrounding the status of sites holding Nightjar in the Sherwood area (in relation to the Rufford ERF public enquiry), and the as yet unanswered question as to whether such sites should be considered as if they were Special Protection Areas (and therefore subject to a strict protection regime), Natural England’s advice must be sought on this matter. 94. The application is considered to contribute to the economic regeneration needs of the area whilst balancing the need to ensure new development in an integrated way alongside social and environmental objectives. 95. Notwithstanding the above, should the applicant be able to satisfactorily demonstrate that adequate sustainable transport measures and or adequate highway improvements can be put in place prior to this application being determined, 96. In terms of location it is considered that the proposed development would meet many of the regional policy requirements however, many of the issues surrounding sustainability require further consideration and a clear commitment from the applicant in order to ensure that a highly sustainable development is delivered. 97. The RSS provides a clear steer in relation to regeneration that support be provided for a mixed use urban extension to be located along the Sherwood Way(MARR), this is further supported by Mansfield District Council in their paper ‘’A Strategic Approach to Development’ (June 2009). 98. It is considered that the proposed development, is acceptable, in principle, within national and regional planning policy for the following reasons:
• The RSS clearly supports development of this type on Greenfield land, in particular sites along the MARR;
• The application would contribute to meeting RSS housing requirements.
Recommendations
96. It is recommended that the County Council support the application in principle, subject to a number of outstanding issues being satisfactorily addressed by the applicant. The issues are as follows:
• Those issues raised in the main body of the Report;
• Caveats relating to the satisfactory conclusions of additional survey work and outstanding information;
• Conditions to be attached to any planning permission relating to landscape, green infrastructure, education, health, biodiversity and transport, as detailed above and as set out in Appendix C of this report; and
• Sustainable transport and/or adequate highways improvements being put in place prior to this application being determined.
COUNCILLOR K CUTTS LEADER Legal Services Comments The approval sought in this report is within the authority of the Leader to decide acting in accordance with the powers under Part Three, Table Three, L.6 of the County Council’s Constitution (MM 06/04/2010)
Comments of the Service Director - Finance The contents of this report are duly noted – there are no financial implications. {DJK 06.04.10}
Background Papers Available for Inspection Planning application documents, including Environmental Statement, Non- Technical Summary and Planning Statement.
County Electoral Divisions Affected
• North Mansfield • East Mansfield • South Mansfield • West Mansfield • Blidworth • Warsop • Newstead • Sutton-in-Ashfield
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS
Planning Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (2005) (PPS1) & Planning Policy Statement Supplement ‘Planning and Climate Change’ (2007) (PPSS1)
At the national level PPS1 seeks to facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of development by contributing to sustainable economic development and ensuring high quality development through good design together with the efficient use of land and resources.
The PPS1 supplement on climate change seeks to ensure new development is planned to limit CO2 emissions, make good use of opportunities to decentralise renewable or low carbon energy and to seek to minimise future vulnerability in a changing climate. In addition the supplement stresses the importance of climate change considerations being integrated into all spatial planning concerns and that adaptation and mitigation should be considered together, not exclusive from one another.
Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Housing’ (2006) (PPS3)
PPS3 states at paragraph 9 that,
“…everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford in a community where they want to live…”.
To achieve this, PPS3 advocates the need to provide a wide range of quality constructed homes, both affordable and market housing which form sustainable and inclusive, mixed-use communities. The guidance sets out five key objectives for the delivery of housing:
• High quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard; • A mix of housing, both market and affordable, particularly in terms of tenure and price, to support a wide variety of households; • A sufficient quantity of housing, taking into account need and demand and seeking to improve choice; • Housing development is suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure; and • A flexible and responsive supply of land, managed in a way that makes efficient and effective use of land, including the re-use of previously developed land, where appropriate.
Planning Policy Statement 4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ (2009) (PPS4)
PPS4 sets out the Government’s objectives in relation to sustainable economic growth and seeks to build prosperous communities, reduce the gap economic between regions, deliver sustainable patterns of development, reduce the need to travel, raise quality of life and environment in rural areas and promote the vitality and viability of town and other centres.
Planning Policy Statement 7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (2004) (PPS7)
PPS7 relates to development in rural areas and seeks to promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agricultural sectors, re-use previously developed land and ensure all new development is well designed and inclusive, in keeping and scale with its location and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness. Economic rural development is set out in PPS4.
Planning Policy Statement 9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ (2005) (PPS9)
PPS9 seeks to ensure that planning decisions aim to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity interest and that a sequential approach to protection should be applied which first aims to prevent harm to such biodiversity interests.
Planning Policy Statement 10 ‘Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ (2005) (PPS10)
PPS10 sets out the objectives of Government policy on waste, through more sustainable waste management, moving the management of waste up the ‘waste hierarchy’ of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting, using waste as a source of energy, and only disposing as a last resort the Government aims to break the link between economic growth and the environmental impact of waste.
Planning Policy Guidance 13 ‘Transport’ (2001) (PPG13)
PPG13 seeks to shape patterns of development and influence the location, scale, density, design and mix of land use, whilst reducing the need to travel, promote the use of public transport, cycling and walking and ensure new developments are well designed, safe and accessible to both vehicles and pedestrians.
Planning Policy Guidance 17 ‘Planning for Open space, Sport and Recreation’ (2002) (PPG17)
PPG17 advises that open space, sport and recreation underpin people’s lives and its key objective in this respect if to provide local networks of well maintained open spaces and facilities which are attractive, clean and safe. Their role, the guidance adds, is crucial in maintaining health, fitness and wellbeing of the population. The guidance advises local planning authorities undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, access to such facilities and opportunities for new open space and facilities. Cemeteries are classified as open space within PPG17.
Planning Policy Guidance 23 ‘Planning and Pollution Control’ (2004) (PPG23)
PPG23 seeks the regeneration of previously developed land by bringing it back into beneficial use, especially where this may help to remediate contamination. This should be done by identifying and removing unacceptable risks to human health; but at the same time ensuring that the cost of burdens faced by individuals, companies and society as a whole are proportionate, manageable and economically sustainable.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 ‘Planning and Noise’ (1994) (PPG24)
PPG24 provides advice on the location of developments which are considered to be noise sensitive or noisy in themselves. For residential development which is considered to be noise sensitive, PPG24 sets out noise exposure categories in order to ensure such development is not adversely affected by noise generating uses, such as employment.
Planning Policy Statement 25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’ (2006) (PPS25)
PPS25 seeks to address the factors to consider when assessing development proposals and their potential to be affected by flooding and their contributing too flood risk elsewhere. The PPS places great emphasis on the need to reduce flood risk in both instances and stresses the importance of managing and reducing flood risk through sound, well informed planning decisions.
APPENDIX B - RELEVANT POLICIES IN THE EAST MIDLANDS REGIONAL PLAN (RSS)
Policy 1 ‘Regional Core Objectives’ Policy 2 ‘Promoting Better Design’ Policy 3 ‘Distribution of New Development’ Policy 12 ‘Development in the Three Cities Sub-area’ Policy 13a ‘Regional Housing Provision’ Policy 17 ‘Regional Priorities for Managing the Release of Land for Housing’ Policy 18 ‘Regional Priorities for the Economy’ Policy 19 ‘Regional Priorities for Regeneration’ Policy 20 ‘Regional Priorities for Employment Land’ Policy 22 ‘Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development’ Policy 26 ‘Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and CulturalHeritage’ Policy 27 ‘Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment’ Policy 28 ‘Regional Priorities for Environmental and Green Infrastructure’ Policy 29 ‘Priorities for Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity’ Policy 31 ‘Priorities for the Management and Enhancement of the Region’s Landscape’ Policy 35 ‘A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk’ Policy 36 ‘Regional Priorities for Air Quality’ Policy 38 ‘Regional Priorities for Waste Management’ Policy 39 ‘Regional Priorities for Energy Reduction and Efficiency’ Policy 40 ‘Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation’ Policy 41 ‘Regional Priorities for Culture, Sport and Recreation’ Policy Northern SRS1 ‘Sub-regional Development Priorities’ Policy Northern SRS2 ‘Supporting the Roles of Town and Village Centres’ Policy Northern SRS3 ‘Sub-regional Employment Regeneration Priorities’ Policy Northern SRS4 ‘Green Infrastructure and National Forest’
Appendix C – Detailed comments from internal departments
Landscape
Thank you for consulting the Landscape and Reclamation Team on the above application.
Existing Site
The site is approximately 169 hectares and lies to the southern edge of Mansfield. The MARR (Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route) runs west to east through the application site and the A6117 divides the site to the north. The A60 lies to the western boundary and Old Newark Road runs along the northern boundary with residential properties to the north of this. To the north east of the site, east of the Bellamy Road Estate there are large scale buildings under construction on a business park.
To the south west, Harlow Wood forms the southern boundary. Further to the east the southern boundary extends almost to Lindhurst Farm. To the east of Lindhurst Farm the MARR route forms the southern boundary of the site.
The topography is undulating and the dominant landscape feature is a ridgeline which runs west to east. The highest point (163m AOD) lies to the west of the site, south of the MARR. The site is dominated by large scale arable farming. Fir’s Farm lies to the west of the A6117 and Lindhurst Farm lies to the south, outside the site boundary. Field boundaries are largely trimmed Hawthorn hedgerows which are gappy in places.
Proposed Development
The application is for mixed use, including employment land, up to 1,700 new homes, a primary school, local centre, hotel and leisure complex, formal and informal open space, cemetery and provision for access and circulation.
Residential use is proposed over most of the site. Employment land use is proposed near to the main transport routes, off the A60 to the west, the A6117 to the centre and to the east off the A6191/MARR. A primary school is proposed to the north, east of the A6117 and commercial use is proposed to the south east of the A6117/MARR junction. Green infrastructure is proposed including buffer zones to the urban edge, retention of the existing hedgerow framework and a buffer zone to Harlow Wood to the south. A community park would be located to the south with a cemetery to the southernmost area. Substantial structure planting is proposed which will improve the biodiversity of the site.
National, Regional and Local Plan Policy
The development would create a sustainable urban extension which is broadly in line with PPS1, Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS7, Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. It would also be in line with the policies of the East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) regarding provision of housing etc.
The eastern corner of the site adjacent to the A6191 is part of an area designated in Mansfield District Local Plan (adopted November 1998) as a ‘Landscape Area’. These were designated where it was considered essential to retain, protect and enhance the natural landscape features of the area. The aim of Landscape Areas was to prevent the coalescence of separate settlements and the erosion of green wedges by urban sprawl and inappropriate development of important landscape areas.
Policy NE4 states that planning permission will not be granted for any developments which would detract from the open character of sensitive gaps between settlements.
The Plan states it is important that this open break is maintained and that development in this area would result in the coalescence of Rainworth with Mansfield.
The Sherwood Forest Special Landscape Area lies to the north east of the site. To the south of the MARR the boundary of the Greenwood Community Forest runs west to east and includes the area to be developed as Forest Stone Community Park.
Green Belt lies to the south of the site.
Impact of the Proposed Development on the Existing Landscape and Landscape Character
There are no national or local landscape designations on the site. Harlow Wood to the south is a designated SINC (a coniferous plantation with a noteworthy flora).
The MARR runs west to east through the site, largely within a cutting. Tree and hedge planting along the route is approximately 4 years old.
The area is dominated by arable farming. Fields are large scale and geometric in shape. Field boundaries are largely Hawthorn hedgerows which are gappy in places and with occasional hedgerow trees.
The site lies within the Forest Sandlands sub-division of the Sherwood Character Area as designated in the Nottinghamshire County Council Landscape Guidelines (1997). The guidelines are currently being updated and the site lies within the Lindhurst Wooded Farmlands Policy Zone (the policy is to “Conserve and Create”). Characteristic features include undulating topography, coniferous forestry plantations with deciduous margins, intensive arable farming in large geometric fields, mixed species hedgerows with mature trees to farm tracks, heathland species, particularly to road verges and woodland rides. Information on the policy zone should also be consulted when this has been published – the southern section will be included in the Newark and Sherwood Landscape Character Assessment.
Although there are relatively few trees and hedgerows are gappy in places, the development would result in the loss of an expansive area of undulating arable land with a distinctive rolling landform typical of the Sherwood Character Area. The change in visual character would be substantial adverse.
Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement concludes that the landscape within the site can be described as low-medium sensitivity as there are limited landscape features and potential for enhancement.
Due to the distinctive landform and proposed change from an agricultural to an urban landscape, we would assess the sensitivity as being medium-high.
Chapter 5 concludes that the impact on the character of the development site (South Mansfield Residential Ridge and Sherwood Way Farmland as shown on Figure 5.3) would be moderate adverse, reducing with establishment of the Green Infrastructure.
We would assess that the impact of the development on the existing landscape and landscape character would be moderate/substantial adverse with permanent loss of open countryside.
Visual Impact of the Proposed Development
The dominant landform is a ridgeline which runs west to east – the MARR runs along the top of the ridgeline but is largely screened within a cutting along large sections. The proposed employment land and housing areas on the north facing slope to the north of the MARR would be visible from many residential properties on the southern fringe of Mansfield.
To the west, properties on Dorchester Close, Dorchester Drive, Chatsworth Close and Chatsworth Drive to the north of Old Newark Road, are a mixture of one and two storey buildings which mostly have south facing windows and clear views to the undulating farmland and the prominent ridgeline.
The applicant states in paragraph 5.12.7 that approximately 150 properties on Old Newark Road, Dorchester Drive and Chatsworth Drive would have close range views of the new development – with a short term substantial adverse impact, reducing to slight adverse impact on completion of the development.
We estimate that there would be a substantial adverse visual impact on residents which would only reduce over many years to a slight/moderate adverse impact when structure planting starts to mature.
To the east of the A6117 there are two and three storey residential properties with south facing windows. Existing views are of gently undulating farmland – again visual impact would be substantial adverse for many years until trees start to mature.
We agree broadly with the visual impact predicted for other receptors.
In addition, Keepers Cottage lies adjacent to the northern boundary of the site off Southwell Road West to the east of the site. This is a two storey property with windows facing south and residents would have clear views of the access road and employment land. Visual impact of the development will be substantial adverse and there does not appear to be any structure planting to this area.
Summary and Recommendations
1. The visual impact of the development has been underestimated – particularly on residents of properties to the north. There are many properties which face directly onto the site, where the current view is of open undulating farmland with a prominent ridgeline to the west. We strongly recommend that images of the proposed development on the north facing slope are provided, looking from residential properties to the north.
2. Green Infrastructure /structure planting should where possible be planted in advance. Land allocated for structure planting must be retained for this purpose and not sold off to developers who then reduce the landscape areas. There should be a co-ordinated approach to the structure planting in each zone and this should not be left to individual developers as this would not result in a unified landscape character.
3. The applicant should provide details of the proposed phasing of the structure planting, together with proposals for establishment maintenance.
4. A management plan for the green infrastructure/structure planting should be provided and should form part of a 106 Agreement.
5. Species should be in line with those recommended for the Sherwood Character Area. In addition to the Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines the applicant should refer to the recently updated character assessment – the site lies within the Lindhurst Wooded Farmlands Policy Zone within the Sherwood Character Area.
If you have any queries regarding the above please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Nancy Ashbridge Landscape Architect Landscape and Reclamation Team
Countryside Access
With regards to the above Planning Application I have the following comments to make on behalf of the Countryside Access Team.
Firstly, I believe that the developer needs to be made aware that the Old Newark Road is currently adopted Highway and is also subject to a current claim to record it as a Byway Open to All Traffic. I understand that this is to protect any Public Rights should Old Newark Road be removed from the list of streets. Old Newark Road is not currently up to adoptable standards (although it is currently adopted) we need the developer to confirm whether Old Newark Road is to be used as a main access in and out of the site and whether the developer plans to bring it up to adoptable standards as part of the development. This department would like to see Old Newark Road retained as a rural route with an unsealed surface, and retained as a rural green corridor.
Secondly, I am aware that there were a number of side road orders that were confirmed as part of the construction of the MARR route which would potentially alter the lines of any of the Rights of Way crossing the MARR. I am aware that although these orders were confirmed, noting was done to either legally alter the lines of the Rights of Way on the Definitive Map and Statement, or physically on the ground. I have asked a member of our Definitive Map Team to check the Side Road Orders and confirm the correct routes of Mansfield Bridleways 26 and 28, and also to check if any additional routes have been added. I am fairly confident that the lines of the Bridleways are correct, however there may be an additional route following the access drive to Lindhurst Farm to meet the roundabout on the MARR. This ought not to have an affect on the development; however, it is right that the developer is made aware.
Thirdly, a number of potential additional Rights of Way have been identified by the developer. These nicely link a number of roads within the proposed estate, and provide useful links to the existing Rights of Way network. It would be good to get confirmation that these routes will be dedicated as recorded Rights of Way by the Developer. We would also like confirmation that these additional routes will be dedicated as (and constructed to the standards of) public Bridleway. The surrounding, existing Rights of Way network is Bridleway, so this would provide more useful links to the surrounding area. From the developers point of view this may also be beneficial as this would provide better sustainable transport links to the site (walking, cycling, horseback), especially when considering the future workforce for the industrial units/office space. It would also be of great benefit if the developer could provide a bridleway link from the development site to the roadside mutil-users routes on the A60 and A617, and the traffic light controlled crossings at the A60/A617 junction. This could potentially provide further safe off-road links to Mansfield centre to the North, and Harlow and Thieves Wood to the south.
Lastly, we would like to see details of the design of the proposed road crossings for both the existing and the proposed Rights of Way. This is to ensure that the safety of non-motorised users on the Rights of Way crossing the site has been considered, and that any potential risk has been prevented or at least kept to a minimum.
Any route with a sealed surface created as part of the development will need to be adopted as highway, as opposed to dedicated as Public Right of Way. Any surfaced Bridleway or Byway ought to be surfaced with compacted stone ensuring that there are no exposed loose stones. Ideally any dedicated Bridleway ought to have a minimum width of 3m.
On another note, the section entitled ‘Pubic Access and Rights of Way’ in the Design and Access Statement (p32) states that the surrounding Rights of Way are infrequently used. I don’t know what this information is based on; however this information is incorrect and misleading. This area is very popular with walkers, cyclist and horse riders alike. There are a number of stables near to the development site that frequently use the Rights of Way network and Harlow Woods (to the south of the MARR) is particularly popular with dog-walkers.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss anything I have raised, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely
James Russ Area Rights of Way Officer, North West Area
Ecology
General
A range of ecological survey work has been carried out on the development site. Coupled with information gathered as part of the desktop study, this has demonstrated that much of the site is of limited ecological interest, being dominated by intensively managed arable land. Nevertheless, parts of the site do have nature conservation interest, and adjacent statutory and non- statutory nature conservation sites and certain notable species have the potential to be negatively affected by the scheme. A range of mitigation measures are proposed, including the creation of areas of green infrastructure.
Key issues
a) Bats
The site has been surveyed for bats, and it was found that the majority of hedgerows on the site were used by foraging or commuting bats. In addition, at Firs Farm, a ‘small and occasionally used’ bat roost (brown long-eared bats) was found in one of the farm buildings and a high level of bat activity was recorded around these buildings during the bat survey, although no bats were observed emerging from any of the buildings.
Although mitigation is proposed for the loss of the roost, we are concerned that the information presented is currently lacking in detail to properly adjudge whether the survey effort was been sufficient to provide an accurate picture of bat use at Firs Farm. For example, there is no information provided relating to the date of survey, the number of surveyors used, or their positioning around and coverage of the farm buildings.
Furthermore, we are concerned that a single dusk emergence and dawn roosting survey does not represent sufficient survey effort for a known roost site (the roost having been identified during an internal inspection of the buildings), given that the Bat Conservation Trust’s ‘Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines’ (the recognised survey standard for bat surveys) indicates that surveys should involve two to three visits between May and September, and only a single survey appears to have been carried out in this case.
It is therefore our view that further survey work is required in relation to bats to properly assess the impacts of the proposal. As you are no doubt will be aware, the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat, and it should be noted that paragraph 99 of Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – ‘statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system’, which accompanies PPS9, states that;
“It is essential that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances…”
Ultimately, however, the advice of Natural England should be sought on this matter. b) Birds (excluding Nightjar)
A number of farmland bird species (breeding and wintering) of conservation concern were recorded on the site during the bird surveys, and habitat for these species will be lost as a result of the development. No specific mitigation is offered for these species, which include Tree Sparrow, Grey Partridge and Lapwing. However, it is stated that the creation of new habitat as part of the green infrastructure will increase the availability of suitable habitats for farmland bird species in the long term. We dispute this assertion, given that arable farmland (the foraging and nesting habitat for these species) will be replaced by other habitats which are not suitable for these species, and it should therefore be recognised that impacts on farmland bird species cannot be mitigated. c) Nightjar
Unfortunately we have not had access to the survey details pertaining to the Nightjar survey, but we have had sight of the survey plan, which indicates that Nightjars are present within Harlow Wood immediately to the south of the development. In light of current uncertainty surrounding the status of sites holding Nightjar in the Sherwood area (in relation to the Rufford ERF public enquiry), and the as yet unanswered question as to whether such sites should be considered as if they were Special Protection Areas (and therefore subject to a strict protection regime), Natural England’s advice must be sought on this matter.
In terms of site-level impacts on Nightjar, we are concerned about the increased level of recreational use that Harlow Wood will inevitably experience as a result of the development, given that Nightjars are very sensitive to disturbance. Some mitigation is proposed, including the creation of SUDS, ditches, and dense woodlands to act as a barrier along the northern edge of the wood and thus discourage uncontrolled access into the woodland, but we remain concerned that a general increase in visitor numbers along permitted routes will have a detrimental impact on this species, even taking into account the fact that the Forest Stone Community Park is intended to ‘absorb’ these visitors. Indeed, the location of the Forest Stone Community Park and cemetery are such that they may well actually encourage more people to access Harlow Wood than if they were located elsewhere on site (the cemetery especially, which abuts a currently occupied Nightjar territory).
It is therefore suggested that the following should be considered;
1. The creation of permanent open space in the southern half of Harlow Wood to allow Nightjars to persist at the site independent of the rotational nature of forestry activities at the site.
2. The relocation of the cemetery to the western end of the scheme (south of the MARR), well away for occupied Nightjar territories.
3. The implementation of a programme to monitor Nightjar numbers before and after development, including a contingency plan to be put into operation should it become evident that Nightjars have been affected as a result of the development through increased disturbance. d) Veteran trees
One veteran tree and one group of near-veteran trees are present on the development site. Mitigation involves the incorporation of these trees into the green infrastructure. e) Notable flora
In general, the flora at the site is depauperate. However, the botanical species list indicates the presence of viper’s-bugloss (Echium vulgare) on the site, although this is not mentioned in any of the habitat descriptions. This species is notable in the county, occurring at a small number of sites. Therefore, specific mitigation measures (e.g. translocation of seed to a safe site) should be developed to safeguard this species. f) Rainworth Water SSSI
We are concerned about possible down-stream impacts on Rainworth Water SSSI due to potential pollution events or nutrient loading of water within the SUDS system that will be created along the southern boundary of the development site (during both construction and operation phases).
It is understood that a water quality monitoring programme will be undertaken at the SSSI, which should be secured by a suitable planning obligation, and should include contingency measures to be put into operation should it become evident that the SSSI has been negatively affected as a result of the development due to changes to water quality. Such a monitoring programme and contingency plan should be developed in consultation with and agreed by Natural England. g) Mitigation
In general terms, the range of mitigation measures proposed in sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 of the ES Chapter 6 - Ecology and Nature Conservation is proportional to the impacts arising form the development (although note comments above relating to bats, Nightjar, notable flora, and Rainworth Water SSSI).
Such measures should be incorporated into the development through suitable mechanisms (e.g. a detailed site landscaping plan, detailed building design to incorporate bat roosts and bird nesting sites, lighting plan to reduce impacts on bats and other wildlife, SUDS design etc.), and should be secured by an appropriate planning obligation. h) Green Infrastructure
It is stated that there will be substantial positive effects on biodiversity in the local area in the long term through habitat creation and the subsequent management of new and retained habitats, and that 47.7ha of green infrastructure will be created.
It is our view that whilst there will be some benefit to biodiversity, it is unclear what the level of meaningful habitat creation (i.e. Biodiversity Action Plan habitat which will benefit species of conservation concern, rather than generalist species) will be. For example, Forest Stone Community Park, the largest area of open space associated with the development, is described as an area of amenity space for formal and informal recreation for residents, suggesting that wildlife habitats will be marginalised, and subject to disturbance. Additional information to demonstrate the substantive value of the created habitats, including the types of habitats (according to UKBAP/LBAP definitions) and approximate extents should therefore be submitted. It should be noted that PPS9, in paragraph 14, states that;
“Development proposals provide many opportunities for building-in beneficial biodiversity or geological features as part of good design. When considering proposals, local planning authorities should maximise such opportunities in and around developments, using planning obligations where appropriate”.
In addition, whilst the green infrastructure links crossing north-south over the development will have value, especially for foraging bats, it is unclear where these links go when they hit the existing southern boundary of Mansfield. It is suggested that east-west links are therefore more important for the movement of wildlife, and that efforts should be made to improve the strength of such links by;
1. incorporating the area of land adjacent to the south-west corner of the development into the green infrastructure, retained as arable land under current proposals, and developing it as an area of heathland, acid grassland and oak-birch woodland. This would strengthen ecological links through to Thieves Wood and Stonehills Plantation.
2. bolstering the ecological link between Harlow Wood and Rainworth Water SSSI, by increasing the width of the corridor of habitat along the Foulevil Brook to the east of Lindhurst Lane, by converting a wide strip of arable land into grassland and scrub habitats to the south of the brook. This would also help to improve water quality by buffering the watercourse that feeds Rainworth Water SSSI.
i) Other issues
- The production and implementation of a Green Infrastructure Management Plan, as referenced in the planning application, should be secured by s106 agreement.
- The production of a detailed landscaping scheme, incorporating the mitigation measures outlined in sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 of the ES Chapter 6 - Ecology and Nature Conservation, should be secured by planning condition, and should link with the Green Infrastructure Management Plan. This should provide details of species, proportions and genetic origin of stock to be used in the site landscaping.
- The production and implementation of a Construction Code of Practice, as referenced in the planning application, should be secured by planning condition.
- Proposals for using green (or brown) roofs on commercial and/or community buildings, as suggested in section 6.4.3 of the ES Chapter 6 - Ecology and Nature Conservation, should be made a firm commitment in the proposals.
Nick Crouch Senior Nature Conservation Officer
Developer Contributions
Graham,
Further to our conversation last week, I can let you have some more information with regard to the above. However, these comments are subject to ratification from our Cabinet and are therefore only officer comments at present. I am sending this information on the basis that it reflects discussions that have taken place to date with the various parties and to instigate further discussions on the contributions that may be included in the final s106 agreement. It should not preclude the inclusion of any other items subsequently.
Education
NCC have been in discussions with the developers representative on these matters, Steve Clyne of EFM Ltd. Negotiations have reached an advanced stage and a contribution amount of £6,282,766 has been suggested as a contribution towards the provision of a new primary school on the site. The location and size of the school site are still to be agreed and it should be noted that these costs are applicable at todays date and would need to be index linked and adjusted in line with revised building regs if necessary. The site would need to be fully serviced with any abnormal building costs the responsibility of the developers. The payment dates are also still to be agreed, however, once the drafting of the agreement commences, these issues should be able to be resolved quickly.
There is currently no requirement for a secondary school education contribution.
Transport
The developers have been in discussion with our transport team (Andy Buckland) with regard to the new bus services which would operate on the site. The requirement from a NCC perspective and which would need to be included in a s.106 would be:
• The provision both on and off site of highway and customer infrastructure as now described, or as modified in agreement with Nottinghamshire County Council - installation costs to be met by the developer, and on going maintenance funded through a Capital lump sum. • The installation on bus and at agreed locations, of real time and other passenger information in a style and to a specification consistent with County Council requirements in the Mansfield area generally - installation costs to be met by the developer, and on going maintenance funded through a Capital lump sum. • The implimentation by the developer of a (10 year) bus operating contract, to include routes, timetables, operator controls and quality features as now set out or as varied by agreement with the County Council. The cost, after offsetting revenue, to be met by a Capital lump sum. • A travel planning service to be established by the developer to promote and manage the bus service provision, and to include a formal role for the County Council to secure development and evolution which is suitable, appropriate and sustainable in the longer term.
NCC have recently dealt with a similarly large site which required a very similar transport package and therefore, when it comes to drafting the agreement, large parts of this previous agreement would be able to be utilised.
Libraries
As was mentioned to Rob Routledge at a recent meeting, NCC are looking to possibly introduce an additional area of developer contributions in the NCC Planning Contribution Strategy following appropriate consultation (which is to commence shortly) and approval by Cabinet. In the meantime, the County library service requirements are being established in order to inform district infrastructure planning documents. As a result, development sites which may have an impact on library services are being assessed and potential requirements established. This exercise has been carried out for this site and the resultant request is set out in the document attached.
It is appreciated that at present no policy basis exists for requesting such a contribution, however, for information, the possible future requirement is explained in detail.
Natural Heritage
Our natural heritage team would like to see adequate proposals for the creation/protection of bio-diversity green infrastructure habitat areas on the site and a management plan and subsequent contribution for maintaining these areas included in any s106. The s106 should also state that this would need to be carried out in accordance with a detailed landscaping scheme and habitat management plan. The proposals and therefore the amount of any contribution would need to be suggested by the developers in the first instance.
Highways(including rights of way/footpaths/bridleways)
I am currently waiting for our highways department to respond and will let you have this information asap regarding any potential requirements.
I would take this opportunity to also inform you that our Sports and Recreation and Public Art teams are happy to assist with these issues on the site if MDC feel it appropriate or necessary in any way, bearing in mind the size and importance of the development. I can provide contact details on request.
NCC would be happy to assist with the drafting of the s106 agreement as signatories if necessary and will try to provide any further information that you may require with regard to any of the areas mentioned above. If you could let me know when the s106 heads of terms are likely to be produced and drafting commenced or whether my presence is required at any meetings, I would greatly appreciate it.
I look forward to hearing from you.
It should be noted that the above comments are officer comments and are subject to member approval; a Cabinet report will be considered on 28th April. Please therefore treat them appropriately. regards
Matthew Jackson Planning Contributions Project Manager Communities Department Nottinghamshire County Council County Hall Nottingham NG2 7QP Tel: 0115 9774327
Cultural Services (Arts)
In relation to the development’s Design and Access Statement.
This makes considerable reference to the importance of quality design and ‘placemaking, reflecting the characteristics of local landscape and heritage and the creation and enhancement of local landmarks.
We would therefore strongly advocate the role of artists in working with designers and design teams to create a high quality environment for people to work, live and play.
Public art can add visual quality to developments, promoting character and local distinctiveness. It can be both decorative and functional and has a strong role in the creation and enhancement of local landmarks and identity.
As well as reflecting local character and heritage in sculptural work, many essential elements that make up buildings and landscapes are suitable for artistic interpretation, for example entrances, fencing, signage, lighting, street furniture, and paving. (As the latter are more functional elements and will have been worked into overall development budgets, these are more financially viable in terms of artistic interpretation).
As a definition of Public Art is:
A variety of artistic approaches whereby the work of artists or craftspeople is placed within urban, rural or natural environments. Public art can be decorative or functional and good public art seeks to integrate the creative skills of artists into the processes that shape the environments we live in.
We would therefore advocate the contribution that artists can make to the overall development. By working with designers on concept and detail artists can help the developer to achieve a high standard of design quality reflecting local character and creating a sense of identity and legibility.
There are a number of excellent case studies that can be referred to from across the UK where artists have worked with designers and design teams on capital, refurbishment and regeneration projects.
For more information contact:
Sue Beresford Nottinghamshire County Council
Map 1 – Site Plan