19th july, 2012 rb2011/0994 page 19 road, hooton roberts ... props... · rb2011/0994 formation of 2...

REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE 19TH JULY, 2012 The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be recorded as indicated. INDEX PAGE 1

RB2011/0994 Formation of 2 No. fishing ponds at Hooton Quarry Kilnhurst Road, Hooton Roberts for Mr. C. Preece.

9

2

RB2011/1244 Erection of 369 No. dwellinghouses & associated garages including formation of new access points, public open space and landscaping works at land off Laughton Road/ Sawn Moor Road, Thurcroft for Barratt Homes Yorkshire West.

Page 35

34

RB2012/0037 Erection of 37 No. dwellings and a three storey apartment block comprising 12 No. units including associated car parking and landscaping at land at Manvers Way, Manvers for Taylor Wimpey Yorkshire.

Page 57

5

RB2012/0241 Continuation of use of class A1 non-food premises & garden centre & car park with removal of condition 3 (no retail sales of food) imposed by R83/1679P at Former B&Q, Tenter Street, Thornhill for Oakgate (Rotherham) LLP.

Page 76

6

RB2012/0586 Application to vary condition 12 (imposed by RB2001/0495) to replace acoustic barrier of the service compound with palisade barrier at Tesco Express, East Bawtry Road, Broom for Tesco Stores Ltd.

Page 87

7

RB2012/0604 Import 70-80,000 cubic metres of clean inert materials to raise levels and modify land profiles to create driving range, formation of temporary access and erection of boundary fencing at land off Grange Lane, Brinsworth for Phoenix Sports & Social Club.

Page 97

8

RB2012/0619 Continuation of the erection of 92 dwellings (15 two storey 2 bedroom dwelling houses, 38 two storey 3 bedroom dwelling houses, and 39 No two storey 4 bedroom detached dwelling houses) with variation of Condition 1 (development in accordance with the approved plans) imposed by RB2010/1122 at land off Rother Crescent, Treeton for Jones Homes (Northern) Ltd.

Page 120

9

RB2012/0647 Continuation of use from industrial building to swimming pool with variation of Condition 05 (opening hours) to allow opening 0700 to 2200 hrs Monday to Friday and 1000 to 1600 hrs Sundays and Condition 06 (the premises shall be used for training/swimming lessons only and for no other purpose (including for general leisure uses) to allow general leisure use (imposed by RB2010/0855) at 6 Brookland Park Ind Estate, Low Common Road, Dinnington for Aquafyn Training Ltd.

Page 134

10

RB2012/0724 Continuation of conversion and extension of York House, Hallam House and Sovereign House to form residential & autistic care homes and retention of existing offices (use classes B1, B2 & B8) at County House, Redwall House and Great House with variation to Condition 2 (approved plans to include conversion of first floor offices and extension of second floor at Hallam House) imposed by RB2011/0849 at York & Hallam House, Redwall Close, Laughton Common for Horizon Care Homes Ltd.

Page 142

11

RB2012/0735 Change of use of land to school playing field (use class D1) at land adjacent Treeton Church of England Primary School, Wood Lane, Treeton for RMBC (Design & Projects Team).

Page 166

12

RB2012/0844 Continuation of use of the erection of 65 No. dwellinghouses (reserved by outline RB2008/0524) with variation to Condition 01 (site plan) imposed by RB2011/1605 at land off Manvers Way, Manvers for Strata Homes Ltd.

Page 176

13

RB2012/0851 Demolition of public house and erection of 3 No. two storey dwellings with rooms in roofspace and 1 No. two storey dwelling (amendment to RB2011/1594) at The Lord Conyers Arms, The Square, Wales for Brocklebank & Co Ltd.

Page 186

14

RB2012/0852 Conservation Area Consent for demolition of public house at The Lord Conyers Arms, The Square, Wales for Brocklebank & Co Ltd.

13

15

RB2012/0913 Continuation of the use of the building as a Public House (Use Class A4) without compliance with Condition No 4 imposed by RB2003/1745 (restricting the size of the area and the times of use of the outside drinking area to 21:00) to allow an additional outside drinking area and for these areas to be used until 22:00 on any day at Church House, Montgomery Square, Wath-upon-Dearne for J D Wetherspoon.

Page 226

REPORT TO THE PLANNING REGULATORY BOARD TO BE HELD ON THE 19TH JULY, 2012 The following applications are submitted for your consideration. It is recommended that decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 be recorded as indicated. RB2011/0994 Alterations to existing land levels to form 2 No. fishing ponds, associated parking area, access ramps and alterations to existing vehicular access onto Denaby Lane, Hooton Roberts. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: Local Planning Policy (UDP policy) Policy ENV1 ‘Green Belts,’ states that only development essential for the use of agriculture, forestry or recreation, will be allowed unless there are very special circumstances. Policy ENV1.2 ‘Development in Areas of High Landscape Value,’ states: “In Areas of High Landscape Value, development other than for agriculture will only be allowed where it will not result in a significant, and permanent adverse impact on the landscape. New agricultural buildings and ancillary development requiring planning permission will normally be allowed, provided they are not detrimental to the local environment, as will agricultural dwellings where a genuine agricultural need for them is demonstrated. Strict control will be exercised over any development that does take place to ensure that the visual character of these areas is not affected.” Policy ENV2 ‘Conserving the Environment,’ states: “In considering any development, the Council will ensure that the effects on the wildlife, historic and geological resources of the Borough are fully taken into account. In consultation with the relevant national agencies and local interest groups, the Council will ensure the protection of these resources while supporting appropriate development which safeguards, enhances, protects or otherwise improves the conservation of heritage interests. The Council will only permit development where it can be shown that:

(i) development will not adversely affect any key environmental resources, (ii) development will not harm the character or quality of the wider environment, and (iii) where development will cause environmental losses, these are reduced to a

minimum and outweighed by other enhancements in compensation for the loss.”

Policy ENV2.2 ‘Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites,’ states: “Proposals which would adversely affect, directly or indirectly, any key species, key habitat, or significant geological or archaeological feature, will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that the overall benefits of the proposed development clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the interest of the site or feature.” Policy ENV3 Borough Landscape states: “The Council recognises the vital importance of maintaining and enhancing the landscape of the Borough, pursuing and supporting this objective through positive measures or initiatives and, when considering development or other proposals, taking full account of their effect on and contribution to the landscape, including water.” Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment,’ advises that: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping, together with regard to the security of ultimate users and their property.” Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution,’ states: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which:

(i) is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere, soil or surface water and ground water, or to other nuisances, where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative or mitigating measures at the time the development takes place, or

(ii) would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to noise, malodour, dust, smoke or other polluting effects arising from existing industries, utility installations, major communication routes or other major sources.

The Council will employ all its available powers and where appropriate will co-operate with and support other agencies, to seek a reduction in existing levels of pollution within the Borough in terms of air, water, noise, light, waste, litter and graffiti. Where concerns arise, the Council will in appropriate cases monitor or require the monitoring of levels of pollution within the Borough in terms of air, water, noise, light, waste, litter and graffiti, in furtherance of this Policy objective.” Policy CR2.5 ‘Proposals for New Outdoor Sport and Recreation in the Countryside,’ states: “Proposals for sporting and recreational activities in the countryside will be acceptable providing that:

(i) they would not detract from the open character of the Green Belt in any location which is particularly vulnerable because of its prominence or narrowness,

(ii) they would not materially detract from the surrounding landscape character, (iii) they would not give rise to undue disturbance caused by excessive noise or the

attraction of large numbers of people or excessive traffic,

(iv) they are sited and designed so as to avoid any adverse impact on identified heritage interest or agricultural interests, and

(v) they can satisfy other relevant policies of the Plan.” Policy T8 ‘Access,’ states: “The Council will seek to meet the access needs of people with mobility and sensory handicaps by promoting careful design and improved provision in both the refurbishment and development of buildings, public spaces, community facilities and transport networks through the development control process and in the course of public service delivery.” Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPG’s) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPS’s) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. For the following reasons:

The Council are of the opinion that the intended use of the site for outdoor recreation and the associated parking provision proposed represent appropriate development within the Green Belt and as the formation of the ponds will involve minimal engineering works and re-grading of the existing landform will not have an adverse on the landscape or openness, character and visual appearance of the Green Belt in this relatively prominent location. The Council are further of the opinion that the construction and management of the proposed ponds would not lead to any risk of flooding in the locality; nor would it affect any key species / habitat, or the geology of the adjacent Regionally Important Geological Site. It is further considered that taking account of the small scale nature of the associated parking area and the indicated visibility improvements onto Denaby Lane that the anticipated number of vehicles likely to be generated by the proposed development would not be of detriment to highway safety. The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Site location plan – drawing no. 04 Rev A received 03/07/12 Site plan – drawing no. 01 Rev B received 15/06/12 Details & Section G – drawing no. 05 Rev C received 03/07/12 Site Sections A, B & C (pond B) – drawing no. 02 Rev A received 15/06/12 Site Sections D, E & F (pond A) – drawing no. 03 Rev A received 15/06/12 Landscape Masterplan & Planting Plan – drawing no. FHR01 Rev A received 15/06/12 Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 03 Before the development is brought into use the sight lines indicated on the approved plan shall be rendered effective by removing or reducing the height of anything existing on the land between the sight line and the highway which obstructs visibility at any height greater than 900mm above the road channel and the visibility thus provided shall be maintained. Reason To provide and maintain adequate visibility in the interests of road safety. 04 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either;

a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately

constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and to encourage drivers to make use of the parking spaces and to ensure that the use of the land for this purpose will not give rise to the deposit of mud and other extraneous material on the public highway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site and road safety. 05 Before the development is brought into use the car parking area shown on the submitted plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 06

The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) D211311/JR/September 2011 first issue and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

1. Any embankments should be designed with erosion control features to mitigate against the erosion effects of any overtopping; and

2. Soakaway trenches should be provided at the toe of the embankments to intercept any overland flow due to overtopping.

Reason To ensure the structural integrity of the embankments, thereby reducing the risk of flooding, and to prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring satisfactory disposal of any excess surface water generated by overtopping of the embankments in accordance with the advice in the NPPF. 07 No materials including top soil, sub soil or rock shall be removed or imported onto the site in the formation of the ponds. Reason To ensure no adverse effect upon the geology, ecology and protected species on the site may arise out of the proposed development and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV2.3 'Maintaining the Character and Quality of the Environment,' and the advice contained in the NPPF. 08 No groundwork shall commence until a Geodiversity Assessment to identify features underneath the application site (including watching brief) and a Geotechnical Survey with respect to bank and slope stability have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved recommendations and mitigation measures contained within the report. Reason To ensure no adverse effect upon the geology, ecology and protected species on the site may arise out of the proposed development and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV2.3 'Maintaining the Character and Quality of the Environment,' and the advice contained in the NPPF. 09 Any on site vegetation clearance should avoid the bird breeding season (March to end of August), unless the project ecologist undertakes a checking survey immediately prior to clearance and confirms that no breeding birds will be harmed or disturbed. The survey should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the removal of vegetation during the bird breeding season. Reason To ensure no adverse effect upon the ecology and protected species on the site may arise out of the proposed development and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV2.3 'Maintaining the Character and Quality of the Environment,’ ENV2.2 ‘Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites,’ and the advice contained in the NPPF.

10 Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary: -The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. -The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. -Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. -Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. -The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. -A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. -A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works. -The programme for implementation. -Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 11 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 12 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected along the Denaby Lane frontage. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the development approved is first brought into use.

Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of this Green Belt and Area of High Landscape Value area. Informatives 01 INF 25 Protected species Wildlife Legislation The protection afforded to protected sites and species under UK and EU legislation is irrespective of the planning system and the applicant should therefore ensure that any activity undertaken, regardless of the need for any planning consent, complies with the appropriate wildlife legislation. If any protected species are found on the site then work should halt and an appropriately qualified ecologist consulted. The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in Great Britain is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Act is supplemented by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations), the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (in England and Wales). All species of bats and their roosts are protected by UK and European legislation. Roosts are equally protected whether bats are present or not. The Great Crested Newt is protected by UK and European legislation. The legislation covers all life stages; eggs, tadpoles and adult newts are all equally covered. Otters and their holts, including hovers and couches, which are otter resting places above ground, are protected by UK and European legislation. Water Vole are protected against killing, injuring or taking; possession or control; damage or destruction of its places of shelter, or disturbance while such animals are occupying places of shelter. All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by UK law and it is an offence, with certain exceptions, to kill, injure or take any wild bird, to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built, and to take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. Certain species receive increased protection making it an offence to disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building or is at (or near) a nest with eggs or young; or disturb the dependant young of such a bird. Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. Interference with a sett includes blocking tunnels or damaging the sett in any way. The information provided is a summary only; for definitive information, primary sources should be consulted. 02 Consents needed for stocking with fish

Before stocking with fish, the applicant is advised that the proposed fishery must be registered with CEFAS (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) and written consent must be obtained from the Environment Agency (under Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975). This is to prevent the spread of fish diseases and to minimise damage to fisheries or the environment that may be caused by unregulated or inappropriate fish movements. Application forms can be found on www.efishbusiness.co.uk.

Background The site has been the subject of one previous application: RB1991/0530 - Laying out of a moto-cross circuit by the removal of grass cover and

altering levels, formation of a sound-retaining embankment, construction of car park and septic tank, and stationing of mobile building for ancillary purposes.

REFUSED 04/11/91 For the following reasons: 01 The application site is in the Green Belt and an Area of County Value as designated on the adopted Green Belt Local Plan, and the Council considers that the proposals are contrary to its policy that in such areas development other than for agriculture will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, and that where development is allowed it shall be such as will not impair the visual character of those areas. 02 Further to 1 above, the Council considers the removal of grass cover to form a race circuit, the formation of embankments, mounds and hollows, and the construction of ramps connecting the circuit thus formed with the adjoining quarry floor, to be seriously detrimental to the visual amenity and the rural environment of the area. Site Description & Location The site to which the application relates forms sloping agricultural fields on the east side of Denaby Lane close to the junction with Kilnhurst Road and amounts to approximately 4.7 hectares (although the site to which the actual engineering operation proposed relates to approx 1.7 hectares). The site is separated from Denaby Lane by a mix of stone wall and hedgerow and where it abuts Hooton Quarry to the east lies mature planting on the skyline. Proposal The proposal seeks full planning permission for the excavation of the field to form 2 no fishing ponds, the largest measuring approximately 86 metres by 34 metres at its widest point with the smaller measuring 67 metres by 28 metres. The ponds are indicated as being approximately 2.4 metres deep at their deepest section but with shallower margins and set close to the road in order to take advantage of the land gradients. The excavations would be graded into the hillside on the eastern side of the ponds, whilst low embankments would be required around part of the ponds, including part of the road frontage. In addition to the formation of the ponds it is further proposed to construct a small hard surfaced car parking area (11 spaces, including 2no. disabled spaces) set between the two ponds as well as an enlarged gated access onto Denaby Lane which would incorporate splayed stone walls (1m high) along its frontage. Other areas of proposed hard standing within the site are indicated as ramps and paths linking the ponds to the parking area and 4 no fishing pegs designed for disabled persons use.

The application has been accompanied with an Ecology report which states: “The existing site use is arable land which is used at present as grazing, in the past it has also been used for cereal growth, and the provision of the new ponds with substantial tree/landscaping buffers to the road will add additional habitat for wildlife.” The report concludes that: “The ponds would be stocked with specialist species of fish and will over time provide a varied habitat for other aquatic and winged fauna,” and that: “There are no noticeable trees or hedgerows within the vicinity of the proposals.” The application has further been accompanied with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which advises that there are no public sewers immediately adjacent to the site, and that there is no history of flooding at the site in living memory. The FRA concludes that the site is not considered to be at risk from flooding nor would it create adverse flooding in the locality, including to the following significant water bodies in the area:

• the Hooton Brook 200m to the south,

• the River Don 400m to the west,

• the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Canal 800m to the west; and

• the Thrybergh Reservoir 1.3 km to the south east. Development Plan Allocation and Policy The land is allocated Green Belt and an Area of High Landscape Value in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and lies close to a Regionally Important Geological Site (RIGS), being the former Hooton Quarry to the east. The following policies and guidance are therefore considered to be of relevance to the determination of this application: Policy ENV1 ‘Green Belts,’ states that only development essential for the use of agriculture, forestry or recreation, will be allowed unless there are very special circumstances. Policy ENV2 ‘Conserving the Environment,’ states: “In considering any development, the Council will ensure that the effects on the wildlife, historic and geological resources of the Borough are fully taken into account. In consultation with the relevant national agencies and local interest groups, the Council will ensure the protection of these resources while supporting appropriate development which safeguards, enhances, protects or otherwise improves the conservation of heritage interests. The Council will only permit development where it can be shown that:

(i) development will not adversely affect any key environmental resources, (ii) development will not harm the character or quality of the wider environment, and (iii) where development will cause environmental losses, these are reduced to a

minimum and outweighed by other enhancements in compensation for the loss.” Policy ENV2.2 ‘Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites,’ states: “Proposals which would adversely affect, directly or indirectly, any key species, key habitat, or significant geological or archaeological feature, will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that the overall benefits of the proposed development clearly outweigh the need to safeguard the interest of the site or feature.”

Policy ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape,’ states: “The Council recognises the vital importance of maintaining and enhancing the landscape of the Borough, pursuing and supporting this objective through positive measures or initiatives and, when considering development or other proposals, taking full account of their effect on and contribution to the landscape, including water.” Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment,’ advises that: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping, together with regard to the security of ultimate users and their property.” ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution,’ indicates that: “The Council will seek to minimise adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport and that planning permission will not be granted for new development which is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere, soil or surface water and ground water, or to other nuisances, where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards.” Policy CR2.5 ‘Proposals for New Outdoor Sport and Recreation in the Countryside,’ states: “Proposals for sporting and recreational activities in the countryside will be acceptable providing that:

(i) they would not detract from the open character of the Green Belt in any location which is particularly vulnerable because of its prominence or narrowness,

(ii) they would not materially detract from the surrounding landscape character, (iii) they would not give rise to undue disturbance caused by excessive noise or the

attraction of large numbers of people or excessive traffic, (iv) they are sited and designed so as to avoid any adverse impact on identified

heritage interest or agricultural interests, and (v) they can satisfy other relevant policies of the Plan.”

Policy T8 ‘Access,’ states: “The Council will seek to meet the access needs of people with mobility and sensory handicaps by promoting careful design and improved provision in both the refurbishment and development of buildings, public spaces, community facilities and transport networks through the development control process and in the course of public service delivery.” Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPG’s) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPS’s) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.”

The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. With regard to ‘Requiring good design’ the NPPF notes at paragraph 57 that: “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.” Paragraph 63 adds that: “In determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area.” In terms of ‘Protecting Green Belt land,’ the NPPF notes at paragraph 79 that “The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.” Paragraph 90 notes: “Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These include engineering operations.” In terms of flooding matters, the NPPF at paragraph 103 notes: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

• within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location; and

• development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely

managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

In respect of ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment,’ the NPPF notes at paragraph 118 that: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

• If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoid (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

• Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.”

Paragraph 120 of the NPPF further advises: “To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.” The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity The application has been advertised by way of site notice and individual letters to nearby residents. No letters of representation have been received. Consultations Transportation Unit: Raises no objections on highway safety grounds subject to the recommended conditions in respect of the provision of sight lines, surfacing and laying out of parking areas. Streetpride (Ecology Officer): Advises that although the ecological statement does not consist of any ecological survey work it confirms that the proposed development site is currently pasture and has until recently been used for cereal growth; this is supported by the aerial images available and the site photographs submitted. It is not therefore anticipated that the proposed development will have a negative impact on the ecology of the immediate area and therefore no objections are raised subject to the recommended condition in respect of nesting birds and the wildlife informative. Streetpride (Landscape Design): Raises no objections to the proposals. Natural England: Raises no objections to the proposals. Yorkshire Water: Raises no objections to the proposals on drainage grounds. The Environment Agency: Raises no objections subject to the proposals being constructed in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.

Sheffield Area Geology Trust: Raises no objections in principal to the development subject to the recommended conditions requiring further survey works being undertaken and no materials including top soil, sub soil or rock being removed or imported onto the site. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main considerations in this instance are:

- The principle of the development in the Green Belt. - The effect on the openness and visual appearance of the Green Belt. - The means of access and parking provision at the site. - The effect on the biodiversity, ecology and geology of the area. - Site drainage.

The principle of the development in the Green Belt: The NPPF at paragraph 88 notes that: “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” In land use terms the use of the land for outdoor sport and recreation (open fishing) is considered to be an appropriate use as defined both in the Council’s adopted UDP Policy ENV1 ‘Green Belt,’ and the recent issued NPPF, and the engineering operations required to form of the ponds are also considered to be appropriate provided they maintain the openness of the Green Belt, which is discussed further below. The effect on the openness and visual appearance of the Green Belt: The proposals are for the creation of two no. fishing ponds for outdoor recreation by the re-grading and cut and fill process to form embankments to hold the water in. The effect will be to cut into the existing field by a maximum of 4 metres at its northernmost end and to create raised embankments of approximately 2 metres, the levels will be raised across a length of approximately 230m. In assessing the impact on openness it is considered that the most important criterion is the “naturalness” of the development. Would the appearance of the development appear as part of the landscape or be a man made addition?

The site of application slopes upwards, away from Denaby Lane, in a west to east direction, with the proposed area of the ponds located on the less steeply sloping area of the land which has a gentler slope to its north – south axis. The proposed cut and fill operation to form the ponds is not considered to significantly raise the levels of the land compared to those which exist at present and whilst the proposals would quite clearly appear as a man made addition to the landscape, they would not appear incongruous and at odds with the consistent slope of the land and change significantly its character in this location. Additionally as the site has only limited views from Denaby Lane to the west and is set behind the existing stone walls and landscaping, it is not considered by way of their size, location and finished appearance, that these engineering works constitute such large and incongruous, man made additions in the landscape, to have a materially adverse impact on the openness, character and visual appearance of the Green Belt in this relatively prominent location. With regard to the proposed parking area, this is relatively limited in size and would be located between the ponds so would not appear prominent in the landscape. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed engineering works and parking area accord with Policy ENV1 ‘Green Belts,’ Policy ENV2 ‘Conserving the Environment,’ Policy CR2.5 ‘Proposals for New Outdoor Sport and Recreation in the Countryside,’ and Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment,’ of the Unitary Development Plan and advice in the NPPF. The means of access and parking provision at the site: The proposed access to the site is indicated as per the current gated access off Denaby Lane which would be widened slightly to allow two way traffic to access / egress the site and further shows that improvements to visibility can be achieved by the re-alignment and splaying of existing boundary walls. Additionally in terms of parking provision it is considered that the formation of some 11 spaces would be commensurate with the size of fishing facility as proposed. The applicant has clarified that a maximum of 20 pegs are to be split between the two ponds, with the intended use of the site for specialist carp fishing with the occasional match. It is not anticipated that all the pegs will be utilised at the same time and no objections are made to the proposals from the Transportation Unit on highway safety grounds. The effect on the biodiversity, ecology and geology of the area: The application as submitted does not affect any noticeable trees or hedgerows within the vicinity of the proposals, and the ecology report concludes that the proposals would not have a material adverse impact on the ecology of the area, and the provision of the new ponds with substantial tree/landscaping buffers to the road will indeed add additional habitat for wildlife. On the matter of geology, it is anticipated that the shelf and stone filled trench are unlikely to have an adverse impact on the geodiversity, though the excavation of the trenches may provide an opportunity to record any temporary sections in bedrock that may be exposed, subject to the imposition of the recommended condition in regards to further geological assessment, it is considered that the proposals accord with UDP Policies ENV2 ‘Conserving the Environment,’ ENV2.2 ‘Interest outside Statutorily Protected Sites,’ and ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape,’ as well as the advice in the NPPF.

Site drainage: The submitted details indicates that the walls of the ponds are to be constructed using material re-graded from other parts of the site, whilst the submitted Flood Risk Assessment identifies that the site is not liable to flooding nor would it create adverse flooding in the locality and gives an indication as to the overall management of the pond. With the above in mind and subject to the imposition of the recommended condition, it is considered that the proposal accords with the provisions of UDP Policies ENV2 ‘Conserving the Environment,’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution,’ as well as the advice in the NPPF. Conclusion The intended use of the site for outdoor recreation represents appropriate development within the Green Belt and the proposed parking area is considered to be appropriate for the recreational facility provided. As the formation of the ponds will involve minimal engineering works and re-grading of the existing landform it is considered that it will not have an adverse on the landscape or openness, character and visual appearance of the Green Belt in this relatively prominent location. The Council are further of the opinion that the construction and management of the proposed ponds would not lead to any risk of flooding in the locality; nor would it affect any key species / habitat, or the geology of the adjacent Regionally Important Geological Site. It is further considered that taking account of the small scale nature of the associated parking area and the indicated visibility improvements onto Denaby Lane that the anticipated number of vehicles likely to be generated by the proposed development would not be of detriment to highway safety. In view of the above it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions as set out at the commencement of this report. RB2011/1244 Erection of 369 No. dwellinghouses & associated garages including formation of new access points, public open space and landscaping works at land off Laughton Road/Sawn Moor Road, Thurcroft RECOMMENDATION: (A) That the Borough Council enter into an agreement with the developer under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the securing of the following:-

(i) The provision of affordable housing units on the site in the form of 25% of the total number of houses to be provided.

(ii) The submission of a scheme for the future maintenance and management of the Greenspace provision, to include the flood storage area, (approximately 1.9 hectares).

(iii) A contribution of £80,000 towards upkeep and upgrade of the existing recreation ground at land adjacent to Gordon Bennett Memorial Hall, Green Arbour Road, Thurcroft

(iv) A contribution of £10,000 towards provision of a Welcome Pack to welcome occupiers of the new dwellings to the Thurcroft Community Library at Thurcroft Junior School, Green Arbour Road, Thurcroft

(v) Provision of £37,300 for the provision and maintenance of an Art Trail. (B) That consequent upon the satisfactory signing of such an agreement the Borough Council resolves to grant planning permission for residential development subject to the following reasons for granting planning permission and recommended conditions and informatives. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: Regional Strategy: Policy YH4: ‘Regional cities and sub regional cities and towns’ specifically relates to sub regional cities and towns and advises that they should be the prime focus for housing, employment, shopping, leisure, education, health and cultural activities and facilities in the region. This policy advises that plans and strategies should achieve a radically more modern and wider range of housing and employment premises and develop a strong sense of place with high quality public realm and well designed buildings within a clear framework of routes and spaces. In order to manage the supply and delivery of housing across the region, Policy H2 ‘Managing and stepping up the supply and delivery of housing’ of the Yorkshire and Humber Plan advises that Local Authorities should identify and manage the use of land to maintain the momentum of urban transformation of regional cities, sub regional cities and towns, and principal towns. Policy H4: ‘The provision of affordable housing’ advises that the region needs to increase its provision of affordable housing. It suggests that for South Yorkshire up to 30% of developments should be made available for affordable housing. Policy ENV5: ‘Energy’ encourages energy efficiency and requires that new developments comprising 10 or more dwellings should secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised sources and renewable or low carbon sources. Local Planning Policy (Unitary Development Plan): Policy HG4.1 ‘Existing Housing Sites’ states: “The Council reaffirms the continuing use for residential purposes of the following sites which were under construction at April 1991 and/or have received policy approval since April, 1991. Housing sites with a capacity of fifty or more dwellings:

Without planning permission at 12/05/97- H23 Sawnmoor Road, Thurcroft” Policy HG5: The Residential Environment states: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.” Policy ENV1.4 ‘Land adjacent to the Green Belt’ states: “In areas adjacent to the Green Belt, development should be sympathetic to the visual amenity and environmental quality of the Green Belt.” Policy ENV2 ‘Conserving the Environment’ states: “In considering any development, the Council will ensure that the effects on the wildlife, historic and geological resources of the Borough are fully taken into account. In consultation with the relevant national agencies and local interest groups, the Council will ensure the protection of these resources while supporting appropriate development which safeguards, enhances, protects or otherwise improves the conservation of heritage interests. The Council will only permit development where it can be shown that: (i) development will not adversely affect any key environmental resources, (ii) development will not harm the character or quality of the wider environment, and (iii) where development will cause environmental losses, these are reduced to a minimum and outweighed by other enhancements in compensation for the loss.” Policy ENV2.8 ‘Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings’ states: “The Council will resist development proposals which detrimentally affect the setting of a listed building or are harmful to its curtilage structures in order to preserve its setting and historical context.” Policy ENV3.1: Development and the Environment states: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.” Policy ENV3.2 ‘Maintaining the Character and Quality of the Environment’ states: “In considering any development or other proposals which would unavoidably damage an existing environmental interest, prior to determining a planning application, the Council will require the application to be supported by adequate survey, evaluation, recording, and where appropriate, details of renovation or repair of historic fabric and rescue or relocation of features or species of environmental interest should be reduced to a minimum and, where possible, the interest which is retained should be enhanced. In addition there must be adequate compensation for any significant losses through landscaping, habitat creation or other environmental enhancement.” Policy ENV3.6 ‘Agricultural Land Quality’ states: “Development proposals will be assessed against the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land and will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances when it is shown that the use of lower quality land is not practicable.” Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance

and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which…is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere, soil or surface water and ground water, or to other nuisances, where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative or mitigating measures at the time the development takes place”

Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. For the following reasons:

The site is an allocated site within the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan (adopted in 1999) for residential development. Draft Policy CS5: New Housing Development advises that sufficient land will be allocated in the Sites and Policies DPD to meet Rotherham’s housing requirement of 12,750 dwellings for the period 2012 to 2027 (this equates to 850 dwellings per annum). This would include ‘Greenfield’ sites such as the current application site. The Policy then goes on to set out the principles which will be applied to the allocation and release of these housing sites. In this Issues and Options Sites and Policies DPD, the application site is identified as Site LDF0437 and is identified as being a site for housing (preferred). As such it is clear that a need for housing has been identified. It is also recognised that the site is currently classified as Grade 3a agricultural land (as set out in the Agricultural Land Classification). Natural England have stated that the area was surveyed in 1993 under modern criteria, when the majority of the land was classed as Grade 3a; the western end was classified as Grade 3b. There have been no recent changes to its classification – this is effectively a static dataset. This indicates its long standing status that has also been considered more recently in deliberations as part of the Local Development Framework process. Given the details set out above it is considered that the principle of residential is acceptable. In terms of the density of the scheme, at approximately 34 dwellings per hectare the development is by modern standards relatively low density and reflective of an edge of centre suburban location with room for landscaping to mature overtime. The proposed dwellings are to be two storey and two and a half storey (two storey with rooms in the roofspace). It is considered that the scale of the dwellings is acceptable and relates to the scale of the dwellings surrounding the site. A variety of house types and sizes have been provided with a range of different coloured bricks and affordable housing provision. The applicant has also specifically designed certain areas to create overlooking and utilises boundary planting. With regard to the impact on adjacent and nearby listed buildings, though the proposed scheme would radically alter the setting of Sawn Moor Farmhouse and ancillary barns, it is welcomed that there would be landscaped area of open green space which would

help to preserve its setting. With regard to the impact on the setting of the Grade I Listed All Saints Church at Laughton-en-le-Morthen though this is a major residential scheme and would be seen from views to the Grade I Listed Church, as the scheme is relatively low rise, it is considered that it would not be harmful to longer range views of the Church. The dwellings on Sawn Moor Avenue and Arbour Drive which back onto the site have rear gardens of approximately 25 – 30 metres in length and it is noted that the recommended minimum distances between existing and proposed dwellings are achieved. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would not result in harm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of the dwellings on Sawn Moor Avenue and Arbour Drive with regard to loss of light, overshadowing or overlooking. In terms of the impact on ecology, the site is of generally low ecological interest with the exception of the southern site boundary hedgerow which is species-rich and is likely to be considered ‘important’ within the scope of the Hedgerow Regulations. The Ecological Assessment recommends that the southern boundary hedgerow is retained and protected; this recommendation is supported and it is recommended that, if planning agreement is forthcoming, a condition be attached to agree a hedgerow protection strategy prior to commencement of development. In terms of the landscaping of the site, the applicant has submitted a detailed Landscape Masterplan, highlighting areas of proposed landscaping throughout the site and along the public highway. There are a number of trees to be planted within the site adjacent to the public highway to form tree lined streets. Furthermore additional planting will be carried out in the public open space areas and around the proposed substations to provide screening. There are no objections to this Masterplan subject to conditions with regard to the retention and maintenance of the landscaping areas. The scheme has been designed to accord with the Council’s minimum parking requirements, the internal layout geometries have been set out in accordance with the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide, servicing and emergency access accords with national guidance in Manual for Streets, accesses in and out of the site are provided in accordance with Manual for Streets, and the recorded wet weather design speed and an appropriate shared surface on Sawn Moor Road is to be provided. The application site is not within a Flood Zone and does not have any existing impermeable areas. A comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Assessment has been submitted with the application. The Council’s Drainage Engineer, Severn Trent Water and The Environment Agency have all commented on the proposals and have no objections subject to a number of conditions regarding submission of details of foul and surface water drainage. The applicant has indicated that they intend to provide 25% affordable housing units (92 in total) around the site and has indicated how these will be phased. 51 of the dwellings will be for social rented and 41 of the dwellings will be in shared equity. This is in line with the 14% and 11% split of the total number of properties on site as recommended in the Council’s Affordable Housing IPS. The affordable housing will be a mixture of terraced and semi detached bespoke residential dwellings as well as one flat above a triple garage. The proposed siting of the housing is acceptable and will provide good quality affordable housing of varying styles and sizes and it is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing IPS.

The application site includes the provision of approximately 1.9 hectares of public open space within three separate places within the site. These green spaces are to be maintained by the applicant under a management company. Whilst this proposal only allows for approximately 1.9 hectares on site, the Council’s Greenspace Unit have no objections to the provision of the on site facilities or the commuted sum to be paid to Thurcroft Parish Council and are of the opinion that it provides for sufficient greenspace within the site and upkeep and upgrade of the nearby facilities.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: General: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Drawing numbers 6148/02, TS02, 6148/01, P10:4314:02 Rev 0, P10:4314:06 Rev 0, P10:4314:07, P10:4314:08 Rev 0, P10:4314:09 Rev 0, P10:4314:10 Rev 0, P10:4314:11 Rev 0, P10:4314:12 Rev 0, P10:4314:13 Rev 0, P10:4314:14 Rev 0, P10:4314:15 Rev 0, P10:4314:16 Rev 0, P10:4314:17 Rev 0, P10:4314:18 Rev 0, P10:4314:19 Rev 0, P10:4314:20 Rev 0, P10:4314:21 Rev 0, P10:4314:22 Rev 0, P10:4314:23 Rev 0, P10:4314:24 Rev 0, P10:4314:25 Rev 0, P10:4314:26 Rev 0, P10:4314:27 Rev 0, P10:4314:28 Rev 0, P10:4314:29 Rev 0, P10:4314:30 Rev 0, P10:4314:31 Rev 0, P10:4314:32 Rev 0, P10:4314:33 Rev 0, P10:4314:34 Rev 0, P10:4314:35 Rev 0, P10:4314:36 Rev 0, P10:4314:37 Rev 0, P10:4314:40 Rev 0, P10:4314:41 Rev 0, P10:4314:44 Rev 0, P10:4314:45 Rev 0)(received 22 August 2011), Drawing numbers P10:4314:52 Rev 0, P10:4314:53 Rev 0, P10:4314:54 Rev 0, P10:4314:50 Rev 0, P10:4314:51 Rev 0)(received 17 October 2011), (Drawing numbers E10/5279/12, E10/5279/13, E10/5279/04, E10/5279/05, E10/5279/10, E10/5279/07, E10/5279/08, E10/5279/09)(received 7 November 2011), (Drawing numbers P10:4314:03 Rev B, P10:4314:55 Rev 0, P10:4314:56 Rev 0, P10:4314:57 Rev 0, P10:4314:58 Rev 0, P10:4314:59 Rev 0, P10:4314:60 Rev 0, P10:4314:61 Rev 0, P10:4314:62 Rev 0, P10:4314:63 Rev 0, P10:4314:64 Rev 0, P10:4314:65 Rev 0, P10:4314:66 Rev 0, P10:4314:67 Rev 0, P10:4314:68 Rev 0, P10:4314:69 Rev 0, P10:4314:70 Rev 0, P10:4314:74 Rev 0, P10:4314:75 Rev 0, P10:4314:76 Rev 0, P10:4314:100 Rev C) (received 1 June 2012), (Drawing numbers P10:4314:61 Rev A, P10:4314:72 Rev A, P10:4314:73 Rev A) (received 18 June 2012) and (Drawing numbers P10:4314:01 Rev J, P10:4314:77, P10:4314:78) (received 03 July 2012). Reason

To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 03 No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted or samples of the materials have been left on site, and the details/samples have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. Reason To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 04 Prior to the commencement of development, details of the chosen methods of achieving at least 10% of energy demand through decentralised or renewable energy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Those approved technologies shall be installed and operational prior to the first occupation of the building. Reason To ensure that at least 10% of energy demand for the building is achieved through decentralised or renewable energy sources in line with RS Policy ENV5. 05 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence until details of all front boundary treatment has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into use. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area and the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed residential properties. 06 Part A (pre-commencement) No development, including any demolition and groundworks, shall take place until the applicant, or their agent or successor in title, has submitted a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) that sets out a strategy for archaeological investigation and this has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WSI shall include: • The programme and method of site investigation and recording. • The requirement to seek preservation in situ of identified features of importance. • The programme for post-investigation assessment. • The provision to be made for analysis and reporting. • The provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the results. • The provision to be made for deposition of the archive created. • Nomination of a competent person/persons or organisation to undertake the works. • The timetable for completion of all site investigation and post-investigation works. Part B (pre-occupation/use)

Thereafter the development shall only take place in accordance with the approved WSI and the development shall not be brought into use until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed in writing that the requirements of the WSI have been fulfilled or alternative timescales agreed.” Reason: To ensure that any archaeological remains present, whether buried or part of a standing building, are investigated and a proper understanding of their nature, date, extent and significance gained, before those remains are damaged or destroyed and that knowledge gained is then disseminated. Drainage 07 Surface water from areas likely to receive petrol/oil contamination (e.g. vehicle parking areas) shall be passed through effective oil/grit interceptors prior to discharge to any sewer or watercourse. Reason To prevent pollution of any watercourse in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 08 Details of the proposed means of disposal of foul drainage, including details of any offsite work, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until such approved details are implemented. Reason To ensure that the development can be properly drained in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 09 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence until details of the foul water pumping station have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into use. Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area and the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed residential properties. 10 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the construction details and shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme to be submitted shall demonstrate: • The utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques; • The limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates;

• The ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon the submission of drainage calculations; and • Responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features. Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality; to improve habitat and amenity; and to ensure the future maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures. Highways 11 Before the proposed development is brought into use, a Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include clear and unambiguous objectives, modal split targets together with a programme of implementation, monitoring, validation and regular review and improvement. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed of and give prior approval in writing to any subsequent improvements or modifications to the Travel Plan following submission of progress performance reports as time tabled in the monitoring programme. For further information please contact the Transportation Unit (01709) 822186. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 12 Before the proposed development is brought into use motorcycle restriction barriers shall be constructed on the entrances to Public Footpath no. 14 (to the south of the site) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into use. Reason To protect the users of the Public Right of Way in the interests of pedestrian safety. 13 No development shall take place until full engineering details of the site access arrangements, the proposed speed reducing scheme in Laughton Road, the shared footway / cycleway on the Laughton Road site frontage, street lighting improvements and the creation of a gateway scheme in Laughton Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the first dwelling served from Laughton Road. Reason In the interests of highway safety. 14 No development shall take place until full engineering details of the improvements (shared surface, road widening, footway provision and turning facility) in Sawn Moor Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the 120th dwelling on site.

Reason In the interests of the sustainable development of the site and highway safety. 15 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either; a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site, road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 16 Before the development is commenced road sections, constructional and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is completed. Reason No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval. 17 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), all dwellings with integral garages shall retain these garages for car parking for the lifetime of the development hereby approved. Reason To avoid excessive parking in the highway and to ensure the free and safe movement of traffic. Landscaping 18 Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary: -The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. -The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. -Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. -Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. -The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. -A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. -A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works.

-The programme for implementation. -Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 19 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 20 All planting, seeding and/or turfing forming part of the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of that part or phase of development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. All hard landscaping included in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out before the completion or first occupation of the part or phase of development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 21 All planting, seeding and/or turfing forming part of the approved details of landscaping to public open space fronting or having a boundary with Laughton Road shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of phase one of development as described in the approved Phasing Plan Drawing ref P10 4314 06, whichever is the sooner. All planting, seeding and/or turfing forming part of the approved details of landscaping to public open space adjacent to Sawn Moor Farm shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of phase three of development as described in the approved Phasing Plan Drawing ref P10 4314 06, whichever is the sooner. Reason

In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 22 No tree or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any tree or hedgerow be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning works approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). If any tree or hedgerow is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree or hedgerow shall be planted in the immediate area and that tree or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies, ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 23 No work or storage on the site shall commence until all the trees/shrubs to be retained have been protected by the erection of a strong durable 2.0 metre high barrier fence in accordance with B.S.5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations. This shall be positioned in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The protective fencing shall be properly maintained and shall not be removed without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the development is completed. There shall be no alterations in ground levels, fires, use of plant, storage, mixing or stockpiling of materials within the fenced areas. Reason To ensure the trees/shrubs are protected during the construction of the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 24 Prior to the commencement of development a hedgerow protection strategy should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy should include the following elements:- • Construction period protection methods • Pedestrian access creation timings and details • Gapping up / planting details • Methods for long-term separation from residential gardens, i.e. is fencing required between gardens and the hedgerow • Timing of works to prevent harm and disturbance to nesting birds • Long-term future management (to maintain in good ecological and visual state) The strategy shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority before the development is brought into use. Reason:

To ensure the hedgerow is protected in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 25 Prior to the commencement of development and to avoid harm or disturbance to nesting birds for all construction works taking place in the main breeding bird season (i.e. March to July inclusive) a pre-commencement check for any ground nesting birds should be undertaken. This check should be undertaken by a suitably trained and experienced ecologist. Should any nesting birds be identified, suitable measures should be carried out to protect the birds in accordance with expert advice. Reason To ensure no adverse effect upon the ecology and protected species on the site may arise out of the proposed development and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV2.3 'Maintaining the Character and Quality of the Environment'. Informatives 01 INF 11A Control of working practices during construction phase (Close to residential) It is recommended that the following advice is followed to prevent a nuisance/ loss of amenity to local residential areas. Please note that the Council’s Neighbourhood Enforcement have a legal duty to investigate any complaints about noise or dust. If a statutory nuisance is found to exist they must serve an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Failure to comply with the requirements of an Abatement Notice may result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon conviction in Rotherham Magistrates' Court. It is therefore recommended that you give serious consideration to the below recommendations and to the steps that may be required to prevent a noise nuisance from being created. (i) Except in case of emergency, operations should not take place on site other than between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday and between 09:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays. There should be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Local Planning Authority should be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency and a schedule of essential work shall be provided. (ii) Heavy goods vehicles should only enter or leave the site between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 on weekdays and 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no such movements should take place on or off the site on Sundays or Public Holidays (this excludes the movement of private vehicles for personal transport). (iii) Best practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may include water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment. At such times when due to site conditions the prevention of dust nuisance by these means is considered by the Local Planning Authority in consultations with the site operator to be impracticable, then movements of soils and overburden shall be temporarily curtailed until such times as the site/weather conditions improve such as to permit a resumption.

(iv) Effective steps should be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud, dust and other materials on the adjoining public highway caused by vehicles visiting and leaving the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, slurry, mud or any other material from the site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the developer. 02 Flooding (Outside Flood Plain) Whilst the site does not lie within the flood plain as shown on the Environment Agency's 1 in 100 year Indicative Flood Plain Maps it is noted that the site is within an area that has historically flooded in the past. It is important that all proposed dwellings must be designed and constructed, to protect and safeguard against all possible risks from flooding. Further guidance on how properties may be protected against possible flooding problems can be found on the Environment Agency's web site. In all events the proposed dwellings must not divert or create or cause additional flood water problems to any adjacent or neighbouring land. 03 INF 32A FIRE APPLIANCES The applicant is advised that access for fire appliances should be in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document B volume 2 part B5 section 16. 04 Water supplies should be in accordance with Approved Document B, Volume 2, part B5 section 15. 05 INF 33 Section 106 Agreements The planning permission is subject to a Legal Agreement (Obligation) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The S106 Agreement is legally binding and is registered as a Local Land Charge. It is normally enforceable against the people entering into the agreement and any subsequent owner of the site. 06 In accordance with the requirements of Condition 14, appropriate pedestrian links shall be provided from the Phase 1 and 2 developments to Sawn Moor Road, as required to comply with Condition 11.

Background The application was reported to the Planning Board Meeting on 15th December 2011 where Members will recall that they were minded to grant permission subject to the completion of an agreement between the applicant and the Council pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the imposition of conditions. The application was subsequently reported to the Planning Board meeting on 17 May 2011 where Members will recall the assessment of the application was reviewed in light of the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The application was re-assessed to ensure that the proposals comply with the requirements of the NPPF. On this basis Members were again minded to grant permission subject to the completion of an agreement between the applicant and the Council pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the imposition of conditions. The S106 Agreement is yet to be signed and the current application has been submitted due primarily to amendments to some of the house types proposed. Site Description & Location The application site is a large area of land on the edge of Thurcroft. It comprises approximately 13 hectares of agricultural land and is enclosed to the west by residential properties on Green Arbour Road, to the north by residential properties on Sawn Moor Road, Sawn Moor Avenue, and Arbour Drive, and across Laughton Road to the east by further residential properties on Laughton Road, Autumn Close and Howards Close. To the south of the site is further agricultural land, within the Green Belt. To the immediate north of the site is a farmhouse which is a Grade II listed building. Further to the north within the existing residential development is Thurcroft Junior School and Community Library. Thurcroft centre which contains a number of shops, recreation facilities and bus stops is also to the north of the site. There are views to the east of the All Saints Church, Laughton-en-le-Morthen which is a Grade I listed building. Proposal The proposals have been amended since the application was previously heard at Planning Board. Most of these amendments involve changes to plot types, the re-positioning of a number of affordable housing units and slight amendments to the layout of the dwellings to accommodate these changes. The plots affected include 1 – 4, 9 – 10, 75, 79 – 80, 85 – 86, 103, 106 – 107, 209 – 110, 112 – 114, 131, 146 – 147, 154 – 155, 163 – 164, 190 – 191, 196 – 201, 259 – 260, 280, 287, 289 – 369. Altogether 119 units are affecting by the proposals. Additional amendments include the relocation of a number of sub-stations within the site. The amendments do not alter the overall nature of the development which seeks full planning permission for the erection of 369 dwellings, at a density of approximately 34 dwellings per hectare. There are three proposed accesses to this site, one via Sawn Moor Avenue to serve a small number of dwellings, and two via Laughton Road which would serve as the main access points to the site. The site is proposed to be

constructed in several phases with the south eastern part of the site to be constructed first and finally the western part of the site adjacent to Sawn Moor Road constructed last. This phasing is to be spread over several years. Affordable Housing provision will be made in each phase as they are pepper-potted throughout the site. Development Plan Allocation and Policy Development Plan: In respect of the amendments to the scheme previously considered by Members, the following Policies are considered to be relevant: Policy HG5: The Residential Environment states: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.” Policy ENV2.8 ‘Settings and Curtilages of Listed Buildings’ states: “The Council will resist development proposals which detrimentally affect the setting of a listed building or are harmful to its curtilage structures in order to preserve its setting and historical context.” Policy ENV3.1: Development and the Environment states: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.” Other Material Considerations National Guidance: Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states “the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Achieving sustainable development” and goes on at Paragraph 57 “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.” Paragraph 58 states “Local and neighbourhood plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will be expected for the area. Such policies should be based on stated objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics. Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:

• will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

• establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to 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 (including incorporation of green and other

public space as part of developments) and support local facilities and transport networks;

• respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation;

• create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion; and

• are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.”

Paragraph 60 states “Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.” It goes on to state at Paragraph 61 “Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.” Finally at Paragraph 64 it states “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.” The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Supplementary Planning Guidance: Transportation Guidance 1: Car parking standards (as amended June 2011) sets out minimum car parking standards which for dwellinghouses are: 1 or 2 bedrooms 1 parking space per dwelling . 3 or 4 bedrooms 2 No. parking spaces per dwelling . Flats 1 parking space per flat plus 50% allocated for visitors Affordable Housing Interim Planning Statement seeks to ensure that new housing developments contribute towards meeting identified affordable housing need in Rotherham. Developer contributions are required towards affordable housing on new housing developments of 15 units or more; the Council requires that 25% of housing on these sites be affordable. South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide was adopted by the Council as best practice following public consultation in May 2011 pending consideration of its adoption (all or in part) as a Supplementary Planning Document following adoption of the LDF Core Strategy. The amended proposals have been assessed against the same elements of the Guidance as under the original scheme. Publicity Since the amended plans have been received for this application seven objections have been received from neighbouring properties. A number of these objections are raising concerns regarding the principle of the development and are as follows:

• the development will result in destruction of open views and rural aspect to all houses adjacent.

• The land is green belt and should not be built upon.

• the development will abuse and breach the human rights of surrounding residents by breaching the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property and the right to respect for private and family life through disturbance from construction work and overlooking from the new properties respectively.

• The proposals will devalue neighbouring properties.

• Selling houses nearby will be almost impossible.

• Increased noise and dust pollution from the heavy amount of traffic from the new estate.

• Potential for increased traffic accidents on Laughton Road due to the speed of traffic over the bridge near the proposed road junction.

• No additional school places/increase in spaces at doctors surgery/dentists in the area.

• The appearance of the new estate is tightly packed houses with small gardens in a small field – it will look like a Ghetto.

• No space on site for the parking of cars from the development.

• Not enough space for emergency vehicles to move around the site.

• The site is a complete warren ideal for criminals, building sites naturally attract crime related matters, theft and damage.

• Houses will not sell on the site in the current climate.

• Other sites are more suitable than this.

• Local wildlife will be affected.

• The public open space on the site will be used for anti social behaviour.

• Loss of a view from the bungalows on Sawn Moor Road.

• Bus provision is not as reported in the previous application on Laughton Road.

• For those who live on site with mobility issues, walking into Thurcroft centre will not be possible.

• There are issues with existing sewerage in the area.

• No access should be taken off Sawn Moor Road into the site, which should be its own separate estate.

• If land continues to be built on soon Thurcroft will join up with Laughton Common.

• There is clear discrimination between Sawn Moor Road/Arbour Drive and Laughton Road in terms of where the Affordable Housing is located (close to Sawn Moor Road/Arbour Drive and away from Laughton Road).

Objections raised specifically in relation to the amendments to the plans are as follows:

• A garage will be built at the bottom of the garden of no. 43 Arbour Drive causing a loss of a view.

• The majority of the affordable units are to be provided against the dwellings on Sawn Moor Road/Sawn Moor Avenue/Arbour Drive resulting in low cost housing provision against the existing dwellings and higher value housing stock gaining the wider views to the south.

Consultations The following are responses in respect of the proposed amendments from the proposals previously considered by Members.

The Council’s Transportation Unit have no objections to the amended proposals subject to conditions. The Council’s Streetpride (Landscape Section) have no objections to the revised Landscaping Masterplan subject to conditions. The Council’s Streetpride (Trees and Woodland Section) have no objections to the revised Landscaping Masterplan subject to conditions. The Council’s Streetpride (Drainage Section) has no objections to the revised proposals subject to conditions. The Council’s Conservation Officer has no objections to the proposals. The Director of Culture and Leisure (Ecology) has stated that the revised plans are mostly in relation to house type design and layout. There is no apparent change to the potential ecological impact of the proposed development and the comments previously submitted are considered to remain relevant. The Director of Neighbourhood and Adult Services (Urban Design Officer) has no objections to the amended proposals. The Council’s Neighbourhood Investment Service (Housing) has no objections to the proposed changes to the affordable units, the tenure, mix, or size and style of the dwellings, subject to the signing of a S106 agreement to secure the Affordable Housing. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The principle of the development has already been accepted on this site by Members when the application was previously heard at the Council’s Planning Board meeting on both 15 December 2011 and 17 May 2012. It is therefore not proposed to reassess the principle of the development in this report. Therefore the main issues to be considered are:

• The amendments to the design and layout of the dwellings;

• The impact on neighbouring properties;

• The amendments to the layout and house types of the affordable housing units;

• Other issues raised by objectors. Amendments to design and layout: The proposals involve amendments to a number of plot types within the site, most of which can be found on the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the boundary with

the properties on Arbour Drive and Sawn Moor Avenue. In the original submitted application there were 15 different house types proposed on the site. In these amended proposals, there are now 26 different house types proposed, although the total number of units on the site remains the same and as such the density of the site remains the same at 34 units per hectare. As such it is still considered that the development is by modern standards relatively low density and reflective of an edge of centre suburban location with room for landscaping to mature overtime. In the original plans the majority of dwellings on the site were three or four bed properties with 2no proposed 1 bed flats above garages (FOGs). These amendments alter this to provide a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 bed properties and also retaining the 2no 1 bed FOGs. The dwellings will still be a mix of two storey and two and a half storey (two storey with rooms in the roofspace) and it is considered that the scale of the dwellings is acceptable and relates to the scale of the dwellings surrounding the site. The scheme is still considered to have a good overall internal layout with easy access to public transport and some local amenities, and also has good character areas and opportunities to create views over to the Grade II listed farmhouse and All Saints Church at Laughton-en-le-Morthen which is to the east of the site and is a Grade I listed building. The streets are considered pedestrian and cycle friendly, with well overlooked public open space and areas for informal recreation. A wider variety of house types and sizes have now been provided with a range of different coloured bricks and affordable housing provision. The applicant has also specifically designed certain areas to create overlooking and utilise boundary planting. It is considered that the estate design accords with the general principles and goals set out in the NPPF and the applicant has demonstrated a concerted effort to achieve a well designed scheme with character. The amendments are not considered to have amended the Building for Life score that was previously judged at 13.5/20 and therefore the site scores relatively well under the Building for Life Assessment. Impact on neighbouring properties: Objections have been received from neighbouring properties to this site with regard to the location of the proposed dwellings close to boundaries with existing dwellings. These objections are on the grounds of loss of light, overlooking and loss of a view. The amendments to the proposed dwellings on the northern boundary adjacent to the properties on Sawn Moor Avenue and Arbour Drive which back onto the site are not considered to result in any additional harm to these existing properties than was previously proposed. The properties on Sawn Moor Avenue and Arbour Drive have rear gardens of approximately 25 – 30 metres in length and it is noted that the recommended minimum distances between existing and proposed dwellings are achieved. It is therefore considered that the amended proposed dwellings would not result in harm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of the dwellings on Sawn Moor Avenue and Arbour Drive with regard to loss of light, overshadowing or overlooking. The occupiers of no. 43 Arbour Drive have objected stating that the original plans show a garage to be constructed at the rear of their garden which will result in harm to their property. The plans that were previously presented to Planning Board showed two parking spaces to be provided to the rear of the garden of no. 43 Arbour Drive but did not show a garage. In these amended plans these parking spaces have been removed and therefore only driveway is proposed to the rear garden of no. 43 Arbour Drive. It is

therefore considered that the amended proposals would not result in harm to the amenity of the occupiers of no. 43 Arbour Drive. At the dwelling of Clearview, Sawn Moor Avenue there is a single storey detached outbuilding to the rear of this dwelling which is being used as a “Granny Annexe”. This building is located approximately 1.5 metres from the boundary with the application site and has a window serving a living room facing this boundary. The occupiers of the dwelling of Clearview previously raised concern that Plot 289 is close to this boundary and would result in overshadowing and loss of light to this outbuilding. The amended proposals show a single garage at Plot 289 angled away from the rear of Clearview, with the two storey dwelling to the side of this garage the layout of which is not that different to those previously proposed. It is therefore considered that the proposals would not result in harm to the occupiers of the detached annexe to warrant refusal of the application on these grounds. Affordable Housing provision: The majority of the amendments to these proposals involve amendments to the affordable housing units on the site, including the addition of a different plot type resulting in the provision of five different plot types that make up the affordable housing provision. This has resulted in a number of the units being relocated within the site, although in close proximity to their previous locations. As with the original proposals, the amendments will result in the provision of 25% affordable housing units (92 in total) around the site. As previously, 51 of the dwellings will be for social rented and 41 of the dwellings will be in shared equity. This is in line with the 14% and 11% split of the total number of properties on site as recommended in the Council’s Affordable Housing IPS. An objection from a local resident to this application is that the majority of the affordable units are to be provided against the dwellings on Sawn Moor Road/Sawn Moor Avenue/Arbour Drive resulting in low cost housing provision against the existing dwellings and higher value housing stock gaining the wider views to the south. The affordable housing will be a mixture of terraced and semi detached residential dwellings as well as two flats above a triple garage. Notwithstanding the objection received, the proposed amended siting of the housing is still “pepper potted” throughout the site and is still considered acceptable and will provide good quality affordable housing of varying styles and sizes and it is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing IPS. Other issues raised by objectors: As previously stated the principle of the development has already been accepted on this site by Members when the application was previously heard at the Council’s Planning Board meeting on both 15 December 2011 and 17 May 2012. Therefore any issues raised by objectors relating to the principle of the development were addressed in the previous reports and have not been addressed here. Conclusion The principle of the development has already been accepted on this site by Members when the application was previously heard at the Council’s Planning Board meeting on both 15 December 2011 and 17 May 2012. Details such as proposed access to the site,

overall provision of open space, and impact of the development on nearby Listed Buildings, have not altered and are once again considered to be acceptable. The amendments to the proposals are considered to represent an acceptable form of development that would not be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, by virtue of their size, appearance, layout, and materials, the amended proposed dwellings would not have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area or on neighbouring properties and would successfully assimilate with the surrounding developments. Consequently, the proposed development makes a positive impact on the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design in accordance with the policy and guidance referred to above. It is therefore recommended that the application as revised be granted with conditions, subject to the signing of the related S106 Legal Agreement. RB2012/0037 Erection of 37 no. dwellinghouses and a three storey block of apartments comprising 12 No. units including associated car parking and landscaping at land at Manvers Way, Manvers for Taylor Wimpey RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY Recommendation A. That the Council enter into an agreement with the developer under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the purposes of securing the following:

• The provision of a total of 25% Affordable Units to be in the form of 12no. 2 bedroom apartments for rent.

• The provision of a contribution of £86,654 towards education provision.

• Maintenance of public open space.

• The provision of a contribution of £40,000 towards the upgrade of children’s play equipment on the existing Wath Park play area off Biscay Way, Wath.

B Consequent upon the satisfactory signing of such an agreement the Council resolves to grant permission for the proposed development subject to the following reasons for grant and conditions STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: Local Planning Policy

The application site is allocated as Mixed Use Area 3 in the UDP. The menu of acceptable uses in the UDP includes: A3, B1, C1, C3 and D2. HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites’ indicates that the Council will determine proposals in light of their location within the built up area and compatibility with adjoining uses. HG5 'The Residential Environment' indicates that the Council will encourage best practice in layout and design in order to enhance the quality of residential environment. ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ indicates that development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment. T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ aims to locate development close to public transport, discourage development which causes traffic congestion and promote safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities, as well as ensuring highway safety for car and public transport users.

Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. The Interim Planning Statement indicates that Affordable Housing shall be provided at a rate of 25% of the total on residential schemes of 15 units and above. The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guidance (SYRDG) has been adopted by Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Councils. This guidance relates to issues of unit size, minimum room dimensions and amenity space. Whilst the SYRDG has a threshold of 10 dwellings, it also indicates that the Guide is underpinned by the principles in Building for Life (BfL), Many of the design guidelines are appropriate to smaller developments and the guidelines and assessment criteria in this Guide will be used as the main point of reference when assessing schemes of less than ten dwellings. For the following reasons: The site is allocated for Mixed Use in the Unitary Development where residential development is within the menu of acceptable uses. Furthermore, the principle of the residential development of this site was established under RB2006/2304 and RB2006/1008 both of which indicated apartments on the application site and both of which were granted conditionally in 2006. These permissions remain extant as other elements of both permissions have been implemented. By virtue of their size, scale, form, design, mass, siting and materials the proposed dwellings would not have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area and would successfully assimilate with the surrounding approved developments.

Consequently the proposed development makes a positive impact on the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design in accordance with UDP Policies HG5 and ENV3.1 and paragraph 57 of the NPPF. In terms of impact on neighbouring properties, it is considered that the proposed development achieves acceptable spacing distances between existing and proposed residential properties. In addition, the proposed dwellings would not be of an overbearing or overdominant nature due to their size, scale, form, design and siting and together with the orientation and land levels would not give rise to any overshadowing or loss of privacy through overlooking of existing properties. Therefore, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity. The Affordable Housing element is acceptable, subject to the provision of 25% of the total scheme in line with the IPS. A financial contribution towards education provision is required as part of a S106 as RMBC Education have confirmed that there is a deficiency in school places in this area.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

• Site Layout Phase 3

• Planning Pack (with the exception of the apartment details – see below)

• Whitechurch-09 – Dwg No. 1842 Sheets 1 and 2 Rev C

• Whilton – Dwg No. P52/3/PL1

• Whilton – Dwg No. P52/3/PL2

• Sheldon – Varriant D1 – Dwg No. 1227 Rev D

• Landscape Masterplan – Dwg No. R/1274/1C

• Drainage General Arrangements – Plots 227-275

• Affordable Apartments details received 24 May, 13 and 14 June 2012 Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 03 No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted or samples of the materials have been left on site, and the details/samples

have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. Reason To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 04 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either; a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and to encourage drivers to make use of the parking spaces and to ensure that the use of the land for this purpose will not give rise to the deposit of mud and other extraneous material on the public highway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site and road safety. 05 Before the development is brought into use the car parking area shown on the site layout plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory garage/parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety 06 Before the development is commenced road sections, constructional and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is completed. Reason No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval 07 Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how the use of sustainable/public transport will be encouraged. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 08 Prior to the commencement of development, details of cycle parking facilities for the apartments / flats shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the Council's Cycle Parking Guidelines and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is brought into use Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 09

Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how the use of sustainable/public transport will be encouraged. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 10 The development shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the drainage details shown on the submitted plan, "Drainage General Arrangement – Plots 227 to 275" prepared by/for J R Paley Associates and Taylor Wimpey", unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority Reason In the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage 11 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted by WSP, Project number 1171563-IF4 dated 15 March 2012 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1) Finished floor levels are set no lower than 19.60m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) as stated on page 22 of the submitted FRA. Reason To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. 12 Prior to the commencement of development a design classification of DS-3 and an ACEC class of AC-3 for all sub surface concrete shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which is required due to the elevated soluble sulphate content of the soils across the site. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 13 If subsoil’s / topsoil’s are required to be imported to site for residential gardens and soft landscaping areas then these soils shall be tested at a rate and frequency to be agreed with the Local Authority to ensure they are free from contamination. A specification for the chemical quantity and depth of imported soils shall be defined and agreed in writing by this Local Authority. The results of all testing thereafter will shall be forwarded to the Local Authority for review and comment and the development carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

14 In the event that during development works unexpected significant contamination is encountered at any stage of the process, the local planning authority shall be notified in writing immediately. Any requirements for remedial works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. Works thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with an approved Method Statement which will ensure that the development will be suitable for use and that identified contamination will not present significant risks to human health or the environment. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 15 Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary: -The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. -The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. -Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. -Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. -The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. -A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. -A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works. -The programme for implementation. -Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 16 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’,

ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. Informatives 01 INF 11 Control of working practices during construction phase It is recommended that the following advice is followed to prevent a nuisance/ loss of amenity to local residential areas. Please note that the Council’s Neighbourhood Enforcement have a legal duty to investigate any complaints about noise or dust. If a statutory nuisance is found to exist they must serve an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 .Failure to comply with the requirements of an Abatement Notice may result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon conviction in Rotherham Magistrates' Court. It is therefore recommended that you give serious consideration to the below recommendations and to the steps that may be required to prevent a noise nuisance from being created. (i) Except in case of emergency, operations should not take place on site other than between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday and between 09:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays. There should be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Local Planning Authority should be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency and a schedule of essential work shall be provided. (ii) Heavy goods vehicles should only enter or leave the site between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 on weekdays and 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no such movements should take place on or off the site on Sundays or Public Holidays (this excludes the movement of private vehicles for personal transport). (iii) Best practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may include water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment. At such times when due to site conditions the prevention of dust nuisance by these means is considered by the Local Planning Authority in consultations with the site operator to be impracticable, then movements of soils and overburden shall be temporarily curtailed until such times as the site/weather conditions improve such as to permit a resumption. (iv) Effective steps should be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud, dust and other materials on the adjoining public highway caused by vehicles visiting and leaving the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, slurry, mud or any other material from the site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the developer. 02 Informative/ advice to applicant: The Environment Agency recommends that developers should: 1) Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination. 2) Refer to the Environment Agency Guiding Principles for Land Contamination for the type of information required in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, e.g. human health. 3) Refer to our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information.

Background The original application for the wider Manvers mixed use site was granted conditionally under application reference RB2004/2304 for the formation of a golf course with associated driving range, clubhouse and greenkeepers store, erection of a boathouse, residential development (comprising 10 apartment blocks, 202 dwellinghouses and a retirement village), public house/restaurants, extreme sports centre, bowling alley, bingo hall, hotel, health and fitness centre, day nursery, neighbourhood centre including medical centre, car showroom, petrol state, general industrial units and landscaping (including boardwalks and picnic areas). Since that original permission, an application was granted conditionally relating to only the residential part of the scheme under application RB2006/1008 - Erection of residential development comprising 10 apartment blocks (137 apartments in total) and 202 dwellinghouses (amendment to house types & layout approved under RB2004/2304). The specific application site under this application was previously identified under both of the above permissions as a site containing 10 blocks of apartments (137 in total). There have also been various subsequent applications for residential development and amendments to housetypes on the directly adjacent site to the south which is also being constructed by Taylor Wimpey. These proposals do not have a direct bearing on this application. Member may recall that this application was presented to Planning Board in May and was deferred for further consideration of the design of the apartment block, their position and the provision of affordable housing. Amendments have now been made to the apartment block and further information relating to affordable housing is contained within this report. EIA Screening Opinion The proposed development falls within the description contained at paragraph 10b (Urban Development Projects) of Schedule 2 to the TCP (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table in that Schedule (the area of development exceeds 0.5 hectares). However the Borough Council as the relevant local planning authority, having taken into account the criteria set out in Schedule 3 to the 1999 Regulations, and is of the opinion that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. Accordingly the authority has adopted the opinion that the development referred to is not EIA development as defined in the 1999 Regulations. Site Description & Location The application site consists of a thin parcel of land between an existing residential development site abutting Manvers Way (and currently being constructed by Taylor Wimpey) and the Manvers Lake.

The site lies within the Manvers Complex; to the west is further residential development, the neighbourhood centre, public house and various retail/commercial units. To the east is the industrial part of the Manvers site and to the south are residential properties. The site has been cleared ready for development and consists only of flat, vacant land which is enclosed by fencing which separates it from the adjacent development. There is substantial landscaping to the north of the application site along the lake and surrounding footpaths and views both of the lake and from the lake of the site are clear. Proposal This application proposes the residential development of the site comprising of 37no. residential dwellinghouses and 12no. 2 bedroom apartments. The submitted plans indicate that the existing spine road is to remain unchanged and the proposed residential development comprises of 12 different housetypes in a mixture of apartments, terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings. The dwellings are 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties with each of the houses being provided with 2 off road parking spaces. The apartments are provided with 12no. parking spaces, although a car park for an additional 15 spaces is currently being constructed adjacent to the apartments as part of the previous approval. The properties are predominantly arranged with the front elevations facing onto the access road and rear garden areas adjoining the lake to the north. Where properties have their main front elevation facing east or west there has been architectural detailing added to the side elevations overlooking the lake to add visual interest and avoid blank gables in this direction. The apartment block is orientated with its main front and rear elevations to the north and south. There are four proposed pedestrian/cycle links from the access road to the lake to the north one of which links the proposed open space within the central part of the site with the lake beyond. The site area also consists of a significant area of public open space running centrally within the site and orientated as a long strip extending into the adjacent residential development. This area of Public Open Space is shown to have pathways running through it and being largely grassed. Submitted Documents The application is accompanied by a number of technical documents including: • Design and Access Statement; • Planning Statement; • Flood Risk Assessment and amended Flood Risk Assessment; • Building for Life Assessment; • Phase 1 Desk Study. Development Plan Allocation and Policy

01 UDP Policies

The application site is allocated as Mixed Use Area 3 in the UDP. The menu of acceptable uses in the UDP includes: A3, B1, C1, C3 and D2.

HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites’ indicates that the Council will determine proposals in light of their location within the built up area and compatibility with adjoining uses. HG5 'The Residential Environment' indicates that the Council will encourage best practice in layout and design in order to enhance the quality of residential environment. ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ indicates that development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment. T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ aims to locate development close to public transport, discourage development which causes traffic congestion and promote safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities, as well as ensuring highway safety for car and public transport users. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process.

The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. The IPS indicates that Affordable Housing should be provided at 25% of all units for schemes that exceed 15 units. South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide (SYRDG) The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guidance (SYRDG) has been adopted by Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Councils. This guidance relates to issues of unit size, minimum room dimensions and amenity space. Whilst the SYRDG has a threshold of 10 dwellings, it also indicates that the Guide is underpinned by the principles in Building for Life (BfL), Many of the design guidelines are appropriate to smaller developments and the guidelines and assessment criteria in this Guide will be used as the main point of reference when assessing schemes of less than ten dwellings. Publicity This application has been advertised by way of individual letters to neighbouring properties on 11th January and a site notice erected on 26th January. Following receipt of amended plans revised consultations were carried out on 19th March 2012. No representations have been received. Consultations Transportation Unit – no objections subject to relevant conditions; Education Section – requested a contribution of £86,654 towards school places as there is a deficiency in the catchment area. South Yorkshire Archeological Service - no comments Neighbourhoods (Affordable Housing Officer) – no comments subject to provision of 25% Affordable Housing on site. SYPTE – no objections subject to the provision of TravelMaster Passes; Streetpride (Landscape) – originally raised concerns regarding the content of the proposed landscape masterplan, however after detailed discussions with the applicant’s advisors and the submission of an amended plan, the original concerns have been addressed. Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) – no objections Neighbourhoods - (Urban Design) – originally raised concerns regarding the layout of the development and orientation of some of the units. Following discussions with the applicant’s advisors and the submission of a subsequent layout plan, these concerns have been addresses and any earlier concerns have been withdrawn. Yorkshire Water – no objections Environment Agency – no objections

Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main considerations in the determination of this application are:

• Principle of development;

• Layout, scale and appearance of the development;

• Position of apartment block;

• Landscape and Ecology;

• Highways Issues;

• Flood Risk;

• Planning Obligations; Principle The site is allocated for Mixed Use in the Unitary Development where residential development is within the menu of acceptable uses. Furthermore, the principle of the residential development of this site was established under RB2006/2304 and RB2006/1008 both of which indicated apartments on the application site and both of which were granted conditionally in 2006. These permissions remain extant as other elements of both permissions have been implemented. Layout, scale and appearance Policy HG5 of the adopted UDP encourages the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide high quality developments. This approach is also echoed in National Planning Policy in both PPS1 and PPS3. UDP Policy ENV 3.1 relates to ‘Development and the Environment’ and states that: ‘Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping …’ The NPPF at paragraph 57 states that: “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.” The proposed development is somewhat constrained by the presence of the existing access road into the site. Nevertheless the site is clearly visible from the adjacent lake

and it is considered that there are opportunities for views over the lake from the proposed development. In this regard the properties have been orientated predominantly with their main elevations facing the access road which provides a strong street scene in this direction. However, where traditional side elevations face the lake (to the north) a dual aspect housetype has been used where there is fenestration detail also in this elevation (by way of windows at ground, first and second floors). It is considered that this will not only add visual interest when viewing the development from the adjacent lake but will alsoallow for surveillance of the lake and surrounding footpaths from active windows. In general the housetypes are modern properties of a very similar design to those in the adjacent development (which is also being constructed by Taylor Wimpey). With regards to the apartment block, an amended plan has now been received following Members concerned raised at the last planning board. The footprint and internal layout remain the same, however a patterned render now covers the bottom third of the block finished with a artificial stone string to add visual interest to the elevation and ‘break up’ the massing of the elevation which was previously shown to be one material. French doors to the upper floor living rooms together with Juliet balconies have been introduced in the elevations and the windows are framed with the brick head feature and artificial stone cill to reflect the rest of the development. The palette of materials follows through with the adjacent development being similar in terms of brickwork and roof tiles and is considered that in this regard the proposal will assimilate with the adjacent development and the wider area which, in terms of residential development consists of relatively modern style properties of a mix of terraced, detached and semi-detached properties. A Building for Life Assessment has been submitted in support of the application, which the Council have scrutinised and scored at 12/20 which, whilst it does not meet the aspired 14/20, the main reasons for this primarily relate to the fact that the land was intended to be part of a comprehensive redevelopment of a larger site and was portioned up specifically for the layout of apartments. The depth of plots that can be achieved don’t allow for more secure back-to-back housing, which brings issues with the orientation of housing to appropriately front internal streets and the landscape features of the lake. Despite these constraints it is considered that the proposed scheme has addressed many of the original concerns, therefore on balance, a score of 12/20 is considered to be acceptable in this instance given the constraints and a desire to see the site developed. By virtue of their size, scale, form, design, mass, siting and materials the proposed dwellings would not have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the area and would successfully assimilate with the surrounding approved developments. Consequently the proposed development makes a positive impact on the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design in accordance with UDP Policies HG5 and ENV3.1 and paragraph 57 of the NPPF. Position of apartment block

At the last planning committee Members raised a question regarding the location of the apartments as they felt that they were in a remote location. The applicant has submitted additional supporting information which states that: “In part the location was determined by Highways as they felt that this was the most appropriate position for the apartments. The location of the apartments offers good views across the lake and the area of open space between the apartments and the lake. The apartments will still be in close to other parts of the development the houses to the south west but as they are likely to accommodate older people, there is less likely to be a conflict of lifestyles which would be more likely if they were placed in the middle of the development. Equally, a position in the middle of the development is more likely to result in other residents or local people accessing the lakeside via the common amenity area surrounding the apartments thereby turning this into a thoroughfare. The apartments located in the proposed position will also allow visitors to the apartments to have additional car parking within the visitors car park for the open space and thereby prevent on street car parking.” Landscape and Ecology Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by …… minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitments to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures …” The application is accompanied by a landscape masterplan which identifies areas of planting and proposed species. These are located primarily within the central area of the site, which has been identified as public open space, however additional planting, which includes tree planting is located along the boundary with the lake and within private garden areas. The Council’s landscape department have assessed these proposals and originally raised concerns regarding the use of close boarded timber boundary fencing along the lakeside frontage, the species of trees/shrubs proposed in the public open space, thresholds of footpath links to the lakeside path and the need to turf garden areas to ensure quick establishment. These concerns were presented to the applicant’s advisors and were subsequently incorporated into an amended landscape Masterplan which was further assessed by the Council’s landscape department, who have confirmed that the proposed development is acceptable and will provide an attractive setting for the residential development and when viewed from the lakeside. Having regard to the above, it is considered that subject to the imposition of conditions requiring amendments/additions to the species list, the proposed landscaping scheme and net ecological gain is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. Residential Amenity Issues The site is bounded to the north by the lake and to the south by an existing residential development. It is important to note at this stage that the site was originally designed to accommodate apartment blocks and is therefore constrained by the lake and adjacent residential developments.

The SPG indicates that there should be a minimum of 20 metres between principal elevations, a minimum of 12 metres between a principal elevation and an elevation with no habitable room windows and there should be no habitable room window within 10 metres of a boundary with another property. In this instance these dimensions are met except on some plots that face each other across the highway. However, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a material loss of privacy orovershadowing/ overbearing impact for the occupiers of the existing or proposed properties as the space between is part of the public realm and not private amenity space. Having regard to the above it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and is therefore considered to be acceptable. Highways Issues The original application for the wider Manvers mixed use site was granted conditionally under application reference RB2004/2304 for the formation of a golf course with associated driving range, clubhouse and greenkeepers store, erection of a boathouse, residential development (comprising 10 apartment blocks, 202 dwellinghouses and a retirement village), public house/restaurants, extreme sports centre, bowling alley, bingo hall, hotel, health and fitness centre, day nursery, neighbourhood centre including medical centre, car showroom, petrol state, general industrial units and landscaping (including boardwalks and picnic areas). Since the approval of this application, permission was granted on this specific site for the erection of 10 blocks of apartments (137 in total) – RB2006/1008. Both of the above applications were accompanied by a Transport Assessment/Statement. This current application is not supported by a Transport Statement, however it is acknowledged that the proposals comprise a reduced quantum of units to that approved under 2006/1008, consequently the number of vehicular movements will be reduced and the impact on the local highway network will be minimised. For these reasons it is considered that the proposed development will not be detrimental to highway safety or the free flow of traffic. Having regard to the proposed access and internal road layout, initial concerns were raised by the Council’s Transportation Unit in respect of the width of footpath links, lack of cycle parking provision and lack of turning and parking provision to individual plots. These concerns were relayed to the applicant’s advisors and a revised layout plan was submitted which addressed all of the aforementioned concerns. The proposed development is now therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with UDP Policy T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’. Flood Risk The Environment Agency Flood Zone Map indicates that that majority of the site lies within Flood Zone 1, but that a small area of the site lies within Flood Zone 2. Flood Zone 2 is land designated as having between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 100 annual probability of river flooding (between 0.1% and a 1%) in any year. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2008) for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council also indicates that the

majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 1, but that a small proportion is located within Flood Zone 2. The NPPF Technical Guidance for Flood Risk requires developers to carry out sequential testing to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with a lower probability of flooding that would be appropriate for the type of development or land use proposed. The Sequential Test, aims to steer all new developments to areas at the lowest risk of flooding and to ensure that the development type proposed is appropriate by reference to the flood risk. In this instance the Environment Agency Flood Zone Map indicates that that majority of the site lies within Flood Zone 1, but that a small area of the site lies within Flood Zone 2, which has been delineated based on the autumn 2000 flood event extent. Since this flood event, land levels between the site and Manvers Lake have increased with the building of the footpath along the lake front, therefore the applicant’s technical advisors consider that these flood zones do not represent a current day risk from flooding and the site is considered to be at low risk from all sources of flooding. The Environment Agent have assessed the proposals and concur with this view, therefore it is not considered that the sequential test is applicable in this instance. Having regard specifically to flood risk from fluvial, tidal, overland and groundwater sources, the applicant’s advisors have assessed each of the sources and the impact of them on the site and proposed development and in each case it is considered that the risk of flooding is considered to be low and/or negligible. Having considered all of the information submitted in support of the application and the response from the Environment Agency, it is considered that the proposed development complies with the provisions of the NPPF, in that the proposed development is not at risk from flooding nor will it have a detrimental impact on flood risk elsewhere. Planning Obligations The Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 introduced a new legal framework for the consideration of planning obligations and, in particular, Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regs states: "(2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is- (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development." All of the tests must be complied with and the planning application must be reasonable in all other respects. The following paragraphs set out the required obligations: • A contribution towards provision of education of £2,342 per dwelling (a total of £86,654 Contributions will usually only be sought where it has been demonstrated that there will be a demand for additional school places as a result of the development. The level of existing or potential surplus permanent school places in the local area will be taken into account. The application proposes a total of 37 dwellings (plus 12no. apartments) and there is known to be insufficient capacity within existing school buildings in Wath and

West Melton for future school years (primary school). The proposal is considered to represent a significant increase in family housing in Wath which will increase the demand for school places within the catchment area. The proposed contribution is calculated from current Department for Children, Schools and Families figures for the cost of school places. • Provision on site of 25% of the total number of dwellings to be Affordable Units(12no units); Paragraph 50 of the NPPF states that: “…where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.” The Council’s Interim Planning Statement (IPS) sets out the Council’s requirement for Affordable Housing Provision. A Strategic Housing Market Assessment has been undertaken to establish the level of need for affordable housing in the Borough in accordance with national policy and the work carried out locally to assess need concluded that the following policy will be applied: “For planning applications for 15 or more houses or for sites of 0.5 hectares or more, no less than 25% of all dwellings shall be provided on site, as affordable units. 14% of which to be available as social rented housing and 11% as affordable intermediate tenures.” A request for 25% Affordable Housing is therefore considered to be justified and evidenced through the NPPF and IPS on Affordable Housing. However, the new homes proposed consisted of 37no. 4 bedroom “Executive” Style homes which would have a value of over £250,000. These larger homes are not always appropriate for General needs affordable housing units for the following reasons;

• Registered Providers are reluctant to purchase higher value 4 bedroom homes (even with Developer Discount) as the income generated from target rents will not meet the Registered Provider’s mortgage payments on the property. Historically Homes & Communities Agency grant was allocated to enable Registered Providers to purchase S106 units. However, this source of funding has now been removed leaving a funding gap. Currently on the Manvers development there are 7x 4 bed houses that have been delivered via S106 agreements which have not been purchased by any Registered Providers. The two Developers who own these units have offered them for sale to R.M.B.C at best consideration.

• If larger homes were purchased by the Registered Provider to be sold on as Shared ownership units, purchasing 50% of a home at approximately £125,000 (Total Open market value £250,000) would be beyond the means of many Rotherham citizens. Currently the average household income in Rotherham is £27,017. On an income multiplier of 3.5 times this salary a potential purchaser could only obtain a mortgage of £94,532. In addition a potential purchaser would require a minimum 10% deposit (approximately £12,500) and would have to pay

rent on the half of the house they did not own £160.00 per month. Under the definition of PPS3 Affordable Housing must “meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a low cost enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices.” Clearly even purchasing just a 50% share of a high value home does not meet the definition of Affordable Housing.

The applicant was willing to offer a Commuted sum in lieu of on site delivery if the Council preferred this option. However, the requirement would be that this money has to be spent in the same ward to enable Affordable Housing delivery. The most likely site where more affordable Housing can be delivered within 5 years would be on the White Bear estate. However, this would reinforce the delivery of affordable housing in one area and private market housing on a different location, rather than the mixed and sustainable communities that is the ambition of the Council. Therefore after consideration, the Council’s Strategic Housing & Investment Services felt that on site delivery of smaller units was a preferable option in order to meet housing need in the locality. The evidence base for this approach is contained within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Keychoices waiting lists, both of which identify 2 bedroom homes as being in the greatest demand for Affordable units. As a result of purposeful and pragmatic negotiations it was agreed that an the block of 12 x two bedroom apartments all for social rent would be an appropriate Affordable Housing offer. The Council’s Strategic Housing & Investment Services wish to acquire suitable units as Council House stock for rent. The applicant is agreeable to offer these units to the Council in the first instance at a transfer value of no more than 60% of open market value. If the Council does proceed to purchase these units then they will offer value for money for the authority. The four ground floor apartments will be wheelchair accessible and so will be suitable for older people or residents with mobility issues. The specification is to high standards and the apartments meet Lifetime homes space requirements. The proposed apartments would offer a great deal of flexibility. The internal layouts mean that they can be configured as either one or two bedroom apartments simply by installing or removing a stud wall. The may become more critical as Welfare Reform and the “Bedroom tax” is introduced via changes to the Benefits system. The Council recognises that there is a perception that managing apartment blocks can be problematic. Therefore if these apartments are built out the Council would look to introduce a sensitive lettings policy. We may consider a policy on the following lines:

• People who are under occupying Council homes could be the first priority group. As of October 2011 there are 2,325 people under occupying Council Homes boroughwide. Within Wath and Swinton (S63 & S64 postcode areas) there are just under 1,800 single people living in 3 and 4 bedroom Council Homes.

• Those with mobility issues who require wheelchair accessible properties

• Over 40 age group • Maintenance of Public Open Space

The Local Authority no longer adopt and/or maintain additional areas of open space as a result of future development. The developer is therefore required to enter into an Agreement with the Council to ensure that these areas will be maintained in perpetuity. The proposed development includes public open space, therefore a request that this is managed by the developer and/or a management company is considered to be justified. • A contribution of £40,000 towards the upgrade of children’s play equipment at Wath Park, off Biscay Way, Wath. There is an existing play area approximately 600m from the proposed development within Wath Park off Biscay Way. It is considered that a reinvestment in the Wath Park infrastructure through a S106 contribution as opposed to the provision of a new play area with the associated ongoing maintenance implications is more appropriate in this instance as any play area within the site of the new development would have the potential to be controversial due to the proximity of the open water nearby. The proposal is considered to represent an increase in population in this area and the reinvestment into upgrading children’s play equipment within Wath Park will benefit future residents of the proposed development. The sum of £40,000 is therefore considered appropriate. Conclusion In light of the above, it is considered that the proposals comply with the relevant national and local planning policy and guidance and as such it is therefore recommended that subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contribution towards education, 25% Affordable Housing and the management and maintenance of open space that planning permission be granted subject to the recommended conditions. RB2012/0241 Continuation of use of class A1 non-food premises & garden centre & car park with amendment of condition 3 (no retail sales of food) imposed by R83/1679P to allow 20% of the floor area to be used for the sale of food at the former B & Q, Tenter Street, Thornhill for Oakgate (Rotherham) LLP RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: EC5 ‘Mixed Use Areas’ T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ T8 ‘Access’

Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. The Council’s Town Centre Retail and Leisure Study (2010) For the following reasons:

The site is located within an area allocated for Mixed Use purposes within the Council’s adopted UDP. It is considered that although Use Class A1 (shops) is not specifically mentioned as being a class of development that would be acceptable in this particular mixed use area, this particular site has a long established history of being used for retail purposes.

The revised proposal to allow a maximum of 20% of the gross floorspace to be utilised for the sale of food (convenience) goods would be an integral part of the occupation of the store by a discount retailer which given the fallback position, operation and flexibility shown, should not be required to be disaggregated and therefore not assessed against more sequentially preferable sites in the town centre. Given the level of floorspace proposed, which is below the threshold set out in the NPPF in relation to undertaking an impact assessment, it is further not considered necessary to undertake a full impact assessment of the proposal. Whilst not easily accessible from the town centre, the site is considered to be in a sustainable location where there is access to a range of transport options. The proposal to allow 20% of the floorspace for the sale of convenience goods would not give rise to a materially different highway/traffic situation as the main use of the building would be as existing (for non food retail). Subject to the laying out of a one way system into/out of the site and car parking being in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions and Reasons 01 No more than 20% of the building’s floorspace shall be used for the sale of food or convenience goods. Reason In order to minimise the impact on the town centre. 02 Before the premises are brought into use the car parking area shown on the approved

plan (Drawing No. P01, received 4 July 2012) shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory parking spaces and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 03 The area hatched and marked ‘A’ on the attached plan shall at no time be used for the parking of vehicles. Reason To ensure the number of parking spaces provided do not exceed the Council’s Maximum Parking Standards. 04 Within 3 months from the date of this permission, details of cycle parking provision shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved details shall be implemented within an agreed timeframe. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 05 Within 3 months from the date of this permission, a Travel Plan shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include clear and unambiguous objectives, modal split targets together with a programme of implementation, monitoring, validation and regular review and improvement. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed of and give prior approval in writing to any subsequent improvements or modifications to the Travel Plan following submission of progress performance reports as time tabled in the monitoring programme. For further information please contact the Transportation Unit (01709) 822186. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 06 Before the premises are brought into use, the access on Greasbrough Street shall be signed or marked 'In Only' and the access on Tenter Street signed or marked 'Out Only' in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The accesses shall thereafter be used as a one way system only. Reason In the interests of road safety. 07 Within the site lines as delineated on the plan attached to the original application RB1983/1673 no obstructions to visibility greater than 0.6 metres shall be erected or placed. Reason To safeguard visibility.

08 All surface water from the site shall be intercepted and disposed of separately such that it does not flow into the highway or affect the existing highway drainage. Reason The highway drains are incapable of adequately accommodating the additional drainage.

Background There have been a number of previous planning applications submitted relating to this site dating back to the 1950s. Planning permission RB1983/1676 relates to the erection of class 1 non-food premises and garden centre and car park which was granted conditionally on 19 January 1984. Condition 3 attached to the aforementioned permission states: ‘This permission is given only on the basis that no retail sales of food will take place.’ The reason for the imposition of this condition was that the location was considered unsuitable and the number of parking spaces available would be insufficient for the purposes of food retailing. The current application is now seeking to remove condition 3 to allow full retail sales of food goods from the premises. Two previous applications RB2010/0048 and RB2011/1218 were submitted for the complete removal of condition 3 but were subsequently withdrawn. Members may remember that the latter of the two applications was presented at the Planning Board Meeting in November 2011, where Members voted in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application, but was withdrawn by the applicant before a decision was formally issued. The reasons for refusal were going to be: 01 The removal of the non-food retail sales condition attached to RB1983/1676 would introduce a food retail store in an out-of-centre location. The Council considers that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that all more central sites in the catchment area have been thoroughly assessed. Furthermore, it is considered that the submitted Retail Assessment fails to adopt the flexibility required by PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’ in considering sequentially preferable sites. The removal of the condition would lead to a development that is considered to be contrary to Policy EC17.1 (a) of PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’. 02 The removal of the non-food retail sales condition would essentially render the premises with an open A1 (retail) permission with a gross floorspace of 2,880 sq metres. This would exceed the convenience floorspace requirements identified in the 2010 Rotherham Town Centre Retail and Leisure Study to 2019 in an out of centre location which is not well located to Rotherham town centre, leaving only 255 sq metres gross convenience floorspace to 2026. Accordingly, the removal of the condition would be likely to have a significant impact upon the vitality and viability of Rotherham town centre, and the applicant has failed to provide an appropriate assessment of the impact of this proposal as the submitted impact assessment is not considered fit for purpose. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EC17.1 (b) of PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’. Screening Opinion

The proposed development falls within the description contained at paragraph 10b of the Schedule 2 to the 2011 Regulations and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table in the Schedule. However, the Local Planning Authority, having taken into account the criteria set out in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, is of the opinion that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority has adopted the opinion that the development referred to above for which planning permission is sought is not EIA development as defined in the 2011 Regulations. Site Description & Location The site is located immediately south of Tenter Street and west of the B6089 Greasbrough Street, on the north-west side of Rotherham. The site is rectangular and is approximately 10,190 sq. metres in area. It currently comprises a 2,889 sq. metre gross floor area, flat roof, rectangular building to the north of the site with an associated area for a garden centre to the south-west of the building and car parking to the south and east of the building with space for 133 vehicles. It was previously occupied by B&Q but has been vacant since they relocated to a site off Rotherham Road in 2009. Vehicular access to the site is taken from Greasbrough Street at the south-east corner of the site with egress being onto Tenter Street. The service area is accessed from Tenter Street at the north-west corner of the site. To the north, west and east of the site there are industrial and commercial buildings being used for a variety of B1, B2 and B8 uses. To the south of the site there is an area of grassland which is used as a playing field for residents of the Thornhill and Masbrough areas of the Borough. Proposal This application was originally submitted to totally remove condition no. 3 of RB1983/1676 and allow unrestricted food and convenience goods sales. Condition No. 3 states: “This permission is given only on the basis that no retail sale of food will take place.” This reason given for this condition being attached was, “The location is considered unsuitable and the number of parking spaces available is insufficient for purposes of food retailing.” However, following negotiations with the applicant the application has been amended and now seeks to vary condition No. 3 to allow the 20% of the floor area of the premises to be used for the sale of food (convenience goods). The site would utilise the existing access but a one way system would operate. In support of this application a PPS4 statement, a Transport Assessment and a draft Travel Plan have been submitted. The PPS4 statement accompanied the application as it was submitted before the publication of the NPPF. Whilst PPS4 has been replaced by the NPPF, there is still a requirement to undertake a sequential and impact test for retail development outside of town centres. As such this document is still fundamental in the

assessment of this application and has been amended to reflect the changes to the application. Development Plan Allocation and Policy The application site is located within an area allocated for Mixed Use purposes within the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The site is located within the Mixed Use area known as MU18 – Thames Street within which Use Classes A3, B1, C1 and D1 are listed as being acceptable in principle. The application has been assessed against the following UDP policies: EC5 ‘Mixed Use Areas’ which states, “Within Mixed Use Areas shown on the Proposals Map, a variety of land uses will be acceptable; the particular uses appropriate to each area and any limitations or requirements pertaining to these uses or their location being set out in Chapter 7 of this Written Statement.” T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ which states, “In considering the location of new development, the Council will have regard to the increasing desirability of reducing travel demand by ensuring that:

(i) land-uses are consolidated within existing commercial centres and settlement patterns which are already well served by transport infrastructure,

(ii) major trip generating land-uses, such as major employment, leisure, retail and high density residential developments, are located in close proximity to public transport interchanges and service corridors,

(iii) the development of sites which cause unacceptable traffic congestion on motorways, and local approach roads and trunk roads is avoided…”

T8 ‘Access’ which states, “The Council will seek to meet the access needs of people with mobility and sensory handicaps by promoting careful design and improved provision in both the refurbishment and development of buildings, public spaces, community facilities and transport networks through the development control process and in the course of public service delivery.” Other Material Considerations In addition to the above Development Plan Policies the proposal has also been assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular the following relevant paragraphs. Paragraph 24 states that: “Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with up to date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, the in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale”.

Paragraph 26 refers to impact assessments and states that: “When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m)…” The Council’s Town Centre Retail and Leisure Study (2010), contains the data regarding the need for additional retail floorspace, is also considered to be a material planning consideration. Although, it must be recognised that the spatial recommendations have not been adopted by the Council and as such do not represent an approved strategy in terms of uses for particular sites. Section 6.0 of The Town Centre Retail and Leisure Study presents the results of the assessment of the need for additional convenience goods and non-bulky and bulky comparison goods floorspace within the town centre. It should be noted that the floorspace need results generated are considered to be the likely maximum levels of need for each category of goods at the agreed forecast years of 2014, 2019 and 2026. In terms of the needs assessment for convenience goods floorspace, the study indicates that the floorspace need in gross terms is as follows:-

- by 2014 – 2,060 sq. metres - by 2019 – 2,410 sq. metres - by 2026 – 3,135 sq. metres

Further to the above a Borough Wide Retail and Leisure Study was undertaken earlier this year. This Study identified a broad need for around 8,660 sq. metres of convenience goods floorspace across Rotherham to 2027. Draft Policies within the emerging Local Development Framework, which was out to consultation earlier this year identifies that the Council will plan to accommodate 9,000 sq. metres gross of convenience floorspace to 2027, and the town centre will be the focus for the majority of this floorspace. A further policy states “A sustainable, well integrated extension of Rotherham town centre with good links to public transport interchanges to accommodate longer term retail floorspace requirements will be promoted.” A number of site are identified which could be for this extension, these are Drummond Street Car Park, the existing civic area and Crinoline House. Publicity The application has been advertised in the local press and by way of a site notice, while occupiers of neighbouring commercial premises have been notified in writing. No comments have been received. Consultations Transportation Unit have no objections from a highways perspective subject to conditions. Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services (Environmental Health) envisage no significant loss of amenity by virtue of noise, air quality or land pollution impact.

Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..in dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations - S.70 (2) TCPA 1990. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. In order to determine the impact the variation of the non-food condition attached to RB1983/1678 would have on this site, the town centre of Rotherham and the surrounding highway network, the following issues are deemed to be relevant:

• Principle of the development;

• Sequential Test and Impact Assessment;

• Highways Issues. Principle of development The site which the application relates to is located within an area allocated for Mixed Use purposes within the Council’s adopted UDP. The Mixed Use Area is identified in Chapter 7 of the UDP as being Mixed Use Area18 (MU18) – Thames Street, and it indicates that in this particular mixed use area, proposals falling within Use Classes A3, B1, C1 and D1 will be acceptable in principle. It is considered that although Use Class A1 (shops) is not specifically mentioned as being a class of development that would be acceptable in this particular mixed use area, given the site was last occupied by the bulky goods retailer B&Q for over 20 years until their relocation in 2009, this particular site has a long established history of being used for retail purposes. Sequential Test and Impact Assessment This application was originally submitted to remove condition no. 3 of RB1983/1676. However, the total removal of the condition was considered to be unacceptable as the site is considered to be an out of centre site where more sequentially preferable sites are available for a convenience (food) retail use. Furthermore, it was considered that the use of the site for an unrestricted A1 use would have a detrimental impact on the town centre. Following discussions with the applicant the application has now been amended to be a variation of condition no 3. It is proposed that condition no. 3 is amended to allow no more than 20% of the retail sales area of the premises to be utilised as convenience (food) retail sales. The applicant has stated that this will allow the occupation of the unit by a discount retailer where sales are predominantly non food (as would be allowed without any planning permission). There is however a requirement for a small amount of floorspace to be occupied for food sales (convenience goods). In this instance as Condition 3 restricts any food sales in this building it is necessary to submit a variation of condition application to allow the 20% of the floor area to be used for the sale of discount food.

Indeed under many circumstances the amount of floorspace (i.e. 20%) would be likely to be considered to be ancillary to the main use of a building although convenience and comparison (non food) sales do not normally operate under this arrangement. The application has submitted a revised supporting statement which deals with the requirements of the NPPF in relation to town centre uses. There are two main issues in the consideration of the sequential test: 1. The fallback position and 2. Whether the proposal should be disaggregated to allow the convenience floorspace to be located in the town centre. The fall back position The applicant has referred to a fall back position which is a material consideration, however the weight attached to a fall back position will be dependant on the likelihood of it being implemented. The existing planning permission relating to this building was granted in 1983 (RB1983/1678) and gave permission for an open A1 retail permission with a condition restricting the sale of food from the premises. The building (which is approximately 2,880 sq m) can be occupied by a comparison retailer on this basis and whether the site is out of centre or edge of centre is irrelevant in this regard. The applicant has indicated that it would be likely that the store would operate as a comparison retailer if this permission was refused and as such the only consideration in the determination of this application is therefore the proposal for 20% of the floor area to be utilised for the sale of convenience goods and whether any harm would result from this. This equates to 576 sq m. The amount of floorspace to be used for the sale of convenience (food) goods will in simple terms allow the building to be occupied by a specific retailer who requires some flexibility in the format of the floorspace in what will essentially be a comparison store. Whether the proposal should be disaggregated to allow the convenience floorspace to be in the town centre Paragraph 24 of the NPPF requires the application of a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with up to date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, the in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered…Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. The applicant has stated that the convenience element of this proposal is integral to the overall use of the store by the retailer who is interested in occupation. The convenience element of the proposal will not be in the form of a separate store or in a form that would allow distinction between uses, the supporting statement indicates that some sale of food and alcohol will be accommodated within the store to a maximum of 576 square metres. The Practice Guidance (to the former PPS4) states that it is not the purpose to require development to be split into separate areas where flexibility in the business model and scope of disaggregation has been demonstrated.

The conclusions of the applicants supporting statement that appeals and call in decisions generally accept that stores should be able to provide a better choice of food and non food under one roof is accepted. In this instance it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated flexibility in setting out the exact level of maximum floorspace to be used for the sale of food (from a proposal to totally remove the condition) and it would not be reasonable to require the disaggregation of this floorspace to a town centre location. Turning to the impact the removal of the condition would have on the vitality and viability of the town centre Paragraph 26 refers to impact assessments and states that: “When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m)…” The Council do not have a locally set threshold for requiring an impact assessment. The amount of floorspace to be considered equates to 576 square metres which is significantly below the threshold set out in the NPPF (2500 square metres). It is therefore not considered to be necessary to undertake an impact assessment in this instance. However, the applicant has submitted a statement which sets out a brief assessment of the impact of the proposal on the town centre. The conclusion of the impact assessment is that based on the trading profile of the discount retailer proposed here, it is anticipated that the majority of trade associated with the 576 square metres of food floorspace will be diverted mainly from large format food stores which are generally in out of centre locations and not relevant for assessing impact. In this regard, firstly it is not considered necessary to undertake an impact assessment given the level of floorspace proposed and secondly taking into account the submitted information on impact it is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the town centre. Highways issues The original application was supported by a full Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. However, since the revised proposal deals only with 576 square metres this information has not been revised. The site is currently vacant and therefore generates no vehicular activity, however the site has permission for a non food retail use and as set out above the unit could be operated as such with no further permission. The Transportation Unit have indicated that the proposed variation to the condition would not result in a material change in the traffic movements/demand over and above that of the store being used totally as a comparison store. However, a revised plan has been received to indicate that the number of car parking spaces on site accords with the Council’s maximum standards and also that a one way arrangement would operate from Greasborough Road/Tenter Street. The site is also considered to be in a sustainable location with access to a range of transport options. A Travel Plan is proposed to be implemented to encourage store staff to utilise non-car travel modes for their work trips.

On this basis and subject to the safeguard of conditions it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to highway safety implications. Conclusion In conclusion it is considered that the revised proposal to allow a maximum of 20% of the gross floorspace to be utilised for the sale of food (convenience) goods would be an integral part of the occupation of the store by a discount retailer which given the fallback position, operation and flexibility shown, should not be required to be disaggregated and therefore not assessed against more sequentially preferable sites in the town centre. Given the level of floorspace proposed, which is below the threshold set out in the NPPF in relation to undertaking an impact assessment, it is further not considered necessary to undertake a full impact assessment of the proposal. Whilst not easily accessible from the town centre, the site is considered to be in a sustainable location where there is access to a range of transport options. The proposal to allow 20% of the floorspace for the sale of convenience goods would not give rise to a materially different highway/traffic situation as the main use of the building would be as existing (for non food retail). Subject to the laying out of a one way system into/out of the site and car parking being in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in highway terms. RB2012/0586 Retrospective application to vary condition 12 (imposed by RB2001/0495) to replace acoustic barrier of the service compound with palisade barrier at Tesco Express, East Bawtry Road, Broom RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan Local Planning Policy (UDP) UDP Policy ENV3.1 which states that: ‘Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to…relationship to the locality…quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping, together with regard to the security of ultimate users and their property.’ UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states: ‘Planning permission will not be granted for new development which is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution…or to other

nuisances, where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative or mitigating measures at the time the development takes plans…’ Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. For the following reasons:

The Council considers that the proposal to replace the acoustic fence and gate with a palisade style barrier would not result in a detrimental impact on the residential amenity by virtue of noise and general disturbance. The Council therefore concludes that the variation of condition 12 imposed by RB2001/0495 is acceptable subject to planning conditions.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 02 The sight lines indicated on the attached plan shall be rendered effective by removing or reducing the height of anything existing on the land between the sight line and the highway which obstructs visibility at any height greater than 900mm above the level of the nearside channel of the adjacent carriageway and the visibility thus provided shall be maintained. Reason To provide and maintain adequate visibility in the interests of road safety. 03 The eastern most access shall be signed or marked 'In Only' and the western most access signed or marked 'Out Only' in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority. The accesses shall thereafter be used as a one way system only. Reason

In the interests of road safety. 04 Any part of the site used by vehicles shall be properly drained and constructed in concrete, tarmacadam, block paving or other such material as agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained in a sound condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and to encourage drivers to make use of the parking spaces and to ensure that the use of the land for this purpose will not give rise to the deposit of mud and other extraneous material on the public highway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site and road safety. 05 The existing car parking area shown on the approved plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory garage/parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 06 No tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any tree be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning works approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). If any tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted in the immediate area and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 07 The premises hereby permitted shall not be open to customers nor shall deliveries other than fuel be made between the hours of midnight and 0600 hours. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 08 All activities in the service yard and delivery bay as shown on the approved plan including the delivery, loading/unloading of goods, stocking goods and refuse collection shall be restricted to the hours between 0800 hours - 2100 hours each day. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance

with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 09 An imperforate acoustic barrier of superficial weight not less than 12kg / metre square, contiguous with the ground, and not less than 2.5 metres in height (measured from levels at the service station side where height differences at either side exists) shall be maintained along the boundary between the points marked in Red on the attached drawing. The brick-built boundary wall not less than 1.9 metres in height (measured from levels at the service station side where height differences at either side exists) shall be maintained along the boundary marked in blue on the attached drawing. All acoustic barriers shall be maintained, and repaired to the same acoustic standard where necessary, throughout the life of the site. Reason To provide an effective screen in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 10 The air conditioning condensers shall be fitted with a device to prevent their operation between the hours of 00.00 and 06.00 hours on any day. Such a device shall be used and maintained throughout the life of the site. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. 11 The hedge along the southern boundary of the site, adjoining 2 Sheepcote Road shall be retained. Reason To provide an effective screen in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 12 Details of the approved palisade barrier including locking mechanism shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings. 13 The palisade barrier hereby approved shall be polyester powder coated to the colour of Black. Reason In the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’.

Background RB2001/0495 – Proposed redevelopment of existing service station with replacement sales building and forecourt modifications including demolition of existing automatic car wash – Granted conditionally RB2002/0525 – Variation of condition 10 (limited times for deliveries) imposed by RB2001/0495 relating to redevelopment of existing service station – Granted conditionally and the condition states: ‘The premises hereby permitted shall not be open to customers nor shall deliveries other than fuel be made outside the following times: 0600 hours – 24:00 hours each day’ RB2002/0627 – Amendment to the service yard, to increase the area for condenser, refrigeneration, and air conditioning units and variation of condition 12 (siting of acoustic barrier) imposed by RB2001/0495 relating to redevelopment of an existing service station – Granted conditionally This application relates to the siting of condenser, refrigeneration and air conditioning units to the south-west of Tesco Express. Planning condition 2 of this permission stated: ‘The acoustic barriers shall be constructed in accordance with the locations shown on Drawing RSB/03 rev.J and maintained throughout the life of the site.’ The application has been submitted followed by a complaint in relation to noise disturbance resulting from the removal of the acoustic barrier to the service yard. Site Description & Location The site is located on the southern side of East Bawtry Road, near Brecks Roundabout and the corner of the junction with Sheep Cote Road. There are residential properties directly adjacent to the south-west and south-east boundary of the site – No.19 East Bawtry Road and No.2 Sheep Cote Road. To the south-west of the retail building is where the refrigeration and condenser unit is located and are enclosed with a 2.5 metres acoustic fence and gate. The specific site in relation to this application is the service yard area which is between Tesco Express and No.19 East Bawtry Road. The boundary that the site shares with No.19 East Bawtry Road is a 1.9 - 2.5 metres high brick wall. A 2.5 metre high palisade gate and fencing has been erected to the front of the service yard area and this application is made retrospectively to retain such barrier. Proposal Planning Condition 12 imposed by planning permission RB2001/0495 states: ‘Prior to first use of the site, an imperforate acoustic barrier of superficial weight not less than 12kg/metre square, contiguous with the ground, and not less than 2.5m in height, (measured from levels at the service station side where height difference at either side exists) shall be constructed at the locations highlighted in red on the attached two plans marked B & C. Particular attention shall be paid to maintaining the acoustic integrity of the barrier at the gates into the service compound and air conditioning compound,

which shall be kept closed and acoustically competent between 2400 hours and 0600 hours. All acoustic barriers shall be maintained, and repaired to the same acoustic standard where necessary, throughout the life of the site.’ This application originally proposed to wholly remove this planning condition, however following discussions with the applicant it was pointed out that this condition relates to all the acoustic barriers around the site and not just the acoustic barrier to the front of the service yard which this application is seeking to regularise. As such, the application details have been amended and the proposal is now is for a variation to the condition as follows: ‘An imperforate acoustic barrier of superficial weight not less than 12kg / metre square, contiguous with the ground, and not less than 2.5 metres in height (measured from levels at the service station side where height differences at either side exists) shall be maintained along the boundary between the points marked ? and ?? on Drawing ???. All acoustic barriers shall be maintained, and repaired to the same acoustic standard where necessary, throughout the life of the site.’ This effectively removes the requirement to provide an acoustic barrier to the front of the service yard area but still maintains the existing acoustic fences to the rear. The submitted information suggests that specialist acoustic gating is not required to the front of the yard as there is no plant equipment in the servicing area to mitigate against. A noise assessment (prepared by Sharps Redmore Partnership) has also been submitted to determine whether the gates to the service yard need to be of solid acoustic grade construction to protect the amenity of the closest residents at No.19 East Bawtry Road. A noise survey was undertaken between 0800 – 2000 hours on Thursday 24th May 2012 at a single measurement location. The assessment concluded that a solid service yard gate would not provide any material noise attenuation, over and above that provided by the existing boundary wall. The submitted information also states that the applicant acknowledges that the noise disturbance that has been the subject of the complaint is actually the metallic noise that has been caused by the opening and closing mechanism of the gate and which resonates through the gate when the lock is bolted / unbolted. Whilst this is not part of the submitted details, the applicant has agreed to provide an alternative locking mechanism to stop this which could be secured by a condition requiring details to be submitted to and approved by the LPA. Development Plan Allocation and Policy The application site is allocated for local retail use within the adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. UDP Policy ENV3.1 states that: ‘Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to…relationship to the locality…quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening

and landscaping, together with regard to the security of ultimate users and their property’; and UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states: ‘Planning permission will not be granted for new development which is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution…or to other nuisances, where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative or mitigating measures at the time the development takes plans…’ Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. The NPPF notes at paragraph 123 that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of

new development, they should mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. Publicity Occupiers of neighbouring properties were consulted in writing on the 26 April 2012 and 8 June 2012. Site Notices were also displayed on 11 May 2012 and 12 June 2012. 4 objections have been received to the original proposal and 1 further comment has been received on the revised proposal.

- no valid reason for not reinstating the wooden acoustic gates and panels as they were found to be justifiably necessary in the original application

- the letter suggests noise complaint would only be resolved if condition is removed

- the removal of condition would remove the obligation to maintain barriers around the site which would have unacceptable impact to the residential amenity

- the original wooden acoustic gates / panels could be modified to accomplish security aspect, palisade barriers are easier to climb up

- wooden acoustic gates are more aesthetically pleasing than the palisade fencing which would commonly used on industrial site

- barriers have gone from materials that were acoustically absorbent to a material that is noise generating (by delivery drivers who rattle the steel railing to get staff’s attention

- main complaint is the noise that is generated by staff working in the delivery compound whenever the store is open, i.e. 6am – 12am which was significantly attenuated by the solid wooden gates

- the submitted noise assessment is biased in favour of Tesco where measurements taken were ill conceived which were not representative of a ‘normal’ day activity in the service yard

3 right to speak requests have been received: Objectors

- Councillor John Gilding - Mr Shemwell (No.19 East Bawtry Road) - Mr Smith (No.10 Sheep Cote Road)

Consultations Transportation Unit: No Objection Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health): has considered that the proposal would be acceptable if the times that the service yard is used by staff be restricted between 0800 – 2100. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to -

(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main consideration on this application is whether the acoustic integrity of the service yard barriers should be maintained and the possible impact on residential amenity. Planning Condition 12 imposed by planning permission RB2001/0495 states: ‘Prior to first use of the site, an imperforate acoustic barrier of superficial weight not less than 12kg/metre square, contiguous with the ground, and not less than 2.5m in height, (measured from levels at the service station side where height difference at either side exists) shall be constructed at the locations highlighted in red on the attached two plans marked B & C. Particular attention shall be paid to maintaining the acoustic integrity of the barrier at the gates into the service compound and air conditioning compound, which shall be kept closed and acoustically competent between 2400 hours and 0600 hours. All acoustic barriers shall be maintained, and repaired to the same acoustic standard where necessary, throughout the life of the site.’ The condition was imposed due to the close proximity to the residential properties, in particular, No.2 Sheepcote Road and No.19 East Bawtry Road to reduce any noise disturbance that may be generated from the site. A noise assessment has been submitted with the application to consider the effect on residential amenity that the use of the service yard may have without an acoustic barrier to the front. Taking into consideration all the information provided and the following factors, it is considered that the variation of condition would not result in a materially significant impact of noise disturbance over and above that of the approved scheme:

• The existing brick-built boundary wall will be retained;

• The original condition does not require the gate to be kept closed between 0600 – 2400;

• A condition would be imposed restricting any activity in the service yard after midnight and before 08:00 not providing an acoustic barrier to the front of the service yard would not result in noise disturbance to the adjacent properties.

It is also noted that concerns have been raised regarding the palisade fencing which is constructed in steelwork and which would generate more noise disturbance than the original timber fencing. Considering that that the delivery hours and activities in the service yard would be restricted, it is considered that any noise generated by the gates or the delivery drivers would not be within unreasonable hours and at a time when the ambient noise levels are generally higher. In terms of the noise that may be generated by the mechanism of the palisade fencing, it is considered that such details can be controlled by a suitable planning condition.

Other issues Objections have been also been raised concerning the visual amenity and the security aspect of the new barrier. Whilst it is acknowledged that the original timber acoustic barrier is more aesthetically pleasing, the proposed palisade fencing provides for more natural surveillance as it can be seen through and is harder to damage and vandal resistant. Although the site is surrounded by residential properties, the palisade barrier is set back some distance form the public highway and will not result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the site or the surrounding area. Conclusion To conclude, it is considered that the proposed variation of condition 12 imposed by planning permission RB2001/0495 is acceptable and would not result in a detrimental impact on residential amenity by virtue of noise and general disturbance subject to the recommended planning conditions. The proposal meets the requirement of the relevant UDP policies and the NPPF. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted conditionally. RB2012/0604 Importation of 70-80,000 cubic metres of clean inert materials to raise levels and modify land profiles to create driving range. Formation of temporary access and erection of boundary fencing at land off Grange Lane, Brinsworth for Phoenix Sports and Social Club. RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conditionally STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: Local Planning Policy Policy ENV5 Urban Greenspace states that “The Council will seek to retain and enhance open space which is of importance from a recreation, conservation and amenity point of view, but which is not afforded Green Belt protection. Its development will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.” Policy ENV5.1 ‘Allocated Urban Greenspace’ states that Development that results in the loss of Urban Greenspace as identified on the Proposals Map will only be permitted if:

(i) alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and accessibility is made, or (ii) it would enhance the local Urban Greenspace provision, and (iii) it would conform with the requirements of Policy CR2.2, and (iv) it does not conflict with other policies and proposals contained in the Plan in particular those relating to heritage interest.”

Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ aims to ensure that development is not be at the expense of the local environment and the character and appearance of the area. The policy aims to achieve environmental improvements through an appropriate standard of design and layout and landscaping. Policy ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ seeks to minimise the impact of development on the environment and look to protect it from, for example, pollution or flooding. It also states that development leading to a significant loss of trees will be permitted only where there is a compelling justification for doing so. Policy ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’ seeks to promote and enhance tree, woodland and hedgerow coverage. Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ aims to ensure that development does not result in significant air, water, light or noise pollution. Policy T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ aims to locate development close to public transport, discourage development which causes traffic congestion and promote safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities, as well as ensuring highway safety for car and public transport users.

Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. For the following reasons: The proposal is for the importation of between 70,000 and 80,000 cubic metres of clean inert materials to raise the land levels and modify the profiles to create a more useable driving range. The works will not alter the land use of the site which is allocated as Urban Greenspace in the adopted UDP. The principle of the works is therefore considered to be acceptable as it will benefit the immediate area in the long term. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the provisions of UDP Policies ENV5 and ENV5.1 which is consistent with the policies and aims set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council’s Transportation Unit have assessed the implications of the formation of the temporary access and impact of the proposed vehicular movements on the local

highway network and have confirmed that the proposal will result in little, if any adverse impact on highways in the Rotherham area. The proposed works are therefore considered to be acceptable from a transportation context and in accordance with the provisions of UDP Policy T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’. The proposed works will have a limited short term impact upon the residential amenities and ecology of the area, which can be attenuated to an acceptable degree by appropriate conditions. The visual impact of the change in land levels, whilst considerable will not, when viewed in the wider landscape context be detrimental to the landscape character and appearance of the area. It is therefore considered that there will be no material unacceptable permanent impact of the proposed works. The site is located within a Flood Zone 1 as identified on the Environment Agency’s mapping system. An assessment of the proposed works in respect of flood risk has been undertaken and it is concluded that the site is at negligible risk from flooding from any of the potential sources indentified in the technical guidance to the NPPF and poses no risk to adjacent sites.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: General 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing 7 days prior to the commencement of the works. The works shall thereafter be completed within 36 months of the date of commencement. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. Environmental 03 Prior to the importation of any material, the screening bund as shown on plan ref: 0723-1-4 shall be constructed in its entirety to a height of 3 metres and shall remain in situ for the duration of the works. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance

with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 04 Within 3 months of completion of the land profiling the temporary screening bund as shown on plan ref: 0723-1-4 shall be removed in its entirety and the area landscaped in a manner to be approved by the Local Planning Department. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 05 Stockpiling of material shall only take place in the area identified for such purpose as shown on plan ref: 0723-1-3 and shall at no time exceed a height of 3 metres. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and in the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 06 The phasing of the works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on plan ref: 0723-1-3 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 07 Deliveries to the site and the works hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 07:30 and 17:30 Mondays to Fridays, with no deliveries or works taking place Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays. Reason In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 08 Only clean inert materials shall be used for the proposed raising of levels and modification of land profiles. Reason To ensure there is no unacceptable risk of pollution to the water environment. 09 Prior to the commencement of works, a Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation shall be undertaken in the east-south eastern part of the site where the landfill sits. The investigation and subsequent risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority and the works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The investigation shall be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 10 Subject to the findings of Investigation works as detailed in Condition 9, a Remediation Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters, the site must not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environment Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 11 Following completion of any remedial works a Validation Report shall be submitted to the Local Authority for review and comment. The Validation report shall include details of the remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the validation report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site. The site shall not be brought into use until such time as the verification data has been approved by the Local Authority. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 12 In the event that during development works unexpected significant contamination is encountered at any stage of the process, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing immediately. Any requirements for remedial works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. Works thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with an approved Method Statement. This is to ensure the development will be suitable for use and that identified contamination will not present significant risks to human health or the environment. Reason

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 13 Prior to the importation of soils to site, an agreed sampling strategy detailing the rate and frequency of testing such materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that they will be free from contamination. The results of testing of imported materials will need to be compared with stringent acceptance criteria and forwarded in report format to the Local Planning Authority for review and approval. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 14 Prior to the commencement of works an Earthworks Specification Report shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority detailing how the upfilling works will be undertaken and shall include details of frequent conformance testing to ensure the materials imported to site remain suitable and consistent for use. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. Drainage 15 No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 year plus climate change critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the existing site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Reason To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. Ecology 16 Prior to the commencement of works survey works in respect of reptiles and badgers as recommended by the submitted Ecology Report. The survey work shall be undertaken

following best practice methodologies and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal, public and biodiversity significance. 17 Prior to the commencement of works an ecology management plan to guide the long-term management of the habitats created shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Reason To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal, public and biodiversity significance. Landscape 18

The detailed plans to be submitted in accordance with the requirements of this permission shall include a tree survey in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in Relation to Construction Recommendations section 4.2 to 4.5.to include all the existing trees on and adjacent to the site that may be affected by any development and the following details;

1. Reference number (to be recorded on the tree survey plan to a scale and level of

accuracy appropriate to the proposal); 2. Species (common and scientific names, where possible); 3. Height in metres; 4. Stem diameter in millimeters at 1.5 m above ground level (on sloping ground to

be taken on the upslope side of the tree base) or immediately above the root flare for multi-stemmed trees;

5. Branch spread in metres taken at the four cardinal points to derive an accurate representation of the crown (to be recorded on the tree survey plan);

6. Height in metres of the crown clearance above adjacent ground level (to inform on ground clearance , crown stem ratio and shading);

7. Age class (young, middle aged, mature, over-mature, veteran); 8. Physiological condition (e.g. good, fair, poor, dead); 9. Structural condition, e.g. collapsing, the presence of any decay and physical

defect; 10. Preliminary management recommendations, including further investigation of

suspected defects that require more detailed assessment and potential wildlife habitat;

11. Estimated remaining contribution in years (e.g. less than 10, 10-20, 20-40, more than 40)

12. R or A to C category grading (see table 1) to be recorded and indicated on the tree survey plan

In addition the following details shall also be submitted for consideration and approval.

• root protection areas (RPA)

• a tree constraints plan (TCP)

• construction exclusion zones

• tree protection plan (TPP)

• arboricultural implication assessment (AIA)

• arboricultural method statement (AMS)

• existing and proposed contours and levels Reason In order that the Local Planning Authority may consider the desirability of retaining trees in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 19 Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary:

-The extent of existing planting, including those trees or areas of vegetation that are to be retained, and those that it is proposed to remove. -The extent of any changes to existing ground levels, where these are proposed. -Any constraints in the form of existing or proposed site services, or visibility requirements. -Areas of structural and ornamental planting that are to be carried out. -The positions, design, materials and type of any boundary treatment to be erected. -A planting plan and schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification, and planting distances. -A written specification for ground preparation and soft landscape works. -The programme for implementation. -Written details of the responsibility for maintenance and a schedule of operations, including replacement planting, that will be carried out for a period of 5 years after completion of the planting scheme.

The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 20 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in

September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. Transportation 21 Sight lines 4.5m x 43m shall be provided and thereafter maintained at the proposed access to Grange Lane, the areas denoted by the sight lines shall be cleared and remain clear of all obstructions to visibility in excess of 900mm in height measured above the nearside road channel. Reason To provide and maintain adequate visibility in the interests of road safety. 22 Upon completion of the development the vehicular access shall be permanently closed and the kerbline/footway reinstated. Reason In the interests of road safety, to ensure that the access is closed immediately it is no longer required. 23 The proposed vehicle turning area indicated on the submitted plan shall be provided before the importation of fill material commences, details of the construction of this area shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA before the development commences. Reason In the interests of road safety. 25 Details of the location and design of the proposed jetwash, including the means of intercepting and disposing of surface water run-off, shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA before the development commences. Reason In order to ensure the development does not give rise to problems of mud/material deposit on the adjoining public highway in the interests of road safety. Informatives 01 Environmental permit The proposed activity will require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The Permit will encompass the environmental controls expected from the operator. For further advice on the Environmental Permit and what will be required the

applicant is advised to contact their Environment Management Officer, Bradley Haystead, on 01709 312723. Based on their understanding to date, the EA will not agree to agree to the importation of Compost Like Outputs (CLO) at this site. The applicant should contact Bradley Haystead on the above telephone number if they wish to discuss this. 02 Surface water drainage Approved Document Part H of the Building Regulations 2000 establishes a hierarchy for surface water disposal, which encourages a SUDS approach. Under Approved Document Part H the first option for surface water disposal should be the use of SUDS, which encourage infiltration such as soakaways or infiltration trenches. In all cases, it must be established that these options are feasible, can be adopted and properly maintained and would not lead to any other environmental problems. For example, using soakaways or other infiltration methods on contaminated land carries groundwater pollution risks and may not work in areas with a high water table. Where the intention is to dispose to soakaway, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under Building Research Establishment (BRE) Digest 365. 03 Historic landfill Part of the proposed development sits on top of a historic landfill site. The applicant should satisfy themselves as regards any risk to the development. On the 22nd of June 2007 we sent your Authority a CD containing historic landfill data which has all the information we hold on the historic landfill sites within 250m of this development proposal. As such, we have no further comments on this. 04 Groundwater and contaminated land The developer should address risks to controlled waters from contamination at the site, following the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Environment Agency 'Guiding Principles for Land Contamination'. Developers should: 1) Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, when dealing with land affected by contamination. 2) Refer to the Environment Agency Guiding Principles for Land Contamination for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health. 3) Refer to the EA website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information. 05 INF 11B Control of working practices during construction phase (General) Please note that the Council’s Neighbourhood Enforcement have a legal duty to investigate any complaints about noise or dust. If a statutory nuisance is found to exist they must serve an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Failure to comply with the requirements of an Abatement Notice may result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon conviction in Rotherham Magistrates' Court. It is therefore recommended that you give serious consideration to the below recommendations and to the steps that may be required to prevent a noise nuisance from being created. (i) Best practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may include water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment. At such times when due to site conditions the prevention of dust nuisance by these means is considered by the Local Planning Authority in consultations with the site operator to be impracticable, then movements of soils and overburden shall be temporarily curtailed until such times as the site/weather conditions improve such as to permit a resumption. (ii) Effective steps should be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud, dust and other materials on the adjoining public highway caused by vehicles visiting and leaving the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, slurry, mud or any other material from the site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the developer. 06 Yorkshire Water records indicate some private water mains cross through the red line site boundary. These are private and not the responsibility of Yorkshire Water. Additionally, there may be other private pipes within the site of which hold no record. For further information and advice, the Distribution Asset Manager should be contacted at the following address: Customer Services & Networks (Water Network Assets - South & East), Thorncliffe Hall/Area Office, Newton Chambers Road, Thorncliffe Park, Chapeltown, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S35 2PQ.

Background Planning permission was granted in 1988 for the use of the land as a golf driving range and a car park with the erection of a perimeter fence ref: RB1988/1183. No other applications have been submitted since this time. Environmental Impact Assessment A screening opinion was carried out to determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment should accompany the application. The proposed development falls within the description contained at paragraph 12 (f) ‘Golf Courses’ of the 2011 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table, i.e. that the area of the development exceeds 1 hectare. However, taking account of the criteria set out in Schedule 3, the opinion has been reached that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location and therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required to accompany the application. Site Description & Location The application site extends to approximately 3 hectares and lies immediately to the east of Grange Lane, which runs northwards from the A631. The land is currently used as a golf driving range with the greater part being maintained as a fairway, with the southern tip of the site comprising of rough grassland and scrubland. A single storey building containing the driving range bays forms the northern boundary, with land immediately to the west of these buildings is loosely surfaced with aggregate to form a car parking area. The western boundary follows Grange Lane, with the boundary currently being secured by a combination of a chain link fence and an intermittent, hawthorn dominated hedgerow. The eastern boundary rises up a rough grassland embankment which separates the driving range from further sports facilities which form the wider Phoenix sports complex. For part of its length, the crest of this embankment is marked by a row of established poplar trees. The southern section of the site consists of scrubland and immature trees. To the southeast the land has already been raised in any earlier phase of ground improvement, and screens the site from the majority of the residential properties known as Jubilee Cottages, which lie approximately 50m beyond the site’s southern boundary. The closest residential properties to the site are those known as Jubilee Cottages, which are located in a crescent between the site and A631. The closest of these properties lies approximately 50m from the site’s southern boundary and the majority of the dwellings are screened from the site by the local topography, as those to the east of the sports pitches. Proposal The application seeks permission for the importation of between 70,000 and 80,000 cubic metres of clean inert material to re-profile the existing driving range to alleviate current drainage problems.

The material will be imported from a range of sites and will be temporarily stockpiled in the southern section of the site, pending its placement. Once sufficient volumes of material have been amassed, a section of the driving range would be closed and materials placed and landscaped accordingly. This process would be repeated for the remaining sections of the range and is anticipated to take up to 24 months however consent is sought for a period of 36 months in order to allow for any shortfall in the amount of material which may be experienced. In terms of the change in levels, these vary across the site, the smallest change being a 1.54m increase which is located 25m from the existing driving range building gradually increasing to a peak of 3.98m 275m from the building. These alterations result in the final landform sloping gently from east to west across the greater part of the site, falling from 114m to around 112m AOD. A ball-stop fence will be erected along the western edge of the range to aid ball collection and to ensure that balls are prevented from accessing the highway. Between this fence and Grange Lane, the site will fall away to existing levels of around 110m AOD. A temporary screening bund is proposed along the site’s southern boundary. The bund will be created from soils stripped from the scrubland area and be a maximum of 3 metres in height during the works and removed in its entirety following completion and prior to landscaping. It is proposed to phase the works. The first phase will involve the placement of materials along the eastern half of the range, upon the final landscaping of this section, the driving range would be re-opened whilst further materials were brought to site. Phase 2 would involve the remainder of the driving range being brought up to the required level, with Phase 3 involving the raising of the current car parking area in the north western corner of the site. The final phase of works will involve the restoration landscaping and planting of the southern section of the site. In order to create access to the stockpiling area it is proposed to create a temporary access onto Grange Lane. This will be located close to the southern tip of the current driving range. Following the completion of the works it is also proposed to erect a replacement ball stop chain link fence along the Grange Lane elevation extending to 8m in height supported by steel posts at 3m intervals. The following documents are submitted in support of the application:

• Design and Access Statement

• Flood Risk Assessment

• Ecological Assessment Development Plan Allocation and Policy UDP Policies

The site is allocated as Urban Greenspace in the adopted UDP. The following policies are considered relevant: Policy ENV5 Urban Greenspace states that “The Council will seek to retain and enhance open space which is of importance from a recreation, conservation and amenity point of view, but which is not afforded Green Belt protection. Its development will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.” Policy ENV5.1 ‘Allocated Urban Greenspace’ states that Development that results in the loss of Urban Greenspace as identified on the Proposals Map will only be permitted if:

(i) alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and accessibility is made, or

(ii) it would enhance the local Urban Greenspace provision, and (iii) it would conform with the requirements of Policy CR2.2, and (iv) it does not conflict with other policies and proposals contained in the Plan in

particular those relating to heritage interest.” Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ aims to ensure that development is not be at the expense of the local environment and the character and appearance of the area. The policy aims to achieve environmental improvements through an appropriate standard of design and layout and landscaping. Policy ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ seeks to minimise the impact of development on the environment and look to protect it from, for example, pollution or flooding. It also states that development leading to a significant loss of trees will be permitted only where there is a compelling justification for doing so. Policy ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’ seeks to promote and enhance tree, woodland and hedgerow coverage. Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ aims to ensure that development does not result in significant air, water, light or noise pollution. Policy T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’ aims to locate development close to public transport, discourage development which causes traffic congestion and promote safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities, as well as ensuring highway safety for car and public transport users. Other Material Considerations NPPF National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.”

The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity Neighbouring properties were notified of the application on 17 May 2012, whilst site notices was displayed on 22 May 2012 and the application was advertised in the local press on 25 May 2012. No representations have been received. Consultations Transportation Unit are of the opinion that the proposed works will result in very little, if any adverse impact on highway conditions within the Rotherham area. Accordingly, no objections are raised. Streetpride (Drainage) raise no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. Streetpride (Landscape) raise no objections to the proposed works however acknowledge that a detailed landscape scheme has been submitted, however there are still some outstanding issues that require attention, therefore a condition requiring this additional information is required. Streetpride (Ecology) raise no objections to the proposed work subject to the imposition of a condition requiring further survey work to be undertaken in respect of reptiles and badgers. Environmental Health acknowledge that part of the proposed development sits above an historic landfill on ground to the east; south east of the site. It is reported that the

site was used for the disposal of inert and commercial wastes between October 1985 and April 1992. It is understood that similar to this application, suitable wastes were imported to undertake landscaping works in order to improve the sporting facilities. However, no intrusive investigation has been undertaken to determine and confirm the extent of tipping and the nature of the waste materials disposed. Despite this there are no objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions requiring additional tests and the submission of further information. Environment Agency raise no objections to the proposed works subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the type of materials to be imported and flood risk. Highways Agency raise no objections to the proposed works. Sheffield Area Geology Trust – No comments received Sheffield City Council – No comments received Yorkshire Water acknowledge that some private water mains cross through the red line site boundary however they are not the responsibility of Yorkshire Water. Additionally, there may be other private pipes within the site of which hold no record. On this basis no objections are raised, however YW request that they are sent a copy of the decision notice. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. In a letter from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government dated 27 May 2010, the new Government has outlined its intentions to rapidly abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Whilst this information is capable of amounting to a material planning consideration, the above regional policies of the RSS remain in force for the time being and the proposal has been assessed against those policies which are deemed applicable. The main issues relevant to the assessment of this proposal relate to the following:

• Principle of the development.

• Visual impact of the proposed works

• Highways and transportation issues

• General amenity issues.

• Landscape and ecology

• Floodrisk and Drainage

Principle of Development The application site is allocated as Urban Greenspace in the adopted UDP. Policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework are now applicable and due weight should be given to relevant policies in the adopted UDP according to their degree of consistency with the framework. In this instance UDP Policies ENV5 Urban Greenspace, ENV5.1 ‘Allocated Urban Greenspace’, ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, and ENV3.2 Minimising the Impact of Development are considered to be relevant and comply with the policies and aims of the Framework. The proposal is for the importation of material to improve the drainage of the existing driving range. The material will be limited to suitable clean, inert construction, demolition and excavation wastes and will consist mainly of clays and soils. No change in land use is proposed. The effect of the importation will be to raise the levels from between 1.54m to 3.98m across the entire site followed by the implementation of the landscaping scheme prior to the site re-opening as a driving range. The importation of large quantities of material is quite clearly an engineering operation which constitutes development. The development would be in connection with the existing land use as a driving range and fully in accordance with the provisions of UDP Policies ENV5 and ENV5.1 which advocates the retention and enhancement of open space which is of importance from a recreation, conservation and amenity point of view, but which is not afforded Green Belt protection. Accordingly the proposed works are considered to be acceptable in principle and not prejudice the existing UDP allocation. Visual Impact of the Proposed Works The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which includes an assessment of the visual impact. This assessment states that given the development is designed to solely improve the quality of the existing driving range, there will be little long term impact on the overall character of the area. The only discernable change will be the raising of the levels which will see an increase in a north to south direction by a minimum of 1.54 metres in the north of the site increasing to 3.98m towards the south. Additional short term minor impacts during the improvement works will also occur which are unavoidable. The surrounding area is characterised by the golf course to the west and north, an existing sports ground to the east and residential properties to the south. Grange Lane bisects the golf course and is screened by tree planting and mature hedgerows. Existing industrial premises are located further to the west which and include some relatively tall structures, visible from the surrounding area. Topographically, there is a natural rise to the north and the artificially elevated sporting ground to the east prevents any views from these directions. Having regard to the above it is acknowledged that the increase in land levels, especially to the south of the site is considerable, however given the wide range of land uses in the surrounding area, together with the existing planting, which includes hedgerows and a row of poplar trees, it is considered that the site would still be seen as part of the wider landscape context in that the landscape is capable of absorbing the

degree of change proposed without it having a significant impact on its overall character due to the fact that the land use would remain unaltered and consist solely of a fairway. The proposals also include the erection of a replacement ball stop fence along the Grange Lane frontage. This will extend to a maximum of 8m in height and consist of chain link fencing supported by steel posts. There is an existing ball stop fence in this location, which is approximately 7m high; however it is in a state of disrepair and requires removal. The proposed ball stop fence will clearly have a visual impact when viewed from Grange Lane; however it is not considered that the 1m increase will result in it being unduly prominent given the characteristics of the surrounding area. Having regard to the above it is considered that the raising of the land levels for the purposes of improving the drainage of the existing driving range will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the site or the wider area, in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ and ENV3.2 ‘Minimising Impact of Development’. Highways and transportation issues The applicant has stated that the bulk of materials will be delivered to the site in 20 tonne loads. Given the maximum predicted volume of 80,000m3 to be imported, and an anticipated timescale of 24 months, it is anticipated that there will be an average of 26 vehicular movements per day however as the development requires the importation of a set volume of material, should a significant period of higher than average vehicle movements be experienced, the overall timeframe for the development will consequently be shortened. Materials for the development will be sourced from within approximately twenty miles of the site although this may vary with the type and/or volume of materials available and the transport links to source sites. Given the nature of the surrounding highway network the applicant’s claim that it should be possible to access a wide variety of areas from the site without the need to leave the principal network. Accordingly traffic associated with the development will not be forced to travel through any sensitive areas and therefore the temporary impact of the traffic generated will be minimal. It is envisaged that the bulk of materials will access the site from the east, travelling from either the north or the south along the A630 prior to using the A631 to access the site. Turning to the proposal for the site access, this will be located approximately 165m to the north of the junction of Grange Lane and the A631. The layout of the highway at this point allows for sufficient visibility splays with no highway safety issues anticipated. This will provide access directly into the southern area of the site where materials will be deposited and stockpiled. Following completion of the works, the access will be permanently closed and the land reinstated in a manner to be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Council’s Transportation Unit have had regard to the above and have assessed the implications of the formation of the temporary access and impact of the proposed vehicular movements on the local highway network and have confirmed that the proposal will result in little, if any adverse impact on highways in the Rotherham area. The proposed works are therefore considered to be acceptable from a transportation context and in accordance with the provisions of UDP Policy T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’.

General Amenity Issues. Having regard to the potential for an increase in noise as a result of the proposed works it is acknowledged that the site lies in close proximity to the A631, A630 and the M1 motorway; therefore the site is already dominated by traffic noise. Intermittent noise is created by the use of the nearby sporting facilities; however this is most prominent during weekends. Information contained within the Design and Access Statement states that the principal potential source of noise associated with the proposed works is the mobile plant operating on the site and, in particular the reversing alarms installed on such plant. Traffic visiting the site will also be a source of noise however, as the access to the site is not immediately adjacent to any residential property, the supporting information considers that noise from such movements will be virtually indistinguishable from that generated by current traffic flows. The critical receptors have been identified as the residents of Jubilee Cottages to the south of the site, particularly those in the properties due south. The applicants have identified that the most intrusive noise associated with the works will be plant reversing alarms, therefore it is proposed that all plant stationed at the site will have white noise sirens fitted as opposed to normal audible alarms. The fitting of such alarms will confine the noise generated and prevent any noise nuisance to nearby properties. The Council’s Environmental Health department have assessed the proposals and considered the proposed mitigation measures and have confirmed that given the range of mitigation measures proposed, it is considered that the operations will not give rise to unacceptable noise levels at any identified sensitive receptor and the proposed management procedures will ensure that all operations are carried out with due regard to minimising noise generation. In terms of the potential for the works to increase the levels of dust, the applicants consider the main source of dust from the proposed works will be from the deposition of materials in the area identified for stockpiling, the internal movement of materials prior to placement and the vehicular movements. These activities have the potential for significant dust generation when the site is dry. Additionally, during windy days dry stockpiles may also generate quantities of dust, although existing trees and hedgerows to the southwest of the stockpiled area will provide a degree of screening and consequently minimise the potential for dust emissions. The applicant has confirmed that the prevailing wind in the area is from the southwest and therefore any receptors lying within 500m to the northeast of the site are considered to be at greatest risk from dust emissions. These areas consist mainly of the sporting ground and golf course which are not considered to be sensitive receptors. The most sensitive receptors are considered to be those in closest proximity to the site, Jubilee Cottages, however these are located to the south and south east of the site and are unlikely to be significantly affected by dust emissions. In order to minimise dust emissions, the applicants have prepared a dust action plan which includes the following control measures:

• In dry, windy conditions, the responsible person, will satisfy himself that the control measures in place are adequate to prevent any dust nuisance,

• all internal areas frequently trafficked will be appropriately maintained and, should a problem become apparent, dust suppression to appropriate HSE standards will be achieved by means of appropriate water spraying,

• drop heights of all materials are kept to a minimum,

• vehicles used for the movement of materials on the site, are, where appropriate, be fitted with exhausts pointing away from the ground,

• should control measures prove inadequate, the responsible person will ensure that such additional control measures as are necessary are put in place and that the operations giving rise to the nuisance are temporarily suspended either until conditions ameliorate or until such additional controls as are required are in place.

The Council’s Environmental Health department have considered the proposals and proposed mitigation measures and have confirmed that no objections are raised. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. Landscape and Ecology Landscape The site and surrounding area is dominated by the driving range, golf course and adjacent sports ground, which generally consist of linear fairways separated by areas of tree planting and mature hedgerows. Industrial buildings to the west and northwest are screened from the golf course by a row of semi mature trees along its boundary. Having regard to the proposed works, the vast majority of the site will be used as a fairway; therefore there is little scope for a variation in landscaping in this area, however the applicants have prepared a restoration strategy for the southern and peripheral areas which aims to recreate and enhance the habitats currently present. In this regard it is proposed to plant species rich grassland on the land immediately to the south and east of the driving range and areas of scrub and trees, including Hawthorn and Blackthorn on the south western boundary and along the Grange Lane frontage, screening the existing car park. The Council’s Landscape Department have assessed the proposals and the use of the aforementioned species and whilst they are generally happy with the level of landscaping proposed, it is recommended that conditions are placed on any approval requiring the submission of additional information relating to a tree survey and a schedule detailing the proposed species, siting, quality and size specification.

Ecology With regard to the legal framework, the Habitats Directive 1994 (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) requires member states to implement a range of measures for the protection of habitats and species. The Habitats Directive introduces the precautionary principle for protected areas. Projects can only be permitted having ascertained no adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In such cases compensation measures will be necessary to ensure the overall integrity of the network of sites.

The Habitats Directive was transposed into UK national law by means of the Habitats Regulations 1994 which have now been replaced by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. When considering the acceptability of the proposed development it is necessary therefore to assess whether it has a detrimental impact on European Protected Species (EPS). In this regard an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken during November 2011, which includes an examination of key habitats and all potential ecological constraints present on site, particularly the presence or potential presence of protected species and the potential for habitat creation and enhancement. The report concludes that whilst there is no evidence of any protected species, the site is considered to provide potential for a variety of protected and notable species to forage, shelter, commute and breed. The site is believed to have the potential to support reptile species and e is also considered potentially suitable for supporting badger setts however no such setts or signs of badger were noted. No on-site trees or built structures are considered suitable for supporting roosting bats and the site was considered unsuitable for great crested newts due to the lack of suitable breeding ponds within at least 2km. The Council’s Ecologist has assessed the findings in the Survey and has confirmed that the survey and impact methodology employed is appropriate for the proposals, however agrees that the survey timing was sub-optimal and recommends further survey work be undertaken prior to commencement of works on site. In conclusion, the application includes the necessary ecological survey and impact assessment work; a number of additional surveys are recommended and are needed prior to any commencement of work. The submitted restoration concept reflects the recommendations made in the ecology report and the recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework. Consequently, no objections are raised to the development proposals subject to the imposition of conditions. Floodrisk and Drainage The site is located within a Flood Zone 1 as identified on the Environment Agency’s mapping system, however as the site is in excess of 1 hectare a flood risk assessment has been submitted in support of the application. This report concludes that the site is at negligible risk from flooding from any of the potential sources indentified in the technical guidance to the NPPF and poses no risk to adjacent sites. Turning to the existing and proposed drainage, the driving range currently suffers from poor drainage conditions leading to the frequent waterlogging of large areas. In order to improve this situation it is proposed to install a suitable field drainage system which will drain to soakaways. Whilst the exact details of the system remain to be finalised, it is anticipated that the principal soakaway will be located to the west of the driving range bays, beneath the proposed car park area, with an additional soakaway located to the south of the fairway if required. The applicant considers that the use of such a system is in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage and will help to ensure that run off from the site is minimised. Where required, peripheral ditches, linked to the overall drainage system, will be located to ensure that residual surface run-off from the site is negligible. Should it

be necessary, the final profile of the southern section of the site will include lower lying areas which will store excess surface waters in times of heavy rainfall. The Council’s Drainage Engineer and the Environment Agency have assessed the proposals and have confirmed that they do not raise any objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the submission of further details prior to the commencement of works. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the technical guidance to the NPPF. Conclusion The proposal is for the importation of between 70,000 and 80,000 cubic metres of clean inert materials to raise the land levels and modify the profiles to create a more useable driving range. The works will not alter the land use of the site which is allocated as Urban Greenspace in the adopted UDP. The principle of the works is therefore considered to be acceptable as it will benefit the immediate area in the long term. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the provisions of UDP Policies ENV5 and ENV5.1 which is consistent with the policies and aims set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Council’s Transportation Unit have assessed the implications of the formation of the temporary access and impact of the proposed vehicular movements on the local highway network and have confirmed that the proposal will result in little, if any adverse impact on highways in the Rotherham area. The proposed works are therefore considered to be acceptable from a transportation context and in accordance with the provisions of UDP Policy T6 ‘Location and Layout of Development’. The proposed works will have a limited short term impact upon the residential amenities and ecology of the area, which can be attenuated to an acceptable degree by appropriate conditions. The visual impact of the change in land levels, whilst considerable will not, when viewed in the wider landscape context be detrimental to the landscape character and appearance of the area. It is therefore considered that there will be no material unacceptable permanent impact of the proposed works. The site is located within a Flood Zone 1 as identified on the Environment Agency’s mapping system. An assessment of the proposed works in respect of flood risk has been undertaken and it is concluded that the site is at negligible risk from flooding from any of the potential sources indentified in the technical guidance to the NPPF and poses no risk to adjacent sites.

RB2102/0619 Continuation of the erection of 92 dwellings (15 two storey 2 bedroom dwelling houses, 38 two storey 3 bedroom dwelling houses, and 39 No two storey 4 bedroom detached dwelling houses) with variation of Condition 1 (development in accordance with the approved plans) imposed by RB2010/1122 at land off Rother Crescent Treeton, for Jones Homes Northern Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: A. That the Borough Council enter into a supplemental legal agreement with the

developer under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to tie this application to the original legal agreement as amended.

B. Consequent upon the satisfactory signing of such an agreement the Borough

Council resolves to grant permission for the proposed development subject to the following reasons for granting permission and recommended conditions and informatives:

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION CONDITIONALLY. Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: (i) Policy ENV1.4 Land adjacent to the Green Belt states that in areas adjacent to the Green Belt development should be sympathetic to the environmental quality of the Green Belt. (ii) ENV2 Conserving the Environment states that development should not adversely affect the quality of the environment. (iii) ENV3.1 Development and the Environment states that development should have a positive effect on the environment. (iv) HG5 The Residential Environment states that the Council will encourage the use of best housing layout and design.

Other relevant material planning considerations Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing Guidance 4, Requirements for greenspace in new housing areas, states that for developments between 50 and 100 dwellings there should normally be a provision of 20 sqm per dwelling of public open space per dwelling.

National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations.

Paragraph 47 states: “ To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: ● use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; ● identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; ● identify a supply of specific, developable12 sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; ● for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describin how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and ● set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.” Paragraph 50 states: “To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should: ● plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); ● identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and ● where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.” Paragraph 56 states: “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 57 states: “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.”

For the following reasons: The proposed development is acceptable in principle on this site allocated for residential purposes, where previous permissions have been granted. It is considered that the amendments to the previously approved scheme would result in no material or adverse change to the layout of the site, and would have no greater impact on the environment or the character of the adjacent Green Belt by way of its scale and massing. It is further considered that there would be no adverse effect on the residential amenities of existing/future occupiers by way of lack of private open space, overlooking or over shadowing, and no adverse impact on car parking provision within the locality.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Ref Nos. JHN/971/500 Rev R, 2131.31.151 E, 2131.31.152 E, and 1:1250 Location Plan received 23RD May 2012; Ref No JHN/971/26 CONS received on the 4th April 2012; Ref No JHN/971/31 CONS received on the 10th May 2012; 2131.31.1506 (cross sections) and all Sections/Elevations/Floor Plans received 23 August 2010; 4760-03 G received on the 19th June 2008, Plan Ref Nos.; 2131/31/001Q, and JHN/971/509, received on the 24th December 2008. Reason To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved/amended plans. 02 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), all dwellings with integral garages shall retain these garages for car parking for the lifetime of the development hereby approved. Reason To avoid excessive parking in the highway and to ensure the free and safe movement of traffic. 03 Surface water from areas likely to receive petrol/oil contamination (e.g. vehicle parking areas) shall be passed through effective oil/grit interceptors prior to discharge to any sewer or watercourse. Reason

To prevent pollution of any watercourse in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 04 Details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any off-site work, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until such approved details are implemented. Reason To ensure that the development can be properly drained in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 05 Measures to be employed to prevent the egress of mud, water and other detritus onto the highway and details of the measures to be employed to remove any such substance from the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such measures shall be used for the duration of the works. Reason In order to ensure the development does not give rise to problems of mud/material deposit on the adjoining public highway in the interests of road safety. 06 Within two months of the date of this permission road sections, constructional and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is completed. Reason No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval. 07 No tree or hedgerow shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any tree or hedgerow be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning works approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). If any tree or hedgerow is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree or hedgerow shall be planted in the immediate area and that tree or hedgerow shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 08 Within two months of the date of this decision, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to

a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary:


The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 09 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 10 All the trees/shrubs or hedgerows to be retained shall be protected by a strong durable 2.30 metre high barrier fence in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction -Recommendations. This shall be positioned in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The protective fencing shall be properly maintained and shall not be removed without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the development is completed. There shall be no alterations in ground levels, fires, use of plant, storage, mixing or stockpiling of materials within the fenced areas. Reason To ensure the trees/shrubs are protected during the construction of the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough

Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 11 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either:-

a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site.

The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site, road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 12 Within two months of the date of this decision a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected, including details of treatment to the front boundary with the highway, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved boundary treatment shall be erected on a phased basis as the building works progress and relevant treatment implemented for the dwelling it serves is brought into use. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 13 Within two months of the date of this decision details of any key wildlife species or habitats, or ecological interests, along with details of mitigation to safeguard any interests identified shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved mitigating measures shall be implemented before the development is brought into use. Reason In the interests of good practice for sustainable development in accordance with advice in Paragraph 109 of the NPPF. 14 Within two months of the date of this decision, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how the use of sustainable/public transport will be encouraged. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices.

15 All loaded lorries leaving the site shall be securely and effectively sheeted. Reason In order to ensure that the development does not give rise to problems of mud/dust on the adjoining public highway in the interests of general highway safety/amenity. 16 Heavy goods vehicles shall only enter or leave the site between the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 hours on weekdays and 09:00 to 13:00 hours Saturdays and no such movements shall take place on or off the site on Sundays or Public Holidays (this excludes the movement of private vehicles for personal transport). Reason In the interests of local amenity. 17 The development hereby granted permission shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment by ARP Associates Ref 351/14 and surface water mitigating measures submitted by Jones Homes on the 19th May 2010 and shall incorporate all the mitigating measures detailed in the referred to documents. Reason To reduce risk to property in the event of flooding. 18 The proposed alterations to Rother Crescent, as indicated in draft form on the submitted plan reference 4760 - 03 Revision G, shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable to be agreed. Reason In the interests of highway safety. Informatives It is recommended that the following advice is followed to prevent a nuisance/ loss of amenity to local residential areas. Please note that the Council’s Neighbourhood Enforcement have a legal duty to investigate any complaints about noise or dust. If a statutory nuisance is found to exist they must serve an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Failure to comply with the requirements of an Abatement Notice may result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon conviction in Rotherham Magistrates' Court. It is therefore recommended that you give serious consideration to the below recommendations and to the steps that may be required to prevent a noise nuisance from being created. (i) Except in case of emergency, operations should not take place on site other than between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday and between 09:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays. There should be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Local Planning Authority should be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency and a

schedule of essential work shall be provided. (ii) Best practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may include water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment. At such times when due to site conditions the prevention of dust nuisance by these means is considered by the Local Planning Authority in consultations with the site operator to be impracticable, then movements of soils and overburden shall be temporarily curtailed until such times as the site/weather conditions improve such as to permit a resumption.

Background Planning permission for residential development was granted in 2009 (RB2008/0528) subject to various conditions and informatives and the signing of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act requiring the following obligations: (i) The provision of 14 affordable housing units. (ii) Details of the management and maintenance scheme for the proposed public open space areas to be provided on site. (iii) The dedication of approximately 0.4 hectares of land to the Treeton Junior and Infants School. (iv) The securing of £75,000 for the provision of car parking spaces free of the highway in Rother Crescent. Subsequent to the granting of planning permission, a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement was signed incorporating an increase in affordable housing from 14 to 16 units, whilst changing the house size, tenure type and plot numbers. Development in respect of this permission has commenced on site. An application for a non- material amendment to application RB2008/0528 was refused permission in 2010 (RB2010/0643). Planning permission for the continuation of the erection of 92 dwellings (15 two storey 2 bedroom dwelling houses, 38 two storey 3 bedroom dwelling houses, and 39 No two storey 4 bedroom detached dwelling houses) with variation of Condition 1 (development in accordance with the approved plans) imposed by RB2008/0528 was granted subject to conditions in 2010 (RB2010/1122). Planning permission for Substitution of house type previously approved under RB2008/0528, Plot 26 was granted permission in 2012 (RB2012/0581). Planning permission for Substitution of house type previously approved under RB2008/0528, Plot 31 was granted permission in 2012 (RB2012/0621). The proposed development falls within the description contained at paragraph 10b (Urban Development Projects) of Schedule 2 to the 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table in that Schedule (the area of development exceeds 0.5 hectares). However, the Local Planning Authority, having taken into account the criteria set out in Schedule 3 to the 2011 Regulations, is of the opinion that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location. Accordingly the Local Planning Authority has adopted the opinion that the development referred to above for which planning permission is sought is not EIA development as defined in the 2011 Regulations. Site Description & Location

The land is generally rectangular in shape with a long sweeping driveway from the south west corner of the site to the end of the adopted highway Rother Crescent. That driveway also serves the newly completed Autism Centre. To the north is existing residential development on Bradshaw Avenue and Falcon Drive, as well as Treeton Church of England School and the school playing field. To the east is

Green Belt agricultural land, and to the south is the Autism Centre and further Green Belt land. To the west, between the sweep of the driveway and the main application site is light industrial development on the site of the former Miners Training Centre and residential properties on Rother Crescent. Beyond the driveway is further residential development and Green Belt land. The site itself slopes gently down to the north east. To the south the Autism Centre is on a flat area of land. Proposal The application is for a series of minor amendments to the approved plans comprising: 1. Plots 37 to 41 have swapped places with plots 81 to 88 but house types to the plots remain as previously approved. 2. Plots 42 to 45 have moved west so that the relationship between plots 42 and 88 is consistent with similar relationships on the development. The slight movement of plots 42 to 45 has increased the distance between plot 45 and the overhead electric lines and their supporting pole stays. 4. The materials schedule has been amended with the introduction of alternative facing brick. The Hanson Howley Park Dragfaced brick has been substituted on those plots previously approved to be constructed with Harrison Old Trafford Red bricks, those bricks have been discontinued. Where plots are shown on the Street Scene Materials schedule with the Old Trafford Red bricks these plots either have been, or are in the course of being, built in those bricks. 5. A conservatory has been added to the rear elevation of the house on Plot 26. 6. A conservatory has been added to the rear elevation of the house on Plot 31. Development Plan Allocation and Policy The majority of the site is allocated as a residential development site (H45) on the adopted Unitary Development Plan, though a small section (approximately 0.12 hectares) is allocated for Community Facilities (Education) purposes. Whilst allocated as such this part forms part of an open field and is not within the curtilage of the adjacent Treeton Church of England School. Unitary Development Plan: Policy ENV1.4 Land adjacent to the Green Belt states: “In areas adjacent to the Green Belt, development should be sympathetic to the visual amenity and environmental quality of the Green Belt.” ENV2 Conserving the Environment states: “In considering any development, the Council will ensure that the effects on the wildlife, historic and geological resources of the Borough are fully taken into account …the Council will ensure the protection of these resources while supporting appropriate development which safeguards, enhances protects or otherwise improves the conservation of the heritage interests. The Council will only permit development where it can be shown that: 1. Development will not adversely affect any key environmental resources, 2. Development will not harm the character or quality of the wider environment, and

3. Where development will cause environmental losses, these are reduced to a minimum and outweighed by the other enhancements in compensation for the loss.” ENV 3.1 Development and the Environment, states that development should make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design. Policy HG5 The Residential Environment states: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.”

Other Material Considerations Supplementary Planning Guidance: Housing Guidance 4, Requirements for greenspace in new housing areas, states that for developments between 50 and 100 dwellings there should normally be a provision of 20 sqm per dwelling of public open space per dwelling.

National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process.

Paragraph 47 states “ To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: ● use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; ● identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; ● identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; ● for market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housi delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describin how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and ● set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances.” Paragraph 50 states: “To deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should: ● plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); ● identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand; and ● where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified (for example to improve or make more effective use of the existing housing stock) and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities. Such policies should be sufficiently flexible to take account of changing market conditions over time.” Paragraph 56 states: “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 57 states: “It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.” The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application.

Publicity The application was advertised on site and in the local press and neighbouring residents notified. Two representations from local residents have been received, both objecting to the proposals: Points raised are:

(i) Loss of privacy. (ii) Overshadowing. (iii) Sufficient housing in the area.

Treeton Parish Council have also made a representation indicating that the local school is currently at capacity and that this should be taken into consideration when considering this application. The Parish Council also wish to speak at the meeting. Consultations Transportation Unit: No objections. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The site of application is allocated for residential purposes on the Unitary Development Pan and has planning permission for residential development, granted under applications RB2008/0583 as amended subsequently by RB2010/1122. The principle of the development is therefore established. The main issue to be considered are: - The impact of the changes to the approved details on the character of the development and the amenities of future occupiers. - Issues raised in objections. The impact of the changes to the approved details on the character of the development and the amenities of future occupiers: The proposed changes consist primarily of amendments to the location of plots within the site. Plots 37 to 41 would be relocated to the positions of plots 81 to 88. Plots 37 to 41 will now overlook the amenity open space. There would be no change to the design of the dwellings, and they would be in accordance with the parameters relating to

distances between properties, garden lengths etc as normally applied to new residential development. The amendments to plots 42 to 45 result in the houses being further away from the overhead power lines on adjacent land outside the application site. In all other respects they are unchanged from the previous approval. The materials schedule has been amended with the introduction of alternative facing brick. The Hanson Howley Park Dragfaced brick has been substituted on those plots previously approved to be constructed with Harrison Old Trafford Red bricks as those bricks have been discontinued. Where plots are shown on the Street Scene Materials schedule with the Old Trafford Red bricks these plots either have been, or are in the course of being, built in those bricks. A conservatory has been added to the rear elevation of the house on Plot 31. The conservatory would normally be permitted development under the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2010, once the dwelling is completed ad occupied. Additionally permission for the amendment was granted recently under application reference RB2012/0581. A conservatory has been added to the rear elevation of the house on Plot 26. It is shown as 4.1m long and if the projection was reduced to 4.0m, it would normally be permitted development under the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2010, once the dwelling is completed and occupied. Additionally permission for the amendment was granted recent under application reference RB2012/0621. Whilst the amendments to the scheme could not be considered to be ‘non-material’, they would not result in any significant adverse change to the design and layout of the site, and would have no greater impact on the character and appearance of the development proposed or on the adjacent Green Belt. Additionally there would be no adverse effect on the residential amenities of existing or future occupiers by way of lack of private open space, overlooking or over shadowing, and no adverse impact on car parking provision within the locality. It is therefore considered that there would be no conflict with Policies ENV1.4 ‘Land adjacent to the Green Belt’, ENV2 ‘Conserving the Environment’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, and HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’ of the Unitary Development Plan, and advice in Paragraphs 56, 57 and 109 of the NPPF. Issues raised in objections. The issues raised by the objectors relate to the principle of the development and residential amenity. The principle of the development has already been accepted under the previous permission. With regard to amenity, the proposals comply with the parameters normally applied to new residential development and it is considered that there would be no additional impact on the amenities of existing adjoining occupiers. With regard to the issue of education provision raised by the Parish Council, this was addressed at the time of the original application. It was concluded that as a result of the development either a commuted sum of £122,570, or the dedication of the land allocated for education purposes on the Unitary Development Plan to the school for

future expansion purposes, would be acceptable to address the issue. The dedication of the referred to land was included in the obligations to the signed Section 106 Agreement and a separate planning application has been submitted to extend the playing field of the School onto this land (RB2012/0735). Conclusion Whilst the amendments to the original scheme cannot be considered to be ‘non-material’ they would not result in any significant adverse change to the development in terms of the design, scale and massing of the properties and no adverse effect on the residential amenities of the area or the character and appearance of the overall development or of the adjacent Green Belt. It is therefore recommended that permission be granted. RB2012/0647 Continuation of use of building as swimming pool with variation of Condition 05 (opening hours) to allow opening 0700 to 2200 hrs Monday to Friday and 1000 to 1600 hrs Sundays and Condition 06 (the premises shall be used for training/swimming lessons only and for no other purpose (including for general leisure uses)) to allow general leisure use (imposed by RB2010/0855) at 6 Brookland Park Industrial Estate, Low Common Road, Dinnington. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE REASON FOR REFUSAL It is considered that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the use of the swimming pool for general leisure purposes would satisfy the sequential test as set out in the NPPF and that there are no other suitable sites for a swimming pool for general leisure purposes within the Dinnington town centre and edge of centre area and the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the guidance set out in the NPPF.

Background Members may recall a previous application on this site for the change of use from industrial building to form swimming pool which was granted at Planning Board on 26 October 2010 (RB2010/0855). The reasons for granting this permission were as following: “The Council considers that the development will not impact on other industrial units in the vicinity with regard to opening hours and car parking provision. The proposed use will generate a good level of employment in the area, similar to other units in industrial use in the locality, and as such the use will not reduce employment opportunities in this area. The proposed use will bring a currently vacant unit back into use, to the economic benefit of the area. Whilst the use will be for a leisure facility (use Class D2) which would not comply with the allocation of this site for Industrial and Business Use, it is noted that the site will be for training purposes only and not in a general leisure use, and it is therefore considered to be acceptable.” Site Description & Location The application site is a former industrial unit located to the rear of an industrial estate. The building is two storeys in height, and is in part glass fronted. There is a large car park to the front and side of the building. The building is currently used as a training pool. Proposal This application is for the variation of conditions on the previously approved application for the change of use. Condition 5 of RB2010/0855 states: “The use herby permitted shall only be open to customers between the hours of 0730 and 1900 Mondays to Fridays and 0900 to 1900 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.” The application seeks to vary this condition by allowing opening hours of 0700 to 2200 Mondays to Fridays, 0900 to 1900 on Saturdays and 1000 to 1600 on Sundays. Condition 6 of RB2010/0/855 states: “The premises shall be used for training/swimming lessons only and for no other purpose (including for general leisure uses).” The application seeks to vary this condition to allow the pool to be used for general leisure uses. Information provided in the application form states that this application has been submitted to “fall in line with customer demands and requests.” No further supporting information has been submitted and no discussions took place with the Council prior to the submission of the application in relation to the general leisure use. Development Plan Allocation and Policy

The site is allocated as Industrial and Business in the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. Policies which are applicable to this proposal include: Policy EC1.1 ‘Safeguarding Existing Industrial and Business Areas’ states: “The Council will support proposals which safeguard the viability of established industrial and business areas, including those which seek to improve buildings, infrastructure and the environment.” Policy EC3.1 ‘Land identified for Industrial and Business Uses’ states “Within areas allocated on the Proposals Map for industrial and business use, development proposals falling within Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987 (as amended) will be acceptable, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicle associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses.” Policy EC3.3 ‘Other Development within Industrial and Business Areas’: “Within the sites allocated for industrial and business use on the Proposals Map, other development will be accepted, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses, where such development can be shown to be ancillary to the primary use of the area, or would provide significant employment and it can be shown that:

(i) there are no suitable alternative locations available for the proposed development,

(ii) no land-use conflicts are likely to arise from the proposed development, and (iii) the proposal significantly increases the range and quality of employment

opportunities in the area.” Policy EC3.4 ‘Small Businesses’ states “The Council will support the expansion of small firms and the development of new enterprises including community businesses particularly by:

(i) assisting the provision of small sites and managed workspace and permitting the conversion of suitable buildings, and

(ii) permitting the conversion of rural buildings for business use, to facilitate the diversification of the Borough’s rural economy.

In both cases, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses.” Other Material Considerations Since the granting of planning permission in 2010, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve

sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. Regarding ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’, paragraphs 18 to 22 of the NPPF state the following: 18. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future. 19. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. 20. To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century. 21. Investment in business should not be over-burdened by the combined requirements of planning policy expectations. Planning policies should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment or any lack of infrastructure, services or housing. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should:

• set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth;

• set criteria, or identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period;

• support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting and, where possible, identify and plan for new or emerging sectors likely to locate in their area. Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan and to allow a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances;

• plan positively for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries;

• identify priority areas for economic regeneration, infrastructure provision and environmental enhancement; and

• facilitate flexible working practices such as the integration of residential and commercial uses within the same unit.

22. Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.” Regarding ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’, paragraph 24 of the NPPF states: “Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale.” Paragraph 27 goes on to state: “Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused.” The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity The application has been publicised by site notice and by neighbour notification. No comments or representations have been received. Consultations The Council’s Transportation Unit have stated that there is insufficient information provided with the application to demonstrate that the proposed use for “general leisure” is acceptable. Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) have stated the variation to the opening hours and the general use of the swimming pool is acceptable as it is located on an industrial

estate some distance away from residential and the main noise source is indoors so it is unlikely to cause any problems. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..in dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations - S.70 (2) TCPA 1990. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application are:

• The alterations to the opening hours and the impact on the surrounding area.

• The principle of opening of the swimming pool for general leisure uses and the impact on the surrounding area.

Alterations to opening hours: Criterion 2 of EC3.3 concerns land use conflicts. In the previous application it was noted given the nature of the use (largely children between 0 and 12) that many users will be brought by parents and the location will favour visits by car rather than by bus. Industrial traffic through the estate may, therefore, conflict with traffic generated by the proposed use, especially if the use develops to a point where on-street parking becomes common. Those that do access the site via the bus or on foot will have to pass through much of the industrial estate to reach the application site. To address this point the applicants stated that the site will be used largely out of normal working hours, mainly at evenings and weekends and as such there will be little user conflict (although it is noted that the condition also allowed opening all day). For this reason, Condition 5 was imposed on the granting of the previous permission to limit the opening hours of the training pool. The hours granted were in accordance with the details submitted by the applicants in the original application. In the application to vary these opening hours, the application to vary the condition to allow general leisure uses must be considered as this would alter the nature of the use and the users of the pool. It is considered that with general leisure purposes the users of the pool would not just include children aged 0 to 12 who would be brought by parents for specific lessons, but could involve any numbers of groups of children or adults who would call and use the pool during the day or on weekends without attending specific lessons. However, it is considered that the location in the Industrial Estate will still favour visits by car rather than by bus, which could lead to conflicts with industrial traffic using the surrounding industrial estate. Notwithstanding this though, the changes to the opening hours would result in extensions to the hours by half an hour in the morning (proposed 7am) and by 3 hours in the evening (proposed 10pm), and opening on Sundays from 10am until 4pm when there was no proposal to open on a Sunday before. These extended hours are outside of normal working hours, early in the morning and at evenings and weekends, and therefore it is considered that the extension in the opening hours would not result in an

increase in land use conflicts that would be detrimental to the surrounding Industrial Estate. In addition, there are no residential properties nearby that would be affected by the alterations to the hours, and in view of the above it is considered that the increase in opening hours is acceptable and not contrary to Policy EC3.3 of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. Opening for general leisure purposes: As planning permission has been previously granted for the use of the building as a swimming pool for training purposes which has been implemented, the loss of the industrial unit within this industrial estate has already been accepted and will not be re-visited in this application. Notwithstanding this, the NPPF states that a sequential test should be applied to applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to date Local Plan. A sequential assessment was submitted with the previous application which at the time the application was submitted concluded that there was no alternative site which was sequentially preferable to the proposed site. It was recommended to Planning Board at that time that inadequate justification had been submitted as part of the application to ensure compliance with the Sequential Assessment as set out in PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Growth’ (as it was at the time) and to adequately demonstrate that there has been no interest in the site for industrial purposes in line with the requirements of UDP Policy EC3.3 ‘Other development within Industrial and Business Areas’. However, planning permission was granted by Members of Planning Board on the basis that “whilst the use will be for a leisure facility (use Class D2) which would not comply with the allocation of this site for Industrial and Business Use, it is noted that the site will be for training purposes only and not in a general leisure use, and it is therefore considered to be acceptable.” No additional details have been submitted with this application to support the proposal to allow the pool to be used for general leisure uses. Under the NPPF it is expected that a further sequential assessment should be submitted to demonstrate that there are no more appropriate sites for a general leisure use within Dinnington town centre, edge of centre or finally only if suitable sites are not available, out of centre. The NPPF states that “where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test…it should be refused.” It is therefore considered that the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the use of the swimming pool for general leisure purposes would satisfy the sequential test as set out in the NPPF and as such it is recommended that the application be refused on these grounds. Conclusion In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal to utilise the site for leisure purpose is unacceptable in terms of Policy and conflicts with Government Guidance with regard to leisure development in an out-of-centre location. It is not considered that appropriate material considerations have been demonstrated to justify a departure from the guidance set out in the NPPF. As such, whilst the variation of condition 5 to allow extended opening hours is considered to be acceptable, it is

recommended that planning permission be refused as the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the use of the swimming pool for general leisure purposes would satisfy the sequential test as set out in the NPPF. RB2012/0724 Continuation of conversion and extension of York House, Hallam House and Sovereign House to form residential & autistic care homes and retention of existing offices (use classes B1, B2 & B8) at County House, Redwall House and Great House with variation to Condition 2 (approved plans to include conversion of first floor offices and extension of second floor at Hallam House) imposed by RB2011/0849 at York House and Hallam House, Redwall Close, Laughton Common RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONDITIONALLY STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: Unitary Development Plan. Policy HG4.5 ‘Special Needs Housing’ states: “The Council will facilitate housing provision which caters for the special needs of single persons, people with disabilities, members of ethnic minorities and the elderly. The provision of sheltered housing and other appropriate accommodation for elderly people will be permitted in suitable locations. The design and layout of new housing developments should take into account the needs of people with disabilities and the elderly.” Policy HG4.6 ‘Sheltered and Supportive Housing’ states: “The Council will permit the provision of sheltered or supportive accommodation, care homes and nursing homes in residential areas, for people in need of care and support, provided that:

(i) a concentration of these forms of accommodation does not seriously interfere with the amenities of existing residents,

(ii) adequate provision is incorporated into any development to accommodate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and

(iii) appropriate provision is made for the laying out of openspace and landscaped areas for the enjoyment of the residents.”

Policy HG5: The Residential Environment states: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which

enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.” Policy EC3.2 ‘Land identified for Business Use’ states: “Within areas allocated for business use, only development proposals falling within Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987 (as amended) will be permitted, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses.” Policy EC3.3 ‘Other Development within Industrial and Business Areas’ states: “Within the sites allocated for industrial and business use on the Proposals Map, other development will be accepted, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses, where such development can be shown to be ancillary to the primary use of the area, or would provide significant employment and it can be shown that:

(iv) there are no suitable alternative locations available for the proposed development,

(v) no land-use conflicts are likely to arise from the proposed development, and (vi) the proposal significantly increases the range and quality of employment

opportunities in the area.” Policy ENV3.1: Development and the Environment states: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.” Policy ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the impact of development’ states: “In considering the scale, appearance, nature and location of development and infrastructure proposals, the Council will seek to minimise adverse impact on the environment, including water resources, and to conserve and improve its quality. It will permit development which results in a significant loss of trees, woodlands, hedgerows or field boundary walls only when there is compelling justification for doing so.” Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which:


(ii) would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to noise, malodour, dust, smoke or other polluting effects arising from existing industries, utility installations, major communication routes or other major sources.”

Policy ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land’ states: “Where land that may be contaminated as a result of previous uses, is proposed for development the council will need to be satisfied that the applicant has:

(i) undertaken investigations to establish the nature and extent of the contamination and its potential effects on the proposed development and/or the occupants thereof, and

(ii) provided details of the measures proposed for the removal and/or treatment of the contamination which will not cause or increase pollution in the environment, particularly to watercourses and ground-water resources. Where permission is granted, such measures will be imposed as planning conditions to be implemented prior to commencement of development or within a timescale agreed with the Council.”

Policy CR1 ‘Community and Social Provision’ states: “The Council will seek to enable the provision and retention of a range of community and social facilities through a variety of local authority, private sector and local community partnerships, wherever appropriate, which enhance the quality of life and serve the changing needs of the resident population, in particular, identified target groups including people with disabilities.”


It is considered that in principle the proposed use of the existing buildings, as extended, is acceptable subject to all other material planning considerations. The size, scale and design of the care homes is considered to be acceptable in its location and would provide adequate amenity space for the occupiers of the care homes. The distance between the proposed building and the residential properties to the north of this site is approximately 20 metres to the side elevation of the closest property and approximately 25 metres from the rear of the neighbouring property that backs on to the site. It is acknowledged that the proposed buildings will be three storeys in height with windows serving habitable rooms overlooking the dwellings to the north. However, given the distance and juxtaposition of the dwellings with the proposed building, it is not considered that the proposals would result in harm to these residential properties by virtue of overlooking or by the size and scale of the building. There are no objections to the proposals from a drainage point of view although the provision of a Flood Evacuation Plan for the site is recommended. As such it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in terms of drainage.

A Travel Plan has been submitted with this application setting out how sustainable transport modes will be promoted to reduce reliance on the private car. This includes encouraging walking or the use of the bus for the workforce where possible or subsidising bicycle purchase, buying locally where possible, and looking at reducing the impact of car usage by the provision of an electric vehicle charging facility. Furthermore the proposal will see the upgrade of the existing footpath which runs into the site to allow easier and safer access onto Rotherham Road. As such it is considered that the proposals are acceptable and would not result in harm to highway safety. In terms of the impact of the development on the ecology of the area, the closeness of the development to Eels Mire Dike to the north is noted, though mitigation measures have been implemented to address any impact. The site was a former gasworks which has been previously redeveloped. It is considered that subject to gas protection measures taking place, the proposal would be acceptable in this respect.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Drawing numbers: 370-001-1059, 370-001-1054, 370-001-1056, 370-001-1053, 370-001-1052, 370-001-1051, 370-001-1050, 370-001-1060, 370-001-1061, 370-001-1062, 370-001-1063, 370-001-1064 received 10 May 2012, RWD 01, RWD 02, RWD 07, RWD 08, RWD 09, RWD 10 submitted for application RB2011/0849 received 6 May 2011). Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 02 Details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any off-site work, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until such approved details are implemented. Reason To ensure that the development can be properly drained in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 03 A scheme detailing gas protection measures for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the development is brought into use.

Reason To ensure that the development will not give rise to contamination in accordance with UDP Policy ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land’. 04 Prior to the first occupation of the site, the access to Rotherham Road shall be constructed in accordance with the details on Plan no. 30-001-1009B. Reason In the interests of highway safety. 05 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either;

a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site.

The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and to encourage drivers to make use of the parking spaces and to ensure that the use of the land for this purpose will not give rise to the deposit of mud and other extraneous material on the public highway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site and road safety. 06 Before the development is brought into use the car parking area shown on the approved plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory garage/parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 07 The Travel Plan submitted with this application “Residential Care Home and Mini Home Travel Plan” dated 2011-03-31 shall be adhered to during the lifetime of the development. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed of and give prior approval in writing to any subsequent improvements or modifications to the Travel Plan following submission of progress performance reports as time tabled in the monitoring programme. For further information please contact the Transportation Unit (01709) 822186. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 08 Parking space numbers 10 to 24 inclusive shall be made available for visitors and staff of York House and Sovereign House when the offices fronting these spaces are closed. Reason In the interests of highway safety.

09 No building shall be occupied unless it has been constructed in accordance with a scheme submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority, so as to ensure that the building envelope provides sound attenuation against external noise, with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided, to achieve internal noise levels in all habitable areas attributable to external noise sources of no greater than: 35 dB LAeq 16 hour between 07:00 and 23:00 hours in any living room. 30 dB LAeq between 23:00 and 07:00 hours in any bedroom. 45 dB LAMax between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00 in any bedroom Reason In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of the building and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 10 No bedroom shall be occupied unless it has been constructed in accordance with a scheme submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority, so as to ensure that the boundary structures provide sound attenuation against road and rail noise, to achieve an external garden noise level of no greater than: 50 dB(A) Leq, 0700 - 2300 hours, measured at any point on the property boundary, at a height of 1.5m above ground level, in free field conditions. Reason In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of the building and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 11 The rating level of the plant installation shall be controlled to achieve a maximum of 35 dB(A) at all existing noise sensitive properties in the surrounding area, specifically the housing estate to the north. Reason In the interests of the amenity of the occupiers of the building and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 12 No tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any tree be pruned other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any pruning works approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Work). If any tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted in the immediate area and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 13

All the trees/shrubs to be retained have been protected by the erection of a strong durable 2.30 metre high barrier fence in accordance with BS 5837: 2005 Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction. This shall be positioned in accordance with details as shown on the submitted tree constraints and tree protection plan from Weddle Landscape Design drawing No RWD 08 dated, April 2011. The protective fencing shall be properly maintained and shall not be removed without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the development is completed. There shall be no alterations in ground levels, fires, use of plant, storage, mixing or stockpiling of materials within the fenced areas. Reason To ensure the trees/shrubs are protected during the construction of the development in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 14 A detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary:


The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 15 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year.

Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 16 The proposed brown roof shall be provided on the roof in the locations shown on Weddle Landscape Design Drawing no RWD 01 prior to the buildings first being brought into use. Full details of the brown roof construction and specification, including proposals for vegetating the roof together with a maintenance schedule, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site. The roof vegetation shall be maintained thereafter and any failures shall be replaced on an annual basis in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. Informatives 01 INF 32A FIRE APPLIANCES The applicant is advised that access for fire appliances should be in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document B volume 2 part B5 section 16. 02 Water supplies should be in accordance with Approved Document B, Volume 2, part B5 section 15. 03 INF 28 Flooding (within Flood Plain) The proposed extension to the existing property lies within the flood plain as shown on the Environment Agency's Indicative Flood Plain Maps. It is important that all proposed extensions must be designed and constructed, to protect and safeguard against all possible risks from flooding. Further guidance on how properties may be protected against possible flooding problems can be found on the Environment Agency's web site. In all events the proposed extension must not divert or create or cause additional flood water problems to any adjacent or neighbouring land. 04 INF 29 Flooding (Outside Flood Plain) Whilst the property does not lie within the flood plain as shown on the Environment Agency's 1 in 100 year Indicative Flood Plain Maps it is noted that the site is within an area that has historically flooded in the past. It is important that all proposed extensions must be designed and constructed, to protect and safeguard against all possible risks from flooding. Further guidance on how properties may be protected against possible flooding problems can be found on the Environment Agency's web site. In all events the

proposed extension must not divert or create or cause additional flood water problems to any adjacent or neighbouring land. Examples – For Guidance Purposes Only Protect property by considering appropriate flood defence measures such as: Proposed FFL should be set at a minimum of 600mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level, solid floor construction, waterproofing external walls, position electrical appliances above flood level, have an appropriate flood evacuation plan, provide additional flood defence measures to minimise further flooding of property such as air vent caps, flood gates where appropriate, etc. The above examples are only to be used for guidance purposes and to be helpful to applicants in what may be required to protect property against possible flooding problems, in all cases the applicant is strongly advised to seek further information on the EA web site. 05 Some of the surrounding areas and highways in Laughton Common are known to flood in exceptional circumstances. It is important that in an exceptional flood event a Flood Evacuation Plan should be adopted by the applicant which will allow safe access and egress to the development in an emergency situation. 06 INF 25 Protected species Wildlife Legislation The protection afforded to protected sites and species under UK and EU legislation is irrespective of the planning system and the applicant should therefore ensure that any activity undertaken, regardless of the need for any planning consent, complies with the appropriate wildlife legislation. If any protected species are found on the site then work should halt and an appropriately qualified ecologist consulted. The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in Great Britain is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Act is supplemented by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations), the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (in England and Wales). All species of bats and their roosts are protected by UK and European legislation. Roosts are equally protected whether bats are present or not. The Great Crested Newt is protected by UK and European legislation. The legislation covers all life stages; eggs, tadpoles and adult newts are all equally covered. Otters and their holts, including hovers and couches, which are otter resting places above ground, are protected by UK and European legislation. Water Vole are protected against killing, injuring or taking; possession or control; damage or destruction of its places of shelter, or disturbance while such animals are occupying places of shelter. All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by UK law and it is an offence, with certain exceptions, to kill, injure or take any wild bird, to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built, and to take or destroy the egg of any wild

bird. Certain species receive increased protection making it an offence to disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building or is at (or near) a nest with eggs or young; or disturb the dependant young of such a bird. Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. Interference with a sett includes blocking tunnels or damaging the sett in any way. The information provided is a summary only; for definitive information, primary sources should be consulted.

Background There have been several applications relating to the site though the most relevant are as follows: RB1988/0798 Reclamation of land & outline application for the erection of industrial development GRANTED 18/08/88 RB1994/1546 Application under Regulations 3 & 9 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for the construction of an access road to serve the site, including the provision of statutory services GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 16/02/95 RB2002/0292 Outline application for erection of development within classes B1, B2 and B8 (Business, General Industry and Storage and Distribution) GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 19/12/02 RB2003/0527 Details of the erection of 6 industrial units for use within classes B1, B2 and B8 (matters reserved by outline RB2002/0292) GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 28/07/03 RB2011/0849 Conversion and extension of York House, Hallam House and Sovereign House to form residential & autistic care homes and retention of existing offices (use classes B1, B2 & B8) at County House, Redwall House, Great House and first floor Hallam House GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 15/08/11 A screening opinion was carried out to determine whether an Environmental Impact Assessment should accompany the application. The proposed development falls within the description contained in paragraphs 10 (b) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and meets the criteria set out in column 2 of the table, i.e. that the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectares. However, taking account of the criteria set out in Schedule 3, the opinion has been reached that the development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location and therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required to accompany the application. Site Description & Location The application site is an existing Industrial and Business Park located on the edge of a residential area in Laughton Common. There are a number of units within the site, with a large car parking area to the centre of the site. To the north is Eels Mire Dike, a small watercourse which separates the industrial site with the adjoining housing estate, and in particular residential properties on Euston Way and St Pancras Close. To the west of the site is a railway line which runs north/south and to the south of the site are other industrial units. Development has already begun on the conversion to the units. Proposal This application is for a continuation of the development of RB2011/0849 (conversion and extension of an existing two storey business unit at York House and its extension into Hallam House to form a residential care home) with a variation of Condition 2 of this

permission. Condition 2 limits development to the submitted details and specifications set out in the approved plans (which are listed in the Condition). The variation of this Condition is to allow alterations to the approved plans to include the conversion of the part of the first floor of Hallam House from B1 offices to accommodate an additional 3no bed spaces and construction of a second floor above to provide an additional 3no bed spaces. In the previously approved application this B1 unit was to remain as a separate unit with no second floor accommodation over. The proposed development will increase the floor space of the care home by approximately 246 square metres. The extension involves raising the height of the roof of the building to form rooms in the roofspace and the addition of dormer windows to continue the roofline along the whole of Hallam House. The materials to be used in the construction of the extension are to match those already used in the conversion of the buildings including the use of artificial stone at ground floor, brick at first floor with a concrete tiled roof. The use of render is also proposed on the projecting gables. The car parking provision will be the same as previously approved. With the addition of the extra bedrooms, the residential care home overall will provide an 80 bed elderly persons care home specialising in dementia care and EMI (elderly mentally infirm) clients. The autistic care home based in Sovereign House will provide 10 beds. The proposals involve the creation of approximately 80 full jobs and 10 part time jobs associated with the care home uses. A number of documents have been submitted with the planning application and these are summarised below: Planning Statement: This states; “The extension to the care home approved as part of the re-development of Waterside Business park under RB2011/0849 would provide a further 6 bedrooms. This would give a total number of 80 elderly person bed spaces within the main care home and is an opportunity to provide an important form of accommodation and economic investment on this site. The increase in size in terms of use, scale, layout and form of development is not considered to materially alter the nature of the development approved. The parameters of the built form in terms of roof height, building depth and appearance match the existing attached approved built form and would serve to make a more efficient use of the space available within the development. The proposals do not reduce or lose occupied office space as the current business JTM will relocate to Great House.” Tree Survey and Tree Constraint Plan: This shows all the trees located on the site and gives details of their potential for future growth and those which are to be felled. Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment:

This covers foul drainage, roof water and surface water and concludes that there is a lack of evidence of current or future flooding on the site and that a Flood Evacuation plan is not necessary. Noise Survey: The report suggests that the proposed development will be subject to noise from the railway, road traffic and from the commercial/industrial units. In addition there will also be a noise impact from ventilation plant of the care home on the surrounding area. An Environmental noise survey was conducted and concluded that the site as a whole would fall into category B and therefore noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection is provided against noise. Mitigation measures have been proposed to achieve appropriate levels in the living accommodation and in order to achieve these levels the report states that the bedroom windows would need to be kept closed and therefore an alternative form of ventilation is required to limit the noise intrusion. The noise report states that the noise can be controlled through the provision of standard double glazing and trickle ventilation per room on the west elevation where the railway line is located or through some form of ducted “whole house” ventilation system which does not require any permanent ventilation openings into the habitable rooms to achieve the same. The south of the site facing the industrial estate will have the additional benefit of a 2.4m high solid acoustic fence. Travel Plan: The summary of the Travel Plan is to encourage and implement this travel plan to reduce the need to travel, improve choice in travel modes, reduce car use and help create a healthier workforce. This will include encouraging walking or the use of the bus for the workforce where possible or subsidising a bicycle purchase, buying locally where possible, and looking at reducing the impact of car usage by the provision of an electric vehicle charging facility. Ecological Assessment: The Non Technical Summary submitted with this application states that the site contains a limited number of habitats typical of commercially used sites and sites formed by slow running water. The habitats are of low to moderate ecological value. No protected species have been identified on the site and the Water Vole habitat along Eel Mires Dike was protected during the construction works which have already taken place on the site in accordance with the Ecological Assessment – Water Vole Protection Mitigation Measures document dated November 2011. Land Contamination Report: This site forms part of the former site of the now demolished and cleared gas works, which was owned by Rotherham Council. The gas works usage caused significant contamination and the site underwent a full remediation after the demolition of the gas works. The de-contamination process had four stages:

• Desk Study

• Intrusive Investigation

• Remediation

• Verification The report states “I confirm that no activities have taken place on the site since 2003 that could in any way have generated contamination – only office usage.” Parking Provision: This sets out the number of car parking spaces proposed for each unit on Waterside Business Park as well as the proposed Care Home. 58 spaces will be provided, including those outside of County House, in order to accommodate landscaping within the site. The proposal is to retain 44 car parking spaces for communal use shared between the users of the retained offices (excluding County House which has its own allocated car parking) and 14 allocated to the retained offices. Development Plan Allocation and Policy The site is allocated as Business Use in the adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. Therefore the following policies are applicable to this proposal: Unitary Development Plan Policies: Policy HG4.5 ‘Special Needs Housing’ states: “The Council will facilitate housing provision which caters for the special needs of single persons, people with disabilities, members of ethnic minorities and the elderly. The provision of sheltered housing and other appropriate accommodation for elderly people will be permitted in suitable locations. The design and layout of new housing developments should take into account the needs of people with disabilities and the elderly.” Policy HG4.6 ‘Sheltered and Supportive Housing’ states: “The Council will permit the provision of sheltered or supportive accommodation, care homes and nursing homes in residential areas, for people in need of care and support, provided that:

(i) a concentration of these forms of accommodation does not seriously interfere with the amenities of existing residents,

(ii) adequate provision is incorporated into any development to accommodate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and

(iii) appropriate provision is made for the laying out of openspace and landscaped areas for the enjoyment of the residents.”

Policy HG5: The Residential Environment states: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.” Policy EC3.2 ‘Land identified for Business Use’ states: “Within areas allocated for business use, only development proposals falling within Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987 (as amended) will be permitted, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses.”

Policy EC3.3 ‘Other Development within Industrial and Business Areas’ states: “Within the sites allocated for industrial and business use on the Proposals Map, other development will be accepted, subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses, where such development can be shown to be ancillary to the primary use of the area, or would provide significant employment and it can be shown that:


(ii) no land-use conflicts are likely to arise from the proposed development, and (iii) the proposal significantly increases the range and quality of employment

opportunities in the area.” Policy ENV3.1: Development and the Environment states: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.” Policy ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the impact of development’ states: “In considering the scale, appearance, nature and location of development and infrastructure proposals, the Council will seek to minimise adverse impact on the environment, including water resources, and to conserve and improve its quality. It will permit development which results in a significant loss of trees, woodlands, hedgerows or field boundary walls only when there is compelling justification for doing so.” Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which:


(ii) would be likely to suffer poor environmental amenity due to noise, malodour, dust, smoke or other polluting effects arising from existing industries, utility installations, major communication routes or other major sources.”

Policy ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land’ states: “Where land that may be contaminated as a result of previous uses, is proposed for development the council will need to be satisfied that the applicant has:

(i) undertaken investigations to establish the nature and extent of the contamination and its potential effects on the proposed development and/or the occupants thereof, and

(ii) provided details of the measures proposed for the removal and/or treatment of the contamination which will not cause or increase pollution in the environment, particularly to watercourses and ground-water resources. Where permission is granted, such measures will be imposed as planning

conditions to be implemented prior to commencement of development or within a timescale agreed with the Council.”

Policy CR1 ‘Community and Social Provision’ states: “The Council will seek to enable the provision and retention of a range of community and social facilities through a variety of local authority, private sector and local community partnerships, wherever appropriate, which enhance the quality of life and serve the changing needs of the resident population, in particular, identified target groups including people with disabilities.” Other Material Considerations Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the planning system states: “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.” Furthermore it goes on to state “They should consider attaching appropriate planning conditions or entering into planning obligations under which the developer would take steps to secure the long-term protection of the species. They should also advise developers that they must comply with any statutory species’ protection provisions affecting the site concerned.” National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. Paragraph 19 of the NPPF states “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.” Paragraph 22 states “Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable communities.” At paragraph 34 the NPPF states “Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.” Paragraph 35 goes on to state “Plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, development should be located and designed where practical to:

• accommodate the efficient delivery of good and supplies;

• give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;

• create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;

• incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and

• consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.” Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 96 states “In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should expect new development to:

• comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and

• take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.”

At paragraph 118 the NPPF states “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

• if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

• proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

• development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;

• planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and

• the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites:

- potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation;

- listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and - sites identified, or require, as compensatory measures for adverse effects

on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.”

Paragraph 119 states “The presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.” Paragraph 121 states “Planning policies and decision should also ensure that:

• the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation;

• after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and

• adequate site investigation, prepared by a competent person, is presented.” Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states “Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

• avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;

• mitigate and reduce to a minimum other impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;

• recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to redevelop in continuance of their business should not have

unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and

• identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”

The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity The application has been publicised by press advertisement, site notice and by neighbour notification. One letter of comment has been received from the occupier of a neighbouring commercial property stating that there are no objections to the proposals, however concern is raised regarding the conduct of the workforce currently on the site. Consultations The Transportation Unit have no objections to the proposal from a highway aspect. The Council’s Streetpride Section (Landscape) have no objections to the proposals subject to conditions. The Director of Culture and Leisure (Ecology) has stated that as all the works in the nearby Eels Mires Dike water course have now been completed and the exclusion measures were implemented as recommended by the developer’s consultant ecologist, and that as there is no additional biodiversity impact from the amendment to the proposals, there is no need to condition further protection measures. The Director of Neighbourhoods and Adult Services (Environmental Health) has stated that gas monitoring was undertaken during the original reclamation works and elevated levels of carbon dioxide and methane were measured on several occasions. These gases were associated with the old coal workings. At the time of the original development, gas protection measures were stipulated to mitigate against the potential health effects of any residual contamination and any ground gases on the site. For the above reasons gas protection measures will be required for the proposed extensions. They have also stated that the proposed amended development will be subject to noise disamenity from the railway, road traffic and from the commercial/industrial units same as the previous application RB2011/0849. In the light of this it is recommended that the previous conditions from planning application RB2011/0849 relating to noise are incorporated. Severn Trent Water have no objections to the proposals subject to a condition regarding the submission of a drainage scheme for foul and surface water drainage. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service have stated that the proposed development has no archaeological implications and therefore raise no comments. South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue have stated that access for appliances should be in accordance with Approved Document B, Volume 2, part B5, Section 16. Water supplies should be in accordance with Approved Document B, Volume 2, part B5 section 15.

Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the proposals are:

• The principle of the development.

• The design and layout of the proposals.

• Impact on drainage.

• Highway issues.

• Landscaping of the site/sustainability

• Impact on ecology.

• Impact on neighbouring properties.

• Land contamination issues.

• Other issues raised at the publicity stage. Principle of development The principle of development has been established under the previous approval (RB2011/0849). The proposed amendment will result in the loss of a further B1 business unit (the occupiers have been relocated elsewhere on the overall site). The site is allocated as a Business Use site in the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. Policy EC3.2 indicates that within such areas “…only development proposals falling within Class B1…will be permitted…” Residential and Autistic Care Home uses fall within Class C2 (Residential Institutions) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order (1987) as amended. As noted in the last application, the provision of a care home within the Borough would satisfy Policy CR1 ‘Community and Social Provision’ in that it would provide community and social facilities specifically relating to identified target groups including people with disabilities. However, the application must be assessed against all other relevant policies and guidance. Policy EC3.3 ‘Other Development within Industrial and Business Areas’ of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan sets out that other development may be considered acceptable in areas allocated for Industrial and Business Uses “subject to no adverse effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, adequate arrangements for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the proposed development and compatibility with adjacent existing and proposed land uses, where such development can be shown to be ancillary to the primary use of the area, or would provide significant employment and it can be shown that:


(ii) no land-use conflicts are likely to arise from the proposed development, and

(iii) the proposal significantly increases the range and quality of employment opportunities in the area.”

(i) there are no suitable alternative locations available for the proposed development. An assessment of alternative sites and land was submitted with the previous application. This set out a number of sites which were considered as alternatives to this site. These included development sites for housing, former residential care home sites and other business park sites. These were discounted for a variety of reasons including costs, availability, allocated use, size, and transport links. It was considered that adequate information was provided to demonstrate that alternative sites had been considered and appropriately discounted. (ii) no land-use conflicts are likely to arise from the proposed development. Although the proposals would result in the loss of 1no business unit over and above that previous approved, the site, would still provide a mix of B1 office use along with the care home elements; both served from the same access. The Council’s Transportation Unit have not raised any concern with increase in the number of bed spaces and the proposed number of car parking spaces and it is considered therefore that there will be no significant conflict in terms of parking and traffic use between the existing and the proposed uses. As was noted in the last application, with regard to conflicts with nearby residential properties it is considered that as the proposal involves the creation of residential and autistic care homes, this type of use would not be out of character in a residential area. As such it is considered there would be little or no land use conflict between these two uses. In terms of the conflict of adding residential and autistic care homes into a business use site, a noise survey was submitted with the application to show the potential for noise disturbance to the occupants of the care homes from the neighbouring uses. This concludes that the proposed development will be subject to noise from the railway, road traffic and from the commercial/ industrial units. In addition there will also be a noise impact from the care home on the surrounding area from the ventilation plant. As with the previous application mitigation measures have been proposed to achieve appropriate levels in the living accommodation and in order to achieve these levels the report states that the bedroom windows would need to be kept closed and therefore an alternative form of ventilation is required to limit the noise intrusion. The report also states that noise can be controlled through the provision of standard double glazing and trickle ventilation per room on the west elevation where the railway line is located or through some form of ducted “whole house” ventilation system which does not require any permanent ventilation openings into the habitable rooms to achieve the same. The south of the site facing the industrial estate will have the additional benefit of a 2400mm high solid acoustic fence. Given all of these mitigation measures it is considered that any impact on the occupiers of the care homes from the surrounding uses could be mitigated and subject to conditions would be in accordance with Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ of the Rotherham UDP and the guidance set out in the NPPF. (iii) the proposal significantly increases the range and quality of employment opportunities in the area.

The planning statement submitted with the application states that “new office developments at Matrix in Dinnington mean there is an oversupply of B1 space in the area which resulted in high levels of vacancy on the Waterside Business Park (historically 60% but dropping as low as 15% at one stage). Given the availability of alternative more modern B1 space within the Matrix scheme (with some 40% occupancy in summer 2011) the loss of 127m2 of office space within a building otherside used as a care home is not a materially harmful effect on the economic delivery of employment land.” It goes on to state “The consolidation of office space within Great House will mean that B1 uses are not being lost and in fact tenants are being secured within a more appropriate office environment.” It is noted that this amended proposal will result in the loss of a B1 unit with no additional increase in employment opportunities for the residential care home. However the proposal will still provide approximately 80 full time and 20 part times jobs on the site and it is acknowledged that the scheme as a whole will still bring new jobs into the area. As the loss of the B1 units only results in the additional loss of 127 square metres of business space, and given the details set out above, it is considered that the proposal broadly complies with Policy EC3.3 ‘Other Development within Industrial and Business Areas’ of the Rotherham UDP and the guidance set out in the NPPF. Design and layout of the proposals The design and layout of Hallam House are changed with this proposal with the conversion and extension of the first floor and second floor to form additional bed space. The design and materials to be used are to match the rest of the development, including the other half of Hallam House. Materials to be used will include artificial stone at ground floor, brick at first floor with a concrete tiled roof. The use of render is also proposed on the projecting gables. The scale and size of the proposals is considered to be acceptable in terms of the relationship with surrounding buildings. It is therefore considered that the proposals are in accordance with Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ of the Rotherham UDP and the guidance set out in the NPPF. Impact on drainage A Flood Risk Assessment was submitted with this application given that the site is close to an area which flooded in the 2007 Floods and given the close proximity of Eels Mire Dike which is a sensitive watercourse. The Council’s Streetpride Section (Drainage) have raised no objections to the proposals although recommend informatives regarding the provision of a Flood Evacuation Plan for the site. As such it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in terms of drainage. Highways issues The same Travel Plan submitted with the previous application has been submitted with this application setting out how sustainable transport modes will be promoted to reduce reliance on the private car. This includes encouraging walking or the use of the bus for the workforce where possible or subsidising bicycle purchase, buying locally where possible, and looking at reducing the impact of car usage by the provision of an electric

vehicle charging facility. Furthermore the proposal will see the upgrade of the existing footpath which runs into the site to allow easier and safer access onto Rotherham Road. With regard to provision of car parking spaces, no additional car parking spaces are proposed than previously approved even though the development results in an increase in 6no bed spaces. This results in 58 spaces being provided overall, including those outside of County House, in order to accommodate landscaping within the site. The Council’s Transportation Unit have raised no objections to this, subject to the same conditions as on the previous approval including the parking spaces numbered 10 to 24 on the site plan being retained for the office use as they are outside Great House and the proposals set out in the Travel Plan being carried out and details regarding surfacing of parking areas. As such it is considered that the proposals are acceptable and would not result in harm to highway safety. Landscaping of the site/sustainability The current site has little landscaping surrounding the buildings and none within the car parking area which is just hard surfaced. As with the previous application a Landscaping Masterplan has been submitted with the application to demonstrate how the site will be improved through hard and soft landscaping measures. The proposals involve the loss of a number of car parking spaces to provide soft landscaping within the site (as noted above), including the planting of a number of trees within the car parking area, as well as the provision of a small sensory garden and rose garden to the rear of the residential care home. Additionally, a brown roof is to be provided on top of the main care home building (formerly York House), providing ecological as well as insulation benefits. Policy HG4.6 ‘Sheltered and Supportive Housing’ seeks to ensure that “appropriate provision is made for the laying out of openspace and landscaped areas for the enjoyment of the residents.” The Council’s Streetpride Section (Landscape) have stated that the level of landscaping provided and the overall balance between hard and soft landscape elements is acceptable and have no objections to the proposals subject to the submission of a full landscaping scheme as a condition of any approval. With regard to sustainability issues, Paragraph 96 of the NPPF states that proposals should “comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable”. As well as a brown roof the proposals also include rainwater harvesting, a solar water heating system, super thermal insulation, PV cells providing energy for shared services, locally sourced materials, timber from FSC approved sources and the provision of a landscaped meadow feature along Eels Mire Dike for habitat improvement. Given these details it is considered therefore that the proposals have considered impacts on climate change from the development and that the proposal complies with the guidance set out in the NPPF relating to sustainability and climate change. Impact on ecology

In terms of the impact of the development on the ecology of the area, it is considered that the proposals will not result in any significant increase over and above that previously approved. The Council’s Ecology Officer has stated that as all the works in the water course have now been completed and the exclusion measures were implemented as recommended by the developer’s consultant ecologist, and that as there is no additional biodiversity impact from the amendment to the proposals, there is no need to condition further protection measures. Given the above it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ of the Rotherham UDP, that set out in the NPPF and in Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system. Impact on neighbouring properties A letter of comment has been received from a neighbouring property stating that there are no objections to the proposals. The development results in an increase in the built form of Hallam House when viewed from the rear of residential properties to the north (across Eels Mire Dyke). However as noted under the original approved scheme the distance between the care home buildings and these dwellings is approximately 25 metres. It is acknowledged that the proposed building will be three storeys in height with windows serving habitable rooms overlooking the dwellings to the north. However, given the distance and juxtaposition of the dwellings with the proposed building, it is not considered that the proposals would result in harm to the occupiers of these residential properties by virtue of overlooking or by the size and scale of the building. It is noted that none of the occupiers notified have objected to the proposals. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment” of the Rotherham UDP. As with the previous application, a condition is recommended that would control noise emissions from plant installed on the proposed buildings as converted and extended, which would protect the amenities of the residents to the north, in compliance with Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. Land contamination issues The site was a former gasworks which has been previously redeveloped. A Land Contamination Report was submitted with this application as well as the previous application which states that the gas works usage caused significant contamination and the site underwent a full remediation after the demolition of the gas works. The report states: “I confirm that no activities have taken place on the site since 2003 that could in any way have generated contamination – only office usage.” The Council’s Environmental Health Service stated in the previous application that gas monitoring was undertaken during the original reclamation works and elevated levels of carbon dioxide and methane were measured on several occasions. These gases were associated with the old coal workings. At the time of the original development to mitigate against the potential health effects of any residual contamination and any ground gases on the site, gas protection measures were stipulated. For the above reasons gas protection measures will be required for the proposed extensions. This has not changed with the new proposals.

It is therefore considered that subject to gas protection measures taking place, the proposal would be acceptable and would therefore be in accordance with Policy ENV4.4 ‘Contaminated Land’ of the Rotherham UDP. Other issues raised at the publicity stage A comment has been received during the course of the application raising problems with the conduct of the workforce currently on the site. As this is not a material planning consideration this has been given no weight in the assessment of this application, though the applicants have been informed and have indicated that they will take appropriate action. Conclusion In conclusion, the principle of the development has been established under the previous approval (RB2011/0849) and it is considered that the variation proposed, being the conversion and extension of the remainder of Hallam House to provide 6no additional bed spaces, is also acceptable in principle. The size, scale and design is considered to be acceptable in its location and would provide adequate amenity space for the occupiers of the care homes and would not result in an increase in harm to the neighbouring residential properties to the north of the site. As an overall proposal the changes to the parking on the site and the submitted Travel Plan are considered to be acceptable as well as the upgrade of the existing footpath which runs into the site allowing safer access onto Rotherham Road. As such it is considered that the proposals are acceptable and would not result in harm to highway safety. The proposed upgrade to the landscaping within the existing car parking area is considered to be an improvement and the landscaping measures proposed including a sensory garden and a brown roof on the main care home building are considered to be acceptable and provide ecological benefits. As such, given the details set out above, it is considered that the proposal complies with relevant national and local planning policy and guidance and it is recommended that the application be granted with conditions. RB2012/0735 Change of use of land to school playing field on land adjacent Treeton Junior and Infants School, Wood Lane, Treeton. RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conditionally STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan:

Local Planning Policy CR1.5 Community Facilities: “Those areas allocated on the Proposals Map for Community Facilities will, wherever possible, be retained or developed for such purposes during the Plan Period. In addition, land or buildings currently used or last used for community purposes, but not identified as such on the Proposals Map will be similarly safeguarded wherever possible. Development proposals which involve the loss of key community facilities shall only be permitted where the local planning authority is satisfied that the retention of the land or building in community use is no longer viable, or where adequate alternative provision has been made or where some other overriding public benefit will result from the loss of the facility.” Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. For the following reasons: Whilst part of the site is allocated for residential purposes, the principle of the use of the land as an extension to Treeton Junior and Infants School was effectively accepted when planning permission for residential development on the adjoining land was granted in 2009 for Jones Homes (RB2008/0528). A S106 legal agreement signed in connection with this permission required the dedication of approximately 0.4 hectares of land (the land the subject of the current application) to the Treeton Junior and Infants School. The report at that time noted that whilst a small part of the overall site was allocated for Education purposes, “the applicant has indicated that the land available for education purpose would not be reduced as additional land outside the application site to the west (and allocated for residential purposes) would be set aside for education purposes and dedicated to the nearby Treeton Church of England School.” The use of the land as an extension of the playing field area to the School and the formation of a playing pitch on the land will in part provide replacement facility for that land lost to development of a classroom on the existing School site and is acceptable in principle, and will improve sporting facilities at the school overall in accordance with Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ of the UDP as well as to advice in the NPPF which promotes healthier communities.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The playing field/s and pitch/es shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with the planning application Design and Access Statement and Drawing No. 712/107/23-AR04 and the standards and methodologies set out in the guidance note “Natural Turf for Sport” (Sport England, March 2011). Reason: To ensure the quality of pitches is satisfactory and they are available for use prior to development and to accord with Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ of the UDP and advice in paragraph 73 of the NPPF. 3 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a scheme for the improvement and maintenance of playing field drainage, based upon an assessment of the existing playing field quality and including an improvement and maintenance implementation programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. The playing fields shall thereafter be improved and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure the quality of pitches is satisfactory and they are available for use prior to development and to accord with Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ of the UDP and advice in paragraph 73 of the NPPF. 4 Prior to the commencement of the use/development a Community Use Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-school users/non-members, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for review. The approved Scheme shall be implemented upon commencement of use of the development. Reason: To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport and to accord with Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ of the UDP and advice in paragraph 73 of the NPPF. 5 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed within the first available planting season after the development is brought into use. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’.

6 a) A basic site investigation should be undertaken in the form of trial holes and window sampling to ensure the land is assessed appropriately and is free from contamination. b) An assessment of the testing and results will need to be forwarded in report format and be submitted to the Local Authority for review and comment. c) Subject to items (a) and (b) above a remediation method statement should be submitted confirming remedial measures to be undertaken if required. d) If subsoil’s / topsoil’s are required to be imported to site for remedial works, then these soils will need to be tested at a rate and frequency to be agreed with the Local Authority to ensure they are free from contamination. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 07 Prior to the commencement of development a biodiversity enhancement statement, including a schedule for implementation, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed statement before the development is brought into use. Reason To ensure that appropriate biodiversity enhancement to off-set that lost by the removal of the hedgerow. INFORMATIVE INF 25 Protected species Wildlife Legislation The protection afforded to protected sites and species under UK and EU legislation is irrespective of the planning system and the applicant should therefore ensure that any activity undertaken, regardless of the need for any planning consent, complies with the appropriate wildlife legislation. If any protected species are found on the site then work should halt and an appropriately qualified ecologist consulted. The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in Great Britain is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This Act is supplemented by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations), the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (in England and Wales). All species of bats and their roosts are protected by UK and European legislation. Roosts are equally protected whether bats are present or not. The Great Crested Newt is protected by UK and European legislation. The legislation covers all life stages; eggs, tadpoles and adult newts are all equally covered. Otters and their holts, including hovers and couches, which are otter resting places above ground, are protected by UK and European legislation.

Water Vole are protected against killing, injuring or taking; possession or control; damage or destruction of its places of shelter, or disturbance while such animals are occupying places of shelter. All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by UK law and it is an offence, with certain exceptions, to kill, injure or take any wild bird, to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built, and to take or destroy the egg of any wild bird. Certain species receive increased protection making it an offence to disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building or is at (or near) a nest with eggs or young; or disturb the dependant young of such a bird. Badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. Interference with a sett includes blocking tunnels or damaging the sett in any way. The information provided is a summary only; for definitive information, primary sources should be consulted. Sport England Informatives It is recommended that the drainage assessment and improvement/ management scheme is undertaken by a specialist turf grass consultant (Condition 2)

Background There is no planning history on the site itself. Planning permission for residential development on the adjoining land, accessed off Rother Crescent, was granted in 2009 for Jones Homes (RB2008/0528). A S106 legal agreement signed in connection with this permission required the dedication of approximately 0.4 hectares of land (the land the subject of the current application) to the Treeton Junior and Infants School. The report at that time noted that whilst a small part of the overall site was allocated for Education purposes, “the applicant has indicated that the land available for education purpose would not be reduced as additional land outside the application site to the west (and allocated for residential purposes) would be set aside for education purposes and dedicated to the nearby Treeton Church of England School.” RB2012/0749 – Erection of modular classroom building, Granted Conditionally on 5 July 2012. Condition 2 of this permission states: 2. No development shall commence until details of the replacement/ compensatory playing field as annotated ‘additional playing field’ on plan title ‘site location plan’ dated ‘May 2012’, linked to a time table for the provision and completion, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (after consultation with Sport England). Site Description & Location The application site relates to approximately 0.4 hectares of land to the south of the existing playing field of the Treeton Junior and Infants School. It formed part of a larger agricultural field in this location though is currently unused. The remainder of the field to the east and part south is currently being developed out for housing by Jones Homes under permission RB2008/0528. To the west of the site are residential properties on Rother Crescent whilst to the south are the Treeton Workshops. Proposal The application is for the extension of the existing School grounds to extend the playing field area. An existing marked out playing field, which would be partly built on when the proposed classroom approved under planning permission RB2012/0749, would be re-sited and partly lie on the extended area. A 90m section of an existing hedgerow between the School and the open land would be removed to accommodate the development. Supporting documents include a Land Contamination Survey report, a tree survey, and an ecological assessment report. Development Plan Allocation and Policy The site is part allocated for Community Facility (Education) purposes and part allocated for residential purposes and the following Policy is considered to be relevant: CR1.5 Community Facilities: “Those areas allocated on the Proposals Map for Community Facilities will, wherever possible, be retained or developed for such purposes during the Plan Period. In addition, land or buildings currently used or last used for community purposes, but not

identified as such on the Proposals Map will be similarly safeguarded wherever possible.

Development proposals which involve the loss of key community facilities shall only be permitted where the local planning authority is satisfied that the retention of the land or building in community use is no longer viable, or where adequate alternative provision has been made or where some other overriding public benefit will result from the loss of the facility.” Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. Paragraph 72 states: “The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: ● give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and ● work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues

before applications are submitted.” Paragraph 73 states amongst other things: “Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.” The Unitary Development Plan policy referred to above is consistent with the NPPF and has been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity The application has been advertised by way of site notice and letters to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. No representations have been received. Consultations Transportation Unit: No objections to proposal. Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health): Notes that it is highly unlikely that significant contamination will exist on or beneath the ground, although due to its recent use checks should be undertaken to ensure there will be no risks to future users of the site. Streetpride (Trees and Woodlands): No objections. Streetpride (Ecology Officer): No objections. Sport England: Notes that the site is not considered to form part of, or constitutes a playing field as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No.2184) and as such has considered this a non-statutory application. The proposal is the creation of new playing field to the south of an existing primary school. It is understood that this application is linked to application RB2012/0749, recently approved, that involved the loss of some of the primary school playing field by the addition of a permanent modular unit. Sport England further notes that there is benefit to allow a new pitch to be re-orientated in a north-south direction from its present east-west direction as this would reduce the impact of the sun on players using the pitch. The creation of the new playing field would compensate for the playing field lost to the modular unit and the proposal would be considered to accord with Sport England’s Policy Exception E4 in that the playing fields lost would be replaced by a playing field of equivalent or better quality, subject to suitable conditions. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90.

If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main issues in the determination of this application can be summarised as follows:

• The principle of the development.

• The impact on flora/fauna

• The impact on nearby residents The principle of the development: Whilst part of the site is allocated for residential purposes, the principle of the use of the land as an extension to Treeton Junior and Infants School was effectively accepted when planning permission for residential development on the adjoining land was granted in 2009 for Jones Homes (RB2008/0528). A S106 legal agreement signed in connection with this permission required the dedication of approximately 0.4 hectares of land (the land the subject of the current application) to the Treeton Junior and Infants School. The report at that time noted that whilst a small part of the overall site was allocated for Education purposes, “the applicant has indicated that the land available for education purpose would not be reduced as additional land outside the application site to the west (and allocated for residential purposes) would be set aside for education purposes and dedicated to the nearby Treeton Church of England School.” The use of the land as an extension of the playing field area to the School and the formation of a playing pitch on the land will in part provide replacement facility for that land lost to development of a classroom on the existing School site and is acceptable in principle, and will improve sporting facilities at the school overall in accordance with Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ of the UDP as well as to advice in the NPPF which promotes healthier communities. The impact on flora and fauna: The proposed development would require the removal of a stretch of approximately 90m of a hedgerow, though survey work submitted by the applicant concludes that the hedgerow is not ‘important’ when assessed against the Hedgerow Regulations, and that there are relatively few species of trees growing in, which are not considered to be worthy of formal protection, thereby minimising its biodiversity value. The ecological assessment report concludes that the proposed removal of the boundary hedge of the land surveyed is unlikely to have a negative impact on the immediate biodiversity or the biodiversity beyond the survey sites border and that the removal of the hedge will allow the site to be connected to the area of rank grassland beyond the southern site boundary. A number of biodiversity enhancements such as wildlife ponds etc are planned for this area. The Council’s Ecologist has no objections to the proposals. The impact on nearby residents: The proposed playing field will introduce additional noise and general disturbance to nearby residents, though bearing in mind the distance of the playing field to the properties and the limited use it would have it is considered that the impact would be minimal. No objections have been received from nearby residents. Conclusion

The use of the land as an extension of the playing field area to the School and the formation of a playing pitch on the land will in part provide replacement facility for that land lost to development of a classroom on the existing School site and is acceptable in principle, and will improve sporting facilities at the school overall. It would not have an adverse impact on flora/fauna or on nearby residents. In view of the above it is recommended that planning permission be granted. RB2012/0844 Continuation of the erection of 65 No. dwellinghouses (approved by outline RB2008/0524) with variation to Condition 01 (site plan) of the reserved matters imposed by RB2011/1605. Land off Manvers Way RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conditionally STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: Local Planning Policy HG1 ‘Existing Housing Areas’ indicates that the Council will ensure that predominantly residential areas are retained primarily for residential use by permitting developments that have no adverse effect on the character or area, are in keeping in terms of scale, make adequate arrangements for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and are ancillary to the residential nature of the area.

ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ indicates that development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment.

Other relevant material planning considerations: National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations.

For the following reasons: The principle of a residential development has been previously accepted under outline RB2008/0524 with associated reserved matters applications RB2011/0204 and RB2011/1605. It is considered that the amended road layout along with the final bollard details shown are acceptable. The overall impact of this revised development is considered to be small and is not to have any additional impact on the neighbouring properties than the previously approved scheme. The Transportation Unit have indicated that the proposed on site car parking facilities are considered to be acceptable from a highway safety standpoint.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Drawing number 2119(SK)01rev R [in addition to previously approved drawings, SK32, SK33, SK34, SK35, SK36, SK37, SK38, SK39])(received 08/06/2012) Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 02 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the detailed landscape scheme previously approved on discharge of condition application RB2012/0612 (ref R/1275/5D, SD/S/6 received 18 April 2012) Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 03 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’.

04 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved material samples approved on discharge of condition application RB2012/0483 (received 08 June 2012). Reason To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 05 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the bollard positioning shown on the approved plan (Drawing number 2119(SK)01rev R). Reason In order to reduce the likely incidence of on-street parking. 06 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either; a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site, road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 07 Before the development is brought into use the car parking area shown on the approved plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking. Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory garage/parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 08 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the road sections, constructional and drainage details approved on discharge of condition application RB2012/0483 (received 26 March 2012) Reason No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval. 09 Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how the

use of sustainable/public transport will be encouraged. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 10 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Site Investigation details approved on discharge of condition application RB2012/0483 (received 26 March 2012).

Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. Informatives a) INF 28 Flooding (within Flood Plain) The proposed extension to the existing property lies within the flood plain as shown on the Environment Agency's Indicative Flood Plain Maps. It is important that all proposed extensions must be designed and constructed, to protect and safeguard against all possible risks from flooding. Further guidance on how properties may be protected against possible flooding problems can be found on the Environment Agency's web site. In all events the proposed extension must not divert or create or cause additional flood water problems to any adjacent or neighbouring land. b) INF 29 Flooding (Outside Flood Plain) Whilst the property does not lie within the flood plain as shown on the Environment Agency's 1 in 100 year Indicative Flood Plain Maps it is noted that the site is within an area that has historically flooded in the past. It is important that all proposed extensions must be designed and constructed, to protect and safeguard against all possible risks from flooding. Further guidance on how properties may be protected against possible flooding problems can be found on the Environment Agency's web site. In all events the proposed extension must not divert or create or cause additional flood water problems to any adjacent or neighbouring land. c) With reference to application 1605, access for fire appliances should be in accordance with Building Regulations Approved document B volume 1 part B5 section 11. d) Your attention is drawn to the act that SYF&R now have some standard fire appliances that are 26 tonnes gross weight. e) For your information full details of the requirements for the remediation report and intrusive site investigation are listed below:

• A limited Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation should be undertaken. The investigation and subsequent risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report

is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

• The above should be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

• Subject to the above a Remediation Report shall be provided and approved by this Local Authority prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters, the site must not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environment Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

• The approved Remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. The Local Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

• The following proposed gas protection measures are to be installed in each of the residential properties:

a. Well constructed ground or suspended floor slab b. A gas proof membrane suitably resistant to carbon dioxide to be sealed

around all joints and penetrations c. Passive venting to under floor sub space and wall cavities

The gas protection membranes should be inspected by a suitably qualified and independent third party. The results of inspection are to be incorporated into a report and provided to this Local Authority for review and comment.

• If subsoil’s / topsoil’s are required to be imported to site for remedial works, garden spaces or other soft areas for landscaping then these soils will need to be tested at a rate and frequency to be agreed with the Local Authority to ensure they are free from contamination.

• In the event that during development works unexpected significant contamination is encountered at any stage of the process, the local planning authority shall be notified in writing immediately. Any requirements for remedial works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. Works thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with an approved Method Statement. This is to ensure the development will be suitable for use and that identified contamination will not present significant risks to human health or the environment.

• Details of a specification for the design sulphate class and corresponding aggressive chemical environment for concrete class needs to be provided to this Local Authority for review and comment.

• Following completion of any remedial/ground preparation works a Validation Report should be forwarded to the Local Authority for review and comment. The Validation report shall include details of the remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the verification report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site. The site shall not be brought into use until such time as all verification data has been approved by the Local Authority.

f) To ensure that all habitable rooms throughout the proposed residential development have sufficient sound reduction Section 5.2 Glazing and Ventilation: sub-section 5.2.2, should be implemented . g) To minimize the impact of road traffic on the gardens to the southern boundary of the application site Section 5.3 Boundary Screening to Gardens along the Southern Boundary, sub-section 5.3.2.and 5.3.3. should be implemented. h) The applicant is reminded that the Affordable Housing provision (originally approved under the S106 agreement under outline permission RB2008/0524) would require a quid pro quo allocation, based on the size of the open market units and expect the same proportion to be brought forward as Affordable units. The Affordable Housing Officer has also requested that by the time 70% of the market units are completed (built and ready for occupation) the Affordable Units are brought forwards.

Background The site has had a number of previous approvals for residential developments. The most relevant applications are as follows: RB2008/0524 – Outline application for residential development – granted RB2011/1605 – Reserved Matters application for 65 dwellings – granted RB2012/0291 – Full application for amendment of plots 4 & 5 and substitution of plots 3, 6 & 65 – granted Site Description & Location The application site relates to a previously approved housing scheme under reserved matters application RB2011/1605. This scheme, which is in the early stages of being implemented incorporates a total of 65 dwellings. The scheme is accessed through some new estate roads and lies to the north of Manvers Way. The exact site area relates to the main bend of the road around plots 08-12 and 34-38 in the centre of the site. Proposal The application is for a variation of condition 01 of approved application RB2011/1605. The proposal can be summarised as follows:

• Alteration in the road layout involving a slight offsetting of the central road curve and footways.

• Relocation of car parking from outside plot 61 to on-street bays in front of plots 08-12 and plots 34-38.

Development Plan Allocation and Policy The site is allocated for Industrial and Business purposes in the Development Plan, though the site lies within a newly approved and partially implemented residential scheme. The following policies are relevant. HG1 ‘Existing Housing Areas’ indicates that the Council will ensure that predominantly residential areas are retained primarily for residential use by permitting developments that have no adverse effect on the character or area, are in keeping in terms of scale, make adequate arrangements for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and are ancillary to the residential nature of the area.

ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’ indicates that development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds

that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide (SYRDG) The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide (SYRDG) relates to issues of unit size, minimum room dimensions and amenity space and is underpinned by the principles in Building for Life (BfL). Publicity Occupiers of neighbouring properties were informed by letter on 15 June 2012. No representations have been received. Consultations Transportation Unit – no objections to proposal Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,

(b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main issues in the determination of this application can be summarised as follows:

• Impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.

• Impact on highway safety. Impact on neighbouring properties The proposed relocation of the parking bays from outside plot 61 to create dedicated parking bays on street is considered to improve the living conditions of this plot by reducing the level of noise that would be generated directly outside the property. The built footprints of the previously approved housing layout has stayed the same and the revision is considered to meet the guidance advocated in Policy ENV3.1 'Development and the Environment’ as well as the general advice offered in the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guidance and the NPPF. Highway safety The Transportation Unit have indicated that the proposed on site car parking facilities are considered to be acceptable from a highway safety perspective. Other issues No additional alterations are proposed to the built footprints of the other plots and the revisions to the previously approved scheme do not have any impact on the proposed Affordable Housing provision. Conclusion The principle of a residential development has been previously accepted under outline RB2008/0524 with live reserved matters applications RB2011/0204 and RB2011/1605. It is considered that the amended road layout along with the final bollard details shown are acceptable. The overall impact of this revised development is considered to be small and will not have any additional impact on the neighbouring properties than the previously approved scheme. The Transportation Unit have indicated that the proposed on site car parking facilities are considered to be acceptable with regard to highway safety.

RB2012/0851 Demolition of public house and erection of 3 No. two storey dwellings with rooms in roofspace and 1 No. two storey dwelling (amendment to RB2011/1594) at The Lord Conyers Arms, The Square, Wales RECOMMENDATION: Granted Conditionally STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: The application site is allocated as ‘Residential’ in the adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan and is within the designated Wales Conservation Area and the following Policies are considered to be relevant to this proposal. Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ states: “Those areas allocated on the Proposals Map for Community Facilities will, wherever possible, be retained or developed for such purposes during the Plan Period. In addition, land or buildings currently used or last used for community purposes, but not identified as such on the Proposals Map will be similarly safeguarded wherever possible. Development proposals which involve the loss of key community facilities shall only be permitted where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the retention of the land or building in community use is no longer viable, or where adequate alternative provision has been made or where some other overriding public benefit will result from the loss of the facility”. Policy HG4.3: ‘Windfall Sites’ states: “The Council will determine proposals for housing development not identified in Policies HG4.1 and HG4.2 in light of their:

(i) location within the existing built up area and compatibility with adjoining uses, and

(ii) compatibility with other relevant policies and guidance.” Policy HG5: The Residential Environment states: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.” Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states that: “In respect of designated Conservation Areas, the Council (amongst other things): (i) will not permit development (including changes of use, alterations and

advertisement display ), demolition and work to trees which would adversely affect their architectural or historic character or visual amenity, except that very limited exceptions to this policy may be accepted when compelling justification exists,

(ii) will not grant consent to demolish buildings which make a positive contribution to them unless every possible alternative course of action has been satisfactorily discounted and, if for the purposes of redevelopment, only when the

development has been granted planning permission and is subject to a legally agreed commitment and timing.”

(iv) Will have regard to the degree to which proposals are compatible with their vernacular style, materials, scale, fenestration or other matters relevant to the preservation or enhancement of their character.”

Policy ENV3.1: Development and the Environment states: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.” Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which…is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere, soil or surface water and ground water, or to other nuisances, where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative or mitigating measures at the time the development takes place”

Other relevant material planning considerations: Supplementary Planning Guidance Housing Guidance 3: Residential Infill Plots’ section, which details the Council’s adopted inter-house spacing standards. The guidance indicates that there should be a minimum of 20 metres between habitable room windows, 12 metres minimum between a habitable room window and an elevation with no windows, and no elevation containing habitable room windows at first floor should be located within 10 metres of a boundary with another property. Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas expands upon the guidance set out in Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan.The SPG advises that “demolition of buildings, especially in the street frontage, needs careful consideration. Normally full schemes and plans will need to be approved before any demolition takes place. There may be a need for a legal agreement with the Council to ensure that an unacceptable gap is not left for an unreasonable time before re-building begins. The Council’s parking standards (as amended June 2011) note: C3 Dwellings

Minimum Standards

1 or 2

bedrooms

3 or 4

1 parking space per dwelling

2no parking spaces per dwelling

bedrooms

The minimum floor area for a garage or carport to qualify as a parking space is 6.5m x 3m. Whilst the above are minimum requirements, consideration will be given to accepting fewer parking spaces if it can be demonstrated that the site is in the vicinity of good public transport links, public car parking, safe and convenient on street parking etc. The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide was adopted as guidance by the Council in May 2011. Whilst it relates primarily to major residential developments (10 dwellings or more), its general principles can be applied to smaller scale developments. In regard to the current application, relevant principles include minimum garden and internal room standards. National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. For the following reasons:

Though it is acknowledged that the loss of the Lord Conyers would represent harm to the Wales Conservation Area it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the retention and re-use of the building is not viable in the medium term, through a detailed viability report and independent valuation of the premises. As such, it is considered that the proposal has satisfied the requirements of Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in the NPPF. It is considered that the loss of the Lord Conyers public house would not lead to the loss of a “key community facility” as there is another public house existing within the village of Wales and other existing local shops located within a designated local shopping centre adjacent to the site. It is further considered that the applicant has successfully demonstrated through the submitted viability report that the ongoing commercial use of this building is not economically viable in the medium term. Therefore it is considered that the loss of the use of the building as a community facility is in accordance with Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities.’ It is considered that subject to the recommended conditions the construction of 4 dwellings on this land would represent an acceptable use of the land that would be in keeping with the site’s land use allocation and the requirements of the NPPF. It is considered that the proposed dwellings would have sufficient amenity space and parking areas for the occupiers of the new dwellings. It is also considered that new dwellings on this site would not adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Accordingly, the proposed development is in full compliance with the relevant

NPPF, UDP and SPG sections and for the reasons detailed above the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. With regards to the design of the proposed dwellings it is considered that they respond to the vernacular characteristics of the Wales Conservation Area, using quality materials, namely natural stone and clay pantile roofs. As such, it is considered that the proposed dwellings are acceptable in design terms and would enhance the character and appearance of the Wales Conservation Area once the public house has been demolished. Therefore the proposals are in accordance with Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ and guidance contained in the NPPF. Finally, it is considered that sufficient parking would be provided at the properties and that the development would not lead to highway safety problems in the area.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) except as shall be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Site Location Plan, received 30/05/2012) (Block Plan, Drawing number ENV/280/001, received 30/05/2012) (Floor Plans, Drawing number ENV/280/002, received 30/05/2012) (Front Elevation, Drawing number ENV280/003, received 30/05/2012) (Floor Plans, Drawing number ENV280/004, received 30/05/2012) (Proposed Elevations, Drawing number ENV280/005, received 30/05/2012) (Existing Elevations, Drawing number 15060/5, received 30/05/2012) (Existing Elevations, Drawing number 15060/4, received 30/05/2012) (Existing Elevations, Drawing number 15060/3, received 30/05/2012) (Existing Elevations, Drawing number 15060/2, received 30/05/2012) Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 03 No demolition works hereby approved shall commence until a contract for the redevelopment of the site, in accordance with planning permission RB2012/851, has been signed and a copy of the contract has been lodged with and receipt acknowledged in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If the re-development of the site does not

commence within 3 months following the commencement date of the demolition of the building, the site shall be wholly cleared of all materials and grassed over within 6 months of the commencement date. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the Conservation Area. 04 No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted or samples of the materials have been left on site, and the details/samples have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. To ensure that appropriate materials are used in the construction of the development in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 05 The development shall not be brought into use until the footway indicated in draft form on the submitted plan, has been constructed in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure pedestrian safety around the site. 06 Before the development is brought into use the sight lines indicated on the attached copy plan (shaded red) shall be rendered effective by removing or reducing the height of anything existing on the land between the sight line and the highway which obstructs visibility at any height greater than 900 mm above the level of the nearside channel of the adjacent and the visibility thus provided shall be maintained. 07 Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be constructed with either;

a/ a permeable surface and associated water retention/collection drainage, or; b/ an impermeable surface with water collected and taken to a separately constructed water retention/discharge system within the site. The area shall thereafter be maintained in a working condition. Reason To ensure that surface water can adequately be drained and that mud and other extraneous material is not deposited on the public highway and that each dwelling can be reached conveniently from the footway in the interests of the adequate drainage of the site, road safety and residential amenity and in accordance with UDP Policy HG5 ‘The Residential Environment’. 08 Before the development is brought into use the car parking area shown on the approved plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking.

Reason To ensure the provision of satisfactory garage/parking space and avoid the necessity for the parking of vehicles on the highway in the interests of road safety. 09 Before the development is commenced road sections, constructional and drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved details shall be implemented before the development is completed. Reason No details having been submitted they are reserved for approval. 10 Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing how the use of sustainable/public transport will be encouraged. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to promote sustainable transport choices. 11 Details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water drainage, including details of any off-site work, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be brought into use until such approved details are implemented. Reason To ensure that the development can be properly drained in accordance with UDP policies ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’. 12 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and in accordance with UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’. 13 In the event that during development works unexpected significant contamination is encountered at any stage of the process, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing immediately. Any requirements for remedial works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with an approved Method Statement. Reason

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 14 If subsoils / topsoils are required to be imported to site for garden or soft landscaping areas, then these soils will need to be tested at a rate and frequency to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority to ensure they are free from contamination. The results of such testing will need to be forwarded to the Local Planning Authority for review and comment. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 15 A demolition survey shall be undertaken prior to demolition works commencing to confirm the presence / extent of Asbestos Containing Materials within the building’s construction. If asbestos is found at the site the details of the removal of the asbestos shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the demolition of the building. In any case the details of the survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Reason To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 16 Prior to commencement of development, a detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscape scheme shall be prepared to a minimum scale of 1:200 and shall clearly identify through supplementary drawings where necessary:


The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved landscape scheme within a timescale agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 17 Any plants or trees which within a period of 5 years from completion of planting die, are removed or damaged, or that fail to thrive shall be replaced. Assessment of requirements for replacement planting shall be carried out on an annual basis in September of each year and any defective work or materials discovered shall be rectified before 31st December of that year. Reason To ensure that there is a well laid out scheme of healthy trees and shrubs in the interests of amenity and in accordance with UDP Policies ENV3 ‘Borough Landscape’, ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment’, ENV3.2 ‘Minimising the Impact of Development’ and ENV3.4 ‘Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows’. 18 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or as subsequently amended) at no time shall any extensions be made to the dwellings hereby approved; neither shall any additional buildings be erected within the site of application; without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason In order to protect the level of outdoor amenity space for the occupiers of the dwellings and to preserve the character and appearance of the Wales Conservation Area. Informatives Control of working practices during construction phase (close to residential) It is recommended that the following advice is followed to prevent a nuisance/ loss of amenity to local residential areas. Please note that the Council’s Neighbourhood Enforcement have a legal duty to investigate any complaints about noise or dust. If a statutory nuisance is found to exist they must serve an Abatement Notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Failure to comply with the requirements of an Abatement Notice may result in a fine of up to £20,000 upon conviction in Rotherham Magistrates' Court. It is therefore recommended that you give serious consideration to the below recommendations and to the steps that may be required to prevent a noise nuisance from being created. (i) Except in case of emergency, operations should not take place on site other than between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday and between 09:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays. There should be no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. At times when operations are not permitted work shall be limited to maintenance and servicing of plant

or other work of an essential or emergency nature. The Local Planning Authority should be notified at the earliest opportunity of the occurrence of any such emergency and a schedule of essential work shall be provided. (ii) Heavy goods vehicles should only enter or leave the site between the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 on weekdays and 09:00 – 13:00 Saturdays and no such movements should take place on or off the site on Sundays or Public Holidays (this excludes the movement of private vehicles for personal transport). (iii) Best practicable means shall be employed to minimise dust. Such measures may include water bowsers, sprayers whether mobile or fixed, or similar equipment. At such times when due to site conditions the prevention of dust nuisance by these means is considered by the Local Planning Authority in consultations with the site operator to be impracticable, then movements of soils and overburden shall be temporarily curtailed until such times as the site/weather conditions improve such as to permit a resumption.

(iii) Effective steps should be taken by the operator to prevent the deposition of mud, dust and other materials on the adjoining public highway caused by vehicles visiting and leaving the site. Any accidental deposition of dust, slurry, mud or any other material from the site, on the public highway shall be removed immediately by the developer.

Background RB1987/1215: Alts & ext of building,use outbuildings as function room & alts for living acc - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 02/11/87 RB1995/0678: Erection of new low retaining wall and fence to rear boundary - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 09/08/95 RB2006/1245: Single storey extension and raise height of existing flat roof - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 04/09/06 RB2009/0424: Retrospective application for change of use of first floor living quarters (use class C3) to hotel rooms (use class C1) including installation of external staircase - REFUSED 03/06/09 RB2010/0250: Retrospective application for alterations to existing smoking shelter & alterations to car park - GRANTED 22/04/10 RB2010/0252: Application for installation of new fire escape to replace existing - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 21/04/10 RB2011/1594: Demolition of public house and erection of 3 No. two storey dwellings with rooms in roofspace and 1 No. two storey dwelling - REFUSED 23/01/2012 RB2011/1595: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of public house

- WITHDRAWN 12/12/11

RB2011/1729: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of public house - REFUSED 23/01/12

RB2012/0852: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of public house - Undetermined Site Description & Location The site consists of a large detached public house, the Lord Conyers, with an ancillary single storey and one and half storey outbuilding to the rear which was a former coach house. The public house is Edwardian and has an attractive appearance and is constructed in the Arts and Crafts style typical of that period. The building and outbuilding is constructed of brick with a tile roof and render. There is evidence from historic maps of a public house on this site since at least the 1850s. The Lord Conyers occupies a highly prominent position within the Wales Conservation Area and is located on The Square in the centre of the village. The public house is prominent in views into and within the Conservation Area from School Road to the west, Manor Road to the north and Church Street to the south. The building is of a grander appearance than surrounding buildings which was indicative of its status when constructed as a coaching inn.

Proposal The proposal is for the demolition of the Lord Conyers and outbuildings to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for residential development for four dwellings. The acceptability of the demolition of the building is also considered separately under an application for Conservation Area Consent. The proposals include the erection of 3 No. terraced two storey dwellings with rooms in the roofspace and 1 No. two storey dwelling, which would be set back from the row of 3 No. properties though would still be attached to these properties. The dwellings would be constructed of natural stone with natural clay pantile roofs, coped gables and brick ridge stack chimneys. The row of 3 No. attached cottages would be located to the back of the footpath with a small front garden proposed for the two storey dwelling. The properties would have a traditional and vernacular appearance. The proposed dwellings would have vehicular access to the rear from Manor Road. Each dwelling would have 2 No. parking spaces and there would be a shared turning area. There would be pedestrian access to the front of the dwellings onto the The Square. The existing vehicular access to the site is taken from the junction of Manor Road with The Square. The proposed access would be set back from this, away from the junction with The Square. As well as to consider the acceptability of the proposed residential development in the Conservation Area, this application is also to consider the acceptability of the loss of the public house as a community facility within the village of Wales and whether or not the applicant has demonstrated sufficient justification for the loss of the building in accordance with national and local policy requirements. The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement which sets out the reasoning for the redevelopment of the site and the choice of redeveloping the site for four dwellings. The Design and Access Statement concludes that the demolition of the Lord Conyers and its re-development for four dwellings would preserve and enhance the Wales Conservation Area, by providing four attractive dwellings which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Design and Access Statement also states that the continued use of the building as a public house is unviable and that other non residential uses, which would preserve the building, are also unviable. The applicant has stated that he purchased the site for £250,000 in November 2010. A Viability report has been submitted with the application which concludes that there is no commercially viable alternative to the demolition of the building. The report sets out the costs for the continued use of the building as a public house and alternative uses for the building and discounts them for the reasons below.

• Continuing the use of the Lord Conyers as a public house: The report concludes that due to the deterioration of the building the costs of bringing it back into use as a public house would be commercially unviable as the costs of refurbishing the building would, when combined with its cost of acquisition, be more than its commercial value as a public house.

• Conversion of the existing building to apartments:

The report concludes that it would be possible to convert the building to a number of apartments. However, it excludes this option as it states that the cost of conversion to apartments, along with the cost of the building, would lead the developer to make a loss on the development and the report excludes this option on the basis of being commercially unviable.

• Use of the building as a restaurant or alternative uses: The report makes reference to the Lord Conyers being marketed as a public house for a number of months prior to the current owner purchasing it. The applicant has stated that the property was advertised for sale on behalf of the previous owners for a six month period from June 2010 by the Agents Fawley Watson Booth. The site was advertised as having “redevelopment potential – subject to necessary consents.”The applicant stated that the property was widely advertised by marketing the details to 98 Yorkshire / East Midlands / Derbyshire agents, 73 local and regional developers and their contact list of other parties who have expressed an interest in similar properties. The applicants have also stated that it was advertised on the Estates Gazette website and the website of the selling agents. The Viability report argues that the costs of converting the building as a restaurant or for an alternative use such as a crèche or as a health centre would be prohibitively expensive for any future occupier and is not commercially viable.

The applicant has submitted a Supporting Planning Statement which argues that the Lord Conyers public house had a troublesome relationship with neighbours and that it had its licence revoked in May 2010. It sets outs complaints to the Council’s Environmental Health Department and the subsequent service of a noise abatement order, and a report of the police involvement at the site. The Supporting Statement gives the sales particulars of the site and makes an analysis of the other amenities within the village to support the argument of the applicant that the public house is not viable in this location. Details of the marketing of the site, prior to the purchase of the site by the current owner, have been submitted. The details state that the site was marketed from June 2010 to when the site was purchased by the current owner and applicant in January 2011. The marketing details state that there were no other offers to purchase the site, other than from the current owner. The applicant has also paid for an independent valuation of the premises to be undertaken by the Sheffield District Valuers office which undertook an independent valuation of the building, based on its value when the applicant purchased the building in November 2010. The District Valuer concluded that the building was worth £250,000 the same value that the applicant paid for the site. The applicant has submitted an Ecology report which concluded that the demolition of the building and redevelopment of the site will have no adverse impact on any protected species of bat, bird or mammal. Development Plan Allocation and Policy

The application site is allocated as ‘Residential’ in the adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan and is within the designated Wales Conservation Area and the following Policies are considered to be relevant to this proposal. Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ states: “Those areas allocated on the Proposals Map for Community Facilities will, wherever possible, be retained or developed for such purposes during the Plan Period. In addition, land or buildings currently used or last used for community purposes, but not identified as such on the Proposals Map will be similarly safeguarded wherever possible. Development proposals which involve the loss of key community facilities shall only be permitted where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the retention of the land or building in community use is no longer viable, or where adequate alternative provision has been made or where some other overriding public benefit will result from the loss of the facility”. Policy HG4.3: ‘Windfall Sites’ states: “The Council will determine proposals for housing development not identified in Policies HG4.1 and HG4.2 in light of their:

(iv) location within the existing built up area and compatibility with adjoining uses, and

(v) compatibility with other relevant policies and guidance.” Policy HG5: The Residential Environment states: “The Council will encourage the use of best practice in housing layout and design in order to provide developments which enhance the quality of the residential environment and provide a more accessible residential environment for everyone.” Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states that: “In respect of designated Conservation Areas, the Council (amongst other things): (i) will not permit development (including changes of use, alterations and


(ii) will not grant consent to demolish buildings which make a positive contribution to them unless every possible alternative course of action has been satisfactorily discounted and, if for the purposes of redevelopment, only when the development has been granted planning permission and is subject to a legally agreed commitment and timing.”


Policy ENV3.1: Development and the Environment states: “Development will be required to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.” Policy ENV3.7 ‘Control of Pollution’ states: “The Council, in consultation with other appropriate agencies, will seek to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, disturbance

and pollution associated with development and transport. Planning permission will not be granted for new development which…is likely to give rise, either immediately or in the foreseeable future, to noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere, soil or surface water and ground water, or to other nuisances, where such impacts would be beyond acceptable standards, Government Guidance, or incapable of being avoided by incorporating preventative or mitigating measures at the time the development takes place” Other Material Considerations Supplementary Planning Guidance Housing Guidance 3: Residential Infill Plots is also applicable to this proposal. This was originally prepared in response to residential development on corner plots but is considered to apply to all types of residential development. This sets out guidance on space standards between dwellings and states:

(i) normal inter-house spacing should be observed (that is, 20 metres minimum between principal elevations or 12 metres minimum between a principal elevation and an elevation with no habitable room windows)

(ii) any elevation situated less than 10 metres from a boundary with another residential curtilage should contain no habitable room windows at first floor level, nor should it contain a window or door to any habitable room or kitchen at ground floor level unless there is adequate screening to prevent loss of privacy

(iii) The maximum ground area covered by the dwelling (excluding garage) should be approximately 33% of the site area

(iv) The maximum height of the dwelling (to the ridge) should relate to the height of the adjacent dwellings, to minimise overlooking and impact on adjacent dwellings

(v) Where there is potential for loss of amenity to the adjacent dwellings, the dwelling should be either single-storey with double pitched roof or should only have rooms in the roof with roof lights

(vi) There should be a garage or garage space, with a six metres drive in front (vii) The provision, as appropriate of screening at sensitive boundaries,

particularly where the dwelling would stand close to the boundary with the back garden of another dwelling, and

(viii) The desirability of locating the dwelling forward on the l plot (say within two metres of the front boundary) in order to maximise back garden space, provided the garage is still set back six metres.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas expands upon the guidance set out in Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. The SPG advises that “demolition of buildings, especially in the street frontage, needs careful consideration. Normally full schemes and plans will need to be approved before any demolition takes place. There may be a need for a legal agreement with the Council to ensure that an unacceptable gap is not left for an unreasonable time before re-building begins. The Council’s parking standards (as amended June 2011) note: C3 Dwellings 1 or 2 1 parking space per dwelling

Minimum Standards bedrooms

3 or 4

bedrooms

2no parking spaces per dwelling

The minimum floor area for a garage or carport to qualify as a parking space is 6.5m x 3m. Whilst the above are minimum requirements, consideration will be given to accepting fewer parking spaces if it can be demonstrated that the site is in the vicinity of good public transport links, public car parking, safe and convenient on street parking etc. The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide was adopted as guidance by the Council in May 2011. Whilst it relates primarily to major residential developments (10 dwellings or more), its general principles can be applied to smaller scale developments. In regard to the current application, relevant principles include minimum garden and internal room standards. These are as follows: For three or more bedroom houses/bungalows should be 60 square metres. The South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide states that “all new dwellings should be fit for purpose in terms of internal layout, dimensions and space standards, as set out below:

National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations

indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. With regard to ‘Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’ the NPPF notes at paragraph 49 that: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” Paragraph 53 states: “Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.” These paragraphs support UDP policy HG4.3 ‘Windfall Sites’. With regard to ‘Requiring good design’ the NPPF notes at paragraph 56 that: “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 64 adds 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.” In respect of ‘Promoting healthy communities’ the NPPF notes at paragraph 70 that decisions should “guard against the unesessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.” With regard to ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’ the NPPF states at paragraph 128 “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.” The NPPF states at paragraph 130 that “When there is evidence of deliberate neglect to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.”

The NPPF states at paragraph 132 states “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.” The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 133 that “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

• The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

• No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

• Conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

• The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Paragraph 136 states that “Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.” Paragraph 138 notes that loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area can be considered to be treated as a substantial harm, to be assessed under paragragh 133 above, taking account of the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. The NPPF states at paragraph 141 states that “Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publically accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publically accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.” The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity The application has been publicised by press advertisement, site notice and by neighbour notification letter. Thirteen representations have been received by the Council objecting to the application. The Council has received one right to speak request from an objector to the application. The comments and objections raised by members of the public in respect of the planning application are as follows:

• The Lord Conyers is an important landmark in the centre of the village, the building should be retained and re-used, for other uses such as retail.

• The loss of the Lord Conyers would be harmful to Wales Conservation Area as the building is one of the most important and attractive in the Conservation Area.

• The building is an important part of the village’s heritage, a pub has stood on this site since the 1850s.

• Too much of the village’s heritage has already been lost.

• Manor Road is already a very busy road, this development would increase parking on this road, to the detriment of highway safety.

• The entry/exit to the proposed site is in a potentially dangerous place and the proposed re-development of the site could be dangerous in highway terms.

• This application is identical to the previous application.

• There weren’t any major or regular problems from the site being a public house.

• Rumours circulated around the village that other people were interested in purchasing the site.

• Could the new buildings look like the Lord Conyers building, if the buildings have to be demolished?

• The new dwellings are an overdevelopment of the site.

• If the building can’t be retained then could the façade be retained?

• Planning permission shouldn’t be granted for the development to bail out the developer who may have paid too much for the property.

• The loss of the building could be harmful to the environment.

• All the trees on the site were cut down by the present owner.

• If planning permission is granted for the development the adjacent Village Green should not be used as a dumping ground and/or for the storage of materials in relation to the development.

• If planning permission is granted for the development a condition should be attached and enforced restricting the working hours on the site.

• The majority of complaints relating to noise and nuisance from the site were made by the applicant and neighbouring properties which the applicant built next to the site.

• The proposed dwellings are not attractive and are of a poor quality design.

• The proposed dwellings would not enhance the Conservation Area and would not be as attractive as the existing building on the site.

• The redevelopment of the site for housing would not offer any economic, social or environmental benefit to the local community.

• There is no need for more housing in Wales.

• The village and the Conservation Area have been harmed by poor developments in the past this would only make matters worse.

• The public house should not be redeveloped and should not be converted into flats.

• The building should be used as a restaurant or pub with food or for a community use.

• This application has been previously submitted and refused, the number of new submissions of this application amounts to harassment of the local community.

• The current owner has deliberately allowed the building to fall into a state of disrepair to make it into an eyesore so that local people will welcome its demolition.

• The current owner is only doing it to make a profit. He shouldn’t be allowed to do this at the expense of the village of Wales and the Conservation Area.

Consultations

Conservation Officer: Considers that the Lord Conyers is an attractive and visually prominent building within the Wales Conservation Area and that its loss would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Accepts that the demolition is justified in this instance due to viability issues and considers that the proposed development is appropriate in the context of the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. Neighbourhoods (Land Contamination Officer): Notes that the submitted Phase 1 (Desk Study) Investigation Report confirms that the site comprised open land and was then occupied by a public house dating back to 1854 to the present date. Given the former history of the site it is unlikely that significant contamination will exist below ground. Also, there are no industrial / commercial works surrounding the site that are likely to cause migration of contamination onto the proposed development site. Therefore the risks to human health are considered to be low. Notes that it is possible there may be deep pockets of made ground in areas of historical demolished structures, particularly if a cellar was present some time ago, which may give rise to some contamination. As there is a small risk of contamination a number of conditions are recommended that relate to the possible contamination of the site. Transportation Unit: Raise no objections to the application subject to conditions relating to the construction of a proposed footway and the improvements to sight lines from the access to the site. Further conditions are recommended relating to the surfacing of the car parking area and a condition requiring the developer to submit a scheme for sustainable transport methods for the residents of the new properties. Streetpride (Landscape): Raise no objections to the proposals subject to conditions relating to the submission of a landscaping scheme at the site. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The application site is allocated as residential in the adopted Rotherham Unitary Development Plan and as such in principle residential development is acceptable subject to all other material planning considerations. The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this planning application for the demolition of the building and re-development of the site are as follows:

• The justification for the demolition of the building in the Conservation Area.

• The loss of the community facility.

• Impact on neighbouring residents.

• The impact of the development on the living conditions of prospective residents of the proposed dwellings.

• Siting, design and appearance of the dwellings and impact on the Conservation Area.

• Impact on the highway and public right of way.

• Other issues raised by objectors. The justification for the demolition of the building in the Conservation Area In considering the acceptability of the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas consideration has to be made to Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ which states that “In respect of designated Conservation Areas, the Council: (ii) will not permit development (including changes of use, alterations and

advertisement display ), demolition and work to trees which would adversely affect their architectural or historic character or visual amenity, except that very limited exceptions to this policy may be accepted when compelling justification exists:

(ii) will not be granted consent to demolish buildings which make a positive contribution to them unless every possible alternative course of action has been satisfactorily discounted and, if for the purposes of redevelopment, only when the development has been granted planning permission and is subject to a legally agreed commitment and timing;

The Lord Conyers is an attractive building located in a highly prominent position in the centre of the village of Wales. According to historic maps there has been a public house on this site since at least 1850s and it is considered that the building represents a significant heritage asset for the Wales Conservation Area as part of a link to its past. The building is also significant as it provides an important visual focal point for The Square, which the building helps to define, as the historic commercial centre of the village. The building, though not of great age, is of quality construction and is typical of its period in the early C20th, with an Arts and Crafts appearance. It is considered that the Lord Conyers is a prominent and visually important building within the Conservation Area and its loss would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Wales Conservation Area and as such is contrary to Policy ENV2.11. However, the Wales Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify the Lord Conyers as a building of significance within the Conservation Area. The omission of the Lord Conyers from the Conservation Area Appraisal diminishes its visual and historic importance as a heritage asset within the Conservation Area. In the next section the issue of whether or not the applicant has provided compelling justification for the loss of the building will be considered. With regards to the loss of the building, it is noted that Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states that “compelling justification” needs to be provided for the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas. The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 133 that: “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply;




• The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Each of these criteria is set out below with each of these considered in turn with the justification provided by the applicant.

• The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site. The site is a public house, a large building in a prominent location within Wales village in a reasonable state of repair. The submitted information notes that the building would need some maintenance and there would be costs in terms of refurbishing the building, though it is considered that the building does offer a variety of opportunities for reasonable re-use. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the building is not a Listed Building and the same degree of weight relating to its loss should not be given to its potential re-use.

• No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation.

The applicant has submitted a Viability report which sets out a number of reasons why the re-use of the building is unviable. These include conversion of the building into residential use, re-use of the building for an alternative purpose such as a restaurant or crèche, and the continuation of the existing use of the building as a public house. The above uses were all discounted on the basis of being financially unviable as the cost of the purchase of the premises combined with the costs of refurbishment of the building were greater than the value of the proposed end use. It is noted that the applicant has stated in their supporting statement that the site was advertised for sale on behalf of the previous owners for a six month period from June 2010. They state that the site was widely advertised before the current owner purchased the site. Though this is acknowledged it is noted that since the purchase of the site the current owners have not undertaken any marketing of the site for any other purpose. Though other uses were explored in the viability report and discounted, no evidence has been submitted that these uses have been explored through the marketing of the site since the current owners took occupation of the premises. Indeed it appears from the viability report that the viability or otherwise of other uses for the site hinges on the price paid for the public house, in order for the applicant to make a satisfactory profit. The applicant has paid for an independent valuation of the site undertaken by the District Valuer who appraised the site and based their valuation on the value of the premises when the applicant purchased it in November 2010. He concluded that the applicant had indeed paid a fair price for the building. It is considered that the independent valuation of the building underpins the findings of the viability report and supports the applicant’s assertion that any alternative re-use of the building and site is not economically viable in the medium term. Therefore it is considered that the applicant

has demonstrated through the viability report and the independent valuation that no viable re-use of the building can be found in the medium term.

• Conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible.

When consideration is being made to the loss of designated heritage assets which includes Listed Buildings and un-listed buildings within Conservation Areas, the weight given to each heritage asset should be appropriate to its level of designation. The loss or harm to a Listed Building should, owing to its nationally recognised value, always have greater weight than an un-listed heritage asset, in this instance a building of historical and architectural interest and value within a Conservation Area. It is considered that this requirement of the NPPF is most relevant to Listed Buildings where there is grant funding available for repair and restoration of the building. Though it is noted that the applicant has not explored this option, it is considered that grant funding for the repair of the building is highly unlikely to be obtained as the building is un-listed. It is also considered that nationally available, though scarce, resources for the repair of un-listed buildings within Conservation Areas, for example the Heritage Lottery Fund, Townscape Heritage Initiative, would only extend to external repairs to the building and would not provide funds for internal alterations and/or repairs to allow for re-use of the building. Therefore these kinds of schemes would not necessarily facilitate the conversion of the building to an alternative economically viable re-use of the building. With regards to some charitable or public ownership of the building, this is not considered possible as the building is within private ownership and it is highly unlikely that any local charity or community group would have the funds available to purchase the building and re-furbish it for any alternative use.

• The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. In this instance the loss of the Lord Conyers is considered to represent harm by way of loss of the heritage asset to the Wales Conservation Area. The applicants have stated that there would be a benefit in redeveloping the site and bringing the site back into use for residential development. The applicant argues that this would be preferable to a vandalised redundant building. It is considered that the best long term solution for the building would be to bring it back into use and that if the building is beyond any viable re-use or alternative use then the loss of the building will have to be accepted. It is noted that the building has been closed since June 2010 and becoming unsightly. Though this is not a justification in itself to allow for the loss of the building, it is considered that the re-development of the site would bring about a public benefit in improving the site by bringing it back into use. In this instance it is considered that compelling justification for the demolition of the building has been demonstrated by the applicant, namely that the retention and re-use of the building is unviable. Therefore it is considered that the re-development would bring about a public benefit by bringing into use a building with no viable future in the medium term.

Loss of community facility:

Public Houses are considered to constitute a community facility. Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities’ states that “development proposals which involve the loss of key community facilities shall only be permitted where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the retention of the land or building in community use is no longer viable, or where adequate alternative provision has been made or where some other overriding public benefit will result from the loss of the facility”. The applicant has submitted a Viability report which sets out a number of reasons why the re-use of the building is unviable. These include conversion of the building into residential use, re-use of the building for an alternative purpose such as a restaurant or crèche, and the continuation of the existing use of the building as a public house. The above uses were all discounted on the basis of being financially unviable as the cost of the purchase of the premises combined with the costs of refurbishment of the building were greater than the value of the proposed end use. In this instance, and notwithstanding the viability argument for the loss of the building, it is noted that there are other shops and public houses and other drinking establishments such as working men’s clubs within the Wales and Kiveton Park area. As such, it is considered that the loss of this facility would not lead to the loss of a “key community facility” as would be the case if the public house was the last such establishment within the village. Therefore it is considered that the loss of the use of the building as a community facility is not contrary to Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities.’ Impact on neighbouring residents: With regards to the impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents it is noted that the site is bounded by a public footpath to the east and a village green to the north, with the south and west of the site fronting The Square and Wales Road. It is noted that the site does not share a boundary with any neighbouring property, which mitigates the impact of the proposals on the amenity of neighbouring residents. It is also considered that the loss of the public house and the erection of four No. dwellings on a similar footprint to the existing building, though of a smaller size and scale, would result in a development that is less overbearing than that existing. It is considered that the proposed dwellings, with windows facing onto Wales Road and The Square and facing northwards onto the rear of the site, would not directly overlook any neighbouring properties. As such, there would be no loss of residential amenity to neighbouring residents in terms of overlooking from the proposed dwellings. It is inevitable that there would be some disturbance to neighbours during the demolition and construction phases, and an informative is recommended regarding hours of working etc during these phases. Impact of the proposal on the living conditions of prospective residents of the proposed dwellings With regard to the impact on the living conditions of the future residents of the dwellings hereby proposed, the main issue is the amount and quality of amenity space provided for the future residents and whether the amenity of future residents would be affected by way of overlooking, overshadowing or loss of privacy.

It is noted that the guidance detailed within the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide (SYRDG) for the amount of private amenity space recommended for a houses of these size is a minimum of 60 square metres. The garden area available to each of these proposed 4 dwellings falls below this guidance at approximately 41.4 square metres, minimum for the three two storey dwellings with rooms in the roofspace and approximately 43 square metres for the two storey dwelling. However, it is considered that owing to the design and location of these properties within the Wales Conservation Area the relatively small gardens would match with general grain and character of the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that though the garden size falls below the guidance in the SYRDG it is acceptable as it relates to the character of the surrounding Conservation Area. It is also considered that though the gardens would be small they would provide a sufficient degree of outdoor amenity space for the future occupants of the properties. However, it is recommended that a condition be attached which removes permitted development rights to add extensions and to construct outbuildings, so that the garden area is not reduced further. With regard to the internal room sizes it is noted that the bedroom and lounge/dining room sizes all accord with guidance of the 23 No. two storey dwellings with rooms in the roofspace. Though it is noted that the kitchen falls slightly below the recommended minimum size for a dwelling of this sort, it is noted that the overall floorspace of the dwellings at approximately 119 square metres significantly exceeds the recommended minimum total floorspace of a 3 bedroom, 4 person house at 77 square metres. As such, it is considered that owing to the larger recommended minimum floorspace of the properties and the larger than recommended minimum size for the lounge/diner then this compensates for the smaller than recommended kitchen. With regards to the two storey dwelling all the room sizes complies with the internal room size guidance. It is further considered that given the relationship between the proposed dwellings, together with the orientation of the site and land levels the future occupants of the proposed properties will not be subject to any adverse levels of overshadowing or privacy issues. Siting, design and appearance of the dwellings and impact on the Conservation Area Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states: “In respect of designed Conservation Areas, the Council will: (iv) have regard to the degree to which proposals are compatible with their vernacular style, materials, scale, fenestration or other matters relevant to the preservation or enhancement of their character”. The NPPF notes at paragraph 56 that: “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Paragraph 64 adds 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.”

It is noted that the design of the proposed dwellings are traditional and vernacular in appearance and would not appear out of context with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is considered that the design of the proposed dwellings are acceptable in design and conservation terms and would not harm the character and appearance of the Wales Conservation. Impact on highway safety The Council’s Transportation Unit were consulted on the application and raised no objections to the application in highway safety terms subject to conditions relating to the construction of a proposed footway and the improvements to sight lines from the access to the site. Further conditions are recommended relating to the surfacing of the car parking area and a condition requiring the developer to submit a scheme for sustainable transport methods for the residents of the new property. The location of the proposed vehicular access moved further away from the junction with The Square is an improvement in highway safety terms. The Transportation Unit also raised no objections to the parking provision at the proposed properties as they complied with the Council’s minimum parking requirements. Other issues raised by objectors One neighbouring resident raised concerns regarding the loss of trees on the site and the potential impact on the adjacent Village Green, if the site was being used for storage during the construction phase of the development. With regard to the loss of the trees, it appears that these may have been on adjacent land, not within the current application site. With regard to the affect on the adjacent Village Green, this site is not within the ownership of the applicant and if the site were used by developers during the construction process this would be a private matter between the owners of the land and the developer. This cannot be taken into consideration as part of this application. Comments were made that the public house wasn’t a problem for local residents and the bulk of the complaints came from the applicant, who lives next door to the site and other neighbours living very close to the site. There is minimal information to back this claim up, though in any event it is not a reason for supporting the demolition of the building. Comments were also raised that there was more interest in purchasing the site than the applicant has stated. No detailed information has been submitted to justify this comment so it can be given little weight. Conclusion Though it is acknowledged that the loss of the Lord Conyers would represent harm to the Wales Conservation Area it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the retention and re-use of the building is not viable in the medium term, through a detailed viability report and independent valuation of the premises. As such, it is considered that the proposal has satisfied the requirements Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in the NPPF.

It is considered that the loss of the Lord Conyers public house would not lead to the loss of a “key community facility” as there is another public house existing within the village of Wales and other existing local shops located within a designated local shopping centre. This site falls outside of this designated local centre. It is further considered that the applicant has successfully demonstrated through the submitted viability report that the ongoing commercial use of this building is not economically viable in the medium term. Therefore it is considered that the loss of the use of the building as a community facility is in accordance with Policy CR1.5 ‘Community Facilities.’ It is considered that subject to the recommended conditions the construction of 4 dwellings on this land would represent an acceptable use of the land that would be in keeping with the site’s land use allocation and the requirements of the NPPF. It is considered that the proposed dwellings would have sufficient amenity space and parking areas for the occupiers of the new dwellings. It is also considered that new dwellings on this site would not adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Accordingly, the proposed development is in full compliance with the relevant NPPF, UDP and SPG sections and for the reasons detailed above the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. With regards to the design of the proposed dwellings it is considered that they respond to the vernacular characteristics of the Wales Conservation Area, using quality materials, namely natural stone and clay pantile roofs. As such, it is considered that the proposed dwellings are acceptable in design terms and would enhance the character and appearance of the Wales Conservation Area once the public house has been demolished. Therefore the proposals are in accordance with Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ and guidance contained in the NPPF. Finally, it is considered that sufficient parking would be provided at the properties and that the development would not lead to highway safety problems in the area. In view of the above it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the relevant conditions. RB2012/0852 Conservation Area Consent for demolition of public house at The Lord Conyers Arms, The Square, Wales RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conditionally STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan:

ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states that: “In respect of designated Conservation Areas, the Council (amongst other things): (i) will not permit development (including changes of use, alterations and


(ii) will not grant consent to demolish buildings which make a positive contribution to them unless every possible alternative course of action has been satisfactorily discounted and, if for the purposes of redevelopment, only when the development has been granted planning permission and is subject to a legally agreed commitment and timing.”


Other relevant material planning considerations: Supplementary Planning Guidance Environment Guidance 3: Development in Conservation Areas expands upon the guidance set out in Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan.The SPG advises that “demolition of buildings, especially in the street frontage, needs careful consideration. Normally full schemes and plans will need to be approved before any demolition takes place. There may be a need for a legal agreement with the Council to ensure that an unacceptable gap is not left for an unreasonable time before re-building begins. National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and sets out what could make a development unsustainable with regard to economic, social and environmental considerations. For the following reasons:

The Council considers that though it is acknowledged that the loss of the Lord Conyers would represent harm to the Wales Conservation Area it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the retention and re-use of the building is not viable in the medium term, through a detailed viability report and independent valuation of the premises. As such, it is considered that the proposal has satisfied the requirements Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in the NPPF.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents.

Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 02 No demolition works hereby approved shall commence until a contract for the redevelopment of the site, in accordance with planning permission RB2012/851, has been signed and a copy of the contract has been lodged with and receipt acknowledged in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If the re-development of the site does not commence within 3 months following the commencement date of the demolition of the building, the site shall be wholly cleared of all materials and grassed over within 6 months of the commencement date. Reason In the interests of the visual amenity of the Conservation Area.

Background RB1987/1215: Alts & ext of building,use outbuildings as function room & alts for living acc - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 02/11/87 RB1995/0678: Erection of new low retaining wall and fence to rear boundary - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 09/08/95 RB2006/1245: Single storey extension and raise height of existing flat roof - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 04/09/06 RB2009/0424: Retrospective application for change of use of first floor living quarters (use class C3) to hotel rooms (use class C1) including installation of external staircase - REFUSED 03/06/09 RB2010/0250: Retrospective application for alterations to existing smoking shelter & alterations to car park - GRANTED 22/04/10 RB2010/0252: Application for installation of new fire escape to replace existing - GRANTED CONDITIONALLY 21/04/10 RB2011/1594: Demolition of public house and erection of 3 No. two storey dwellings with rooms in roofspace and 1 No. two storey dwelling - REFUSED 23/01/2012 RB2011/1595: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of public house - WITHDRAWN 12/12/11

RB2011/1729: Conservation Area Consent for demolition of public house - REFUSED 23/01/12 RB2012/0851: Demolition of public house and erection of 3 No. two storey dwellings with rooms in roofspace and 1 No. two storey dwelling (amendment to RB2011/1594) - Undetermined Site Description & Location The site consists of a large detached public house, the Lord Conyers, with an ancillary single storey and one and half storey outbuilding to the rear which was a former coach house. The public house is Edwardian and has an attractive appearance and is constructed in the Arts and Crafts style typical of that period. The building and outbuilding is constructed of brick with a tile roof and render. There is evidence from historic maps of a public house on this site since at least the 1850s. The Lord Conyers occupies a highly prominent position within the Wales Conservation Area and is located on The Square in the centre of the village. The public house is prominent in views into and within the Conservation Area from School Road to the west, Manor Road to the north and Church Street to the south. The building is of a grander appearance than surrounding buildings which was indicative of its status when constructed as a coaching inn.

Proposal The proposal is for the demolition of the Lord Conyers and outbuildings to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for residential development for four dwellings. The redevelopment of the site is being considered under a separate planning application (RB2012/0851). The applicant has stated that he purchased the site for £250,000 in November 2010. This application for Conservation Area Consent is to consider the acceptability of the loss of this building within the Wales Conservation Area and whether or not the applicant has demonstrated sufficient justification for the loss of the building in accordance with national and local policy requirements. The Design and Access Statement concludes that the demolition of the Lord Conyers and its re-development for four dwellings would preserve and enhance the Wales Conservation Area, by providing four attractive dwellings which would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Design and Access Statement also states that the continued use of the building as a public house is unviable and that other non residential uses, which would preserve the building are also unviable. The applicant submitted an Ecology report which concluded that the demolition of the building and redevelopment of the site will have no adverse impact on any protected species of bat, bird or mammal. A Viability report has been submitted with the application which concludes that there is no commercially viable alternative to the demolition of the building. The report sets out the costs for the continued use of the building as a public house and alternative uses for the building and discounts them for the reason below.

• Continuation the use of the Lord Conyers as a public house: The report concludes that due to the deterioration of the building the costs of bringing it back into use as a public house, would be commercially unviable as the costs of refurbishing the building would, when combined with its cost of acquisition, be more than its commercial value as a public house.

• Conversion of the existing building to apartments: The report concludes that it would be possible to convert the building to a number of apartments. However, it excludes this option as it states that the cost of conversion to apartments along with the cost of the building, would lead the developer to make a loss on the development and the report excludes this option on the basis of being commercially unviable.

• Use of the building as a restaurant or alternative uses:

The applicant has stated that the property was advertised for sale on behalf of the previous owners for a six months period from June 2010 by the Agents Fawley Watson Booth. The site was advertised as having “redevelopment potential – subject

to necessary consents.”The applicant stated that the property was widely advertised by marketing the details to 98 Yorkshire / East Midlands / Derbyshire agents, 73 local and regional developers and their contact list of other parties who have expressed an interest in similar properties. The applicants have also stated that it was advertised on the Estates Gazette website and the website of the selling agents. The Viability report argues that due to the costs of converting the building as a restaurant or for an alternative use such as a crèche or as a health centre would be prohibitively expensive for any future occupier and is not commercially viable.

The applicant submitted a Supporting Planning Statement which argues that the Lord Conyers public house had a troublesome relationship with neighbours and that it had its licence revoked in May 2010. The supporting statement sets outs complaints to the Council’s Environmental Health Department and a report of the police involvement at the site. The Supporting Statement gives the sales particulars of the site and makes an analysis of the other amenities within the village to support the argument of the applicant that the public house is not viable in this location. The applicant has also paid for an independent valuation of the premises to be undertaken by the Sheffield District Valuer’s office which undertook an independent valuation of the building, based on its value when the applicant purchased the building in November 2010. The District Valuer concluded that the building was worth £250,000, the same value that the applicant paid for the site. Development Plan Allocation and Policy Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states that “In respect of designated Conservation Areas, the Council: (ii) will not permit development (including changes of use, alterations and


(ii) will not be granted consent to demolish buildings which make a positive contribution to them unless every possible alternative course of action has been satisfactorily discounted and, if for the purposes of redevelopment, only when the development has been granted planning permission and is subject to a legally agreed commitment and timing;”

Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains

should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 128 “In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary.” The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 130 that “When there is evidence of deliberate neglect to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.” The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 132 states “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.” The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 133 that “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it

can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply;




• The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

Paragraph 136 states that “Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.” Paragraph 138 notes that loss of a building which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area can be considered to be treated as a substantial harm, to be assessed under paragraph 133 above, taking account of the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area. The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 141 states that “Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publically accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publically accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.” The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity The application has been publicised by press advertisement, site notice and by neighbour notification letter. Thirteen representations have been received by the Council objecting to the application. One right to speak request has been received by an objector to the application. The relevant comments and objections raised by members of the public in respect of the Conservation Area consent application are as follows:

• The Lord Conyers is an important landmark in the centre of the village, the building should be retained and re-used, for other uses such as retail.

• The loss of the Lord Conyers would be harmful to Wales Conservation Area as the building is one of the most important and attractive in the Conservation Area.

• The building is an important part of the village’s heritage a pub has stood on this site since the 1850s.

• Too much of the villages heritage has already been lost.

• This application is identical to the previous application.

• Rumours circulated around the village that other people were interested in purchasing the site.

• Could the new buildings look like the Lord Conyers building, if the buildings have to be demolished?

• If the building can’t be retained then could the façade be retained?

• The loss of the building could be harmful to the environment.

• If planning permission is granted for the development the adjacent Village Green should not be used as a dumping ground and/or for the storage of materials in relation to the development.

• If planning permission is granted for the development a condition should be attached and enforced restricting the working hours on the site.

• The building should be used as a restaurant or pub with food or for a community use.

• This application has been previously submitted and refused, the number of new submissions of this application amounts to harassment of the local community.

• The current owner has deliberately allowed the building to fall into a state of disrepair to make it into an eyesore so that local people will welcome its demolition.

• The current owner is only doing it to make a profit. He shouldn’t be allowed to do this at the expense of the village of Wales and the Conservation Area.

Consultations The Conservation Officer objects to the demolition of the building as the Lord Conyers is an attractive and visually prominent building within the Wales Conservation Area and that its loss would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Accepts that the demolition is justified in this instance due to viability issues and considers that the proposed development is appropriate in the context of the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. Transportation Unit: Raise no objections to the demolition of the building in a highway context. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this Conservation Area consent application are as follows:

• The acceptability of the loss of the Lord Conyers building and the impact of its loss on the character and appearance of the Wales Conservation Area.

• Whether or not the applicant has demonstrated a sufficiently robust justification for the demolition of the building in accordance with local and national policy.

• Other issues raised by objectors.

Impact on the Wales Conservation Area

In considering the acceptability of the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas consideration has to be made to Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ which states that “In respect of designated Conservation Areas, the Council: (ii) will not permit development (including changes of use, alterations and


(ii) will not be granted consent to demolish buildings which make a positive contribution to them unless every possible alternative course of action has been satisfactorily discounted and, if for the purposes of redevelopment, only when the development has been granted planning permission and is subject to a legally agreed commitment and timing;”

The Lord Conyers is an attractive building located in a highly prominent position in the centre of the village of Wales. According to historic maps there has been a public house on this site since at least 1850s and it is considered that the building represents a significant heritage asset for the Wales Conservation Area as part of a link to its past. The building is also significant as it provides an important visual focal point for The Square, which the building helps to define, as the historic commercial centre of the village. The building though not of great age is of quality construction and is typical of its period in the early C20th, with an Arts and Crafts appearance. It is considered that the Lord Conyers is a prominent and visually important building within the Conservation Area and its loss would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Wales Conservation Area and as such is contrary to Policy ENV2.11. However, the Wales Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify the Lord Conyers as a building of significance within the Conservation Area. The omission of the Lord Conyers from the Conservation Area Appraisal diminishes its visual and historic importance as a heritage asset within the Conservation Area. In the next section the issue of whether or not the applicant has provided compelling justification for the loss of the building will be considered. Justification for loss of the building With regards to the loss of the building, it is noted that Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ states that “compelling justification” needs to be provided for the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas. The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 133 that “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply;




• The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. Each of these criteria is set out below with each of these considered in turn with the justification provided by the applicant.

• The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site The site is a public house, a large building in a prominent location within Wales village in a reasonable state of repair. The submitted information notes that the building would need some maintenance and there would be costs in terms of refurbishing the building, though it is considered that the building does offer a variety of opportunities for reasonable re-use. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the building could be re-used it is considered that the building is not a Listed Building and the same degree of weight relating to its loss should not be given to its potential re-use.


The applicant has submitted a Viability report which sets out a number of reasons why the re-use of the building is unviable. These include conversion of the building into residential use, re-use of the building for an alternative purpose such as a restaurant or crèche, and the continuation of the existing use of the building as a public house. The above uses were all discounted on the basis of being financially unviable as the cost of the purchase of the premises combined with the costs of refurbishment of the building were greater than the value of the proposed end use. It is noted that the applicant has stated in their supporting statement that the site was advertised for sale on behalf of the previous owners for a six month period from June 2010. They state that the site was widely advertised before the current owner purchased the site. Though this is acknowledged it is noted that since the purchase of the site the current owners have not undertaken any marketing of the site for any other purpose. Though other uses were explored in the viability report and discounted, no evidence has been submitted that these uses have been explored through the marketing of the site since the current owners took occupation of the premises. Indeed it appears from the viability report that the viability or otherwise of other uses for the site hinges on the price paid for the public house, in order for the applicant to make a satisfactory profit. The applicant has paid for an independent valuation of the site undertaken by the District Valuer who appraised the site and based their valuation on the value of the premises when the applicant purchased it in November 2010. He concluded that the applicant had indeed paid a fair price for the building. It is considered that the independent valuation of the building underpins the findings of the viability report and supports the applicant’s assertion that any alternative re-use of the building and site is not economically viable in the medium term. Therefore it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated through the viability report and the independent valuation that no viable re-use of the building can be found in the medium term.


When consideration is being made to the loss of designated heritage assets which includes Listed Buildings and un-listed buildings within Conservation Areas, the weight given to each heritage asset must be appropriate to its level of designation. The loss or harm to a Listed Building should, owing to its nationally recognised value, always have greater weight than an un-listed heritage asset in this instance a building of historical and architectural interest and value within a Conservation Area. It is considered that this requirement of the NPPF is most relevant to Listed Buildings where there is grant funding available for repair and restoration of the building. Though it is noted that the applicant has not explored this option, it is considered that grant funding for the repair of the building is highly unlikely to be obtained as the building is un-listed. It is also considered that nationally available, though scarce, resources for the repair of un-listed buildings within Conservation Areas, for example the Heritage Lottery Fund, Townscape Heritage Initiative, would only extend to external repairs to the building and would not provide funds for internal alterations and/or repairs to allow for re-use of the building. Therefore these kinds of schemes would not necessarily facilitate the conversion of the building to an alternative economically viable re-use of the building. With regards to some charitable or public ownership of the building, this is not considered possible as the building is within private ownership and it is highly unlikely that any local charity or community group would have the funds available to purchase the building and re-furbish it for any alternative use.

• The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. In this instance the loss of the Lord Conyers is considered to represent harm by way of loss of the heritage asset to the Wales Conservation Area. The applicants have stated that there would be a benefit in redeveloping the site and bringing the site back into use for residential development. The applicant argues that this would be preferable to a vandalised redundant building. It is considered that the best long term solution for the building would be to bring it back into use and that if the building is beyond any viable re-use or alternative use then the loss of the building will have to be accepted. It is noted that the building has been closed since June 2010 and becoming unsightly. Though this is not a justification in itself to allow for the loss of the building, it is considered that the re-development of the site would bring about a public benefit in improving the site by bringing it back into use. In this instance it is considered that compelling justification for the demolition of the building has been demonstrated by the applicant, namely that the retention and re-use of the building is unviable. Therefore it is considered that the re-development would bring about a public benefit by bringing into use a building with no viable future in the medium term. Other issues raised by objectors A number of additional objections were raised by members of the public which included a number of comments objecting to the design, layout and the means of access and highway impact of the proposed four dwellings that are being considered under planning application RB2012/0851. Though these objections have been noted they cannot be

taken into consideration as part of this application, as this application is only to consider the acceptability of the demolition of the building that is within the Conservation Area. Conclusion Though it is acknowledged that the loss of the Lord Conyers would represent harm to the Wales Conservation Area it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the retention and re-use of the building is not viable in the medium term, through a detailed viability report and independent valuation of the premises. As such, it is considered that the proposal has satisfied the requirements Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in the NPPF. In view of the above it is recommended that Conservation Area consent be granted subject to the relevant conditions. RB2012/0913 Continuation of the use of the building as a Public House (Use Class A4) without compliance with Condition No 4 imposed by RB2003/1745 (restricting the size of the area and the times of use of the outside drinking area to 21:00) to allow an additional outside drinking area and for these areas to be used until 22:00 on any day at Church House Montgomery Square Wath upon Dearne RECOMMENDATION: Grant Conditionally STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Having regard to the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations as set out below: Development Plan: Local Planning Policy (Unitary Development Plan) Policy ENV2.11 Development in Conservation Areas will not permit development which would adversely affect their architectural or historic character or visual amenity. Policy ENV3.1 Development and the Environment seek to ensure all development makes a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design. Policy ENV3.7 Control of Pollution aims to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere of development.


The Council considers that the extension of the external seating area complies with relevant local and national planning policies and would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties nor on the character of the Conservation Area or the setting of the listed building.

The forgoing statement is a summary of the main considerations leading to the decision to approve this application. More detailed information may be obtained from the Planning Officer’s report; the application case files and associated documents. Conditions & Reasons Imposed: 01 None of the land outside the building shall be used as a drinking area except for the area to the front of the building identified for such purposes on drawing number PL-05 submitted with the application. This area shall not be used for drinking outside the normal opening hours of the public house nor after 22.00 hours each day. In order to protect the amenities of nearby residential properties. 02 There shall be no loudspeakers installed or amplified music played within the outdoor drinking area without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. In order to protect the amenities of nearby residential properties. 03 None of the windows to the licensed area shall be openable and the fire escape doors shall be kept shut except in emergency. To prevent the transmission of noise. 04 The window in the west wall of the mezzanine level shall be obscure glazed. To preserve the privacy of adjoining residents. 05

The service access at the rear shall be kept closed at those times when premises are open to the public. To prevent the use of this access by customers in the interests of the amenities of the residents in Old Cross Lane.

Background There have been several applications relating to the public house. The most relevant are listed below. RB1982/0929-Change of use to licensed premises – Granted conditionally 20/01/1993 RB2002/0310- Variation of condition 4 imposed by R82/929P to allow for an external drinking area – Refused 11/04/2002 and allowed on appeal for a period of 12 months until 21:00 hours each day. RB2003/1745-Variation of Condition 4 imposed by R82/929P to allow for an external drinking area (previously allowed on appeal for a period of 12 months by RB2002/0310) – Refused 04/12/2003 for the following reason: 01 The Council considers that the use of the external drinking area is detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, especially those within the flats over the adjacent supermarket, by way of noise nuisance and general disturbance, particularly late in the evening. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy RET 1.1 ' Shopping Environment', of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. The application was subsequently allowed on appeal where the Inspector concluded that subject to a condition restricting the hours of use, the outside drinking area would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties. RB2011/1049- Variation of condition 4 imposed by RB2003/1745 to allow extended use of external public drinking area until 22:00 hours (previously allowed until 21:00 hours) – Granted conditionally 24/08/2011 Consultations

• Transportation Unit have raised no objection to the application.

• Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) have raised no objection to the application.

• The Local Amenity Societies have made no comments to the application. Site Description & Location The application relates to the Church House Public House located on Montgomery Square in the pedestrianised area within the Town Centre of Wath upon Dearne and its Conservation Area The Public House is a two storey Listed Building located in a slightly elevated position from the pedestrianised area of Montgomery Square. To the front of the building is an external seating area containing nine picnic benches and various landscaped/gravel areas. Residential properties lie to the south west of the site and commercial premises are to the north and east.

Proposal An application for the change of use to the public house was granted conditional planning approval in 1983. Condition 4 attached to that approval stated: “None of the land outside the building shall be used as a drinking area to protect the amenities of local residents.” In 2002 an application to vary condition 4 for an outside drinking area was allowed on appeal for a temporary period of 12 months until 2100 hours each day. Subsequently in 2003 an application was submitted to vary condition 4 of the above application to allow the outside drinking area on a permanent basis. This was again allowed on appeal but subject to a condition restricting the use until 21:00 hours each day. A further application to extend the opening hours of the outside drinking area from 21:00 to 22:00 was also granted in 2011. This application now seeks to vary condition 4 of RB2003/1745 to allow an additional outside drinking area and for these areas to be used until 22:00 on any day. The additonal drinking area consists of six picnic benches to the paved area west of the existing seating area. Development Plan Allocation and Policy The application site is located within an area allocated for Retail Use and lies within Wath upon Dearne Conservation Area within the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The application has been assessed against the following policies: UDP Policy ENV2.11 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ will not permit development which would adversely affect their architectural or historic character or visual amenity. UDP Policy ENV3.1 ‘Development and the Environment seek to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design. UDP Policy ENV3.7 Control of Pollution aims to minimise the adverse effects of nuisance, noise, light pollution, pollution of the atmosphere of development. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework: The NPPF came into effect on March 27th 2012 and replaced all previous Government Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs) and most of the Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) that existed. It states that “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay – a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision. This framework sets out clearly what could make a proposed plan or development unsustainable.” It adds that, “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains

should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.” The NPPF states that: “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place. The NPPF constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications.” The NPPF notes that for 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework. The Rotherham Unitary Development Plan was adopted prior to this in June 1999. Under such circumstances the NPPF states that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).” The NPPF notes at paragraph 123 that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, they should mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states that not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance and further goes on to say that the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the Conservation Area should be taken into account. Finally, the NPPF states that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to, amongst other things, the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given). At this stage, no policies have been formulated as part of the Local Development Framework process. The Unitary Development Plan policies referred to above are consistent with the NPPF and have been given due weight in the determination of this application. Publicity The application was advertised by way of a press/site notice and adjacent properties have been notified in writing. Two representations have been received. One objecting to the application on the grounds that any additonal outside drinking area until 22:00 hours would be a further intrusion to quality of life as the noise at times can be quite extensive and one in support on the grounds that The Church House is a very well run establishment and cannot see any reason for the application to be refused. Consultations

• Transportation Unit have raised no objection to the application.

• Neighbourhoods (Environmental Health) have raised no objection to the application.

• The Local Amenity Societies have made no comments to the application. Appraisal Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission…..In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to - (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations. - S. 70 (2) TCPA ‘90. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise - S.38 (6) PCPA 2004. The main considerations in the determination of this application to vary condition 4 imposed by RB2003/1745 is the effect the extended outdoor drinking/seating area and hours of operation will have on the amenities of the nearby residential properties and on the character of the conservation area Residential amenity The nearest residential properties are located above an existing supermarket and to the north west of the public house at a distance of approximately 7 metres from the existing external seating area which currently can be used until 2200 hours on any day. The proposed additonal tables will be located to the east of the existing drinking area adjacent to the commercial properties in Montgomery Square at a distance of approximately 17m from the nearest residential properties. The existing area is fairly modest in size and accommodates 9 picnic tables. The additional area is approximately 2/3 the size of this and will provide for an additional 6 tables. With regard to the objection that has been received form a neighbouring resident, the Council’s Environmental Health officer has raised no objection to the application and confirmed that there have been no recent complaints in relation to noise or anti-social behaviour. In addition, the supermarket which is situated below the existing flats is open until 23:00 hours 7 days week and with an existing ATM machine. Also there are a number of premises within the Town Centre that are open in the evening including a takeaway, restaurant, two public houses, one of which has an outdoor seating area and smoking shelter. On this basis and subject to the recommended conditions restricting no external music and that non of the external drinking areas shall be used after 22.00 hours it is considered that the extended external seating area would not create any material

increase in the level of ambient noise in the area and would not result in any additional disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties. Impact on the Conservation Area and immediate locality. The public house lies within a pedestrianised area in Wath Town Centre and its conservation area. To the front of the public house are landscaped/gravel areas, low level lighting columns and within the paved area to the west of the entrance path is an external seating area containing nine picnic style benches. The application indicates the siting of six picnic style benches within the paved area to the east of the footpath at the front of the building opposite the existing external seating area. Whilst the siting of the picnic benches does not actually require planning permission, they will match the existing seating which is currently being provided. It is considered that the use of the area as an extension to the outside drinking area and the addition of six picnic benches in this location would not harm the setting of the building nor affect the character of the conservation area. With the above in mind it is considered that the proposal complies with ENV2.11 which does not permit development that would harm the visual amenity of the conservation area and ENV3.1 which seeks to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to the environment Conclusion In conclusion having taking taken all of the above in account it is considered that the variation to condition 4 imposed by RB2003/1745 is considered. It will not create additional noise and disturbance to neighbouring residential properties nor harm the character of the conservation area. On this basis it is recommended that the application is approved subject to the recommended conditions.