HIGH PEAK BOROUGH COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date 27th November 2017

Application

No:

HPK/2017/0366

Location Land off Ellison Street, Glossop

Proposal Proposed residential development of 22 no. dwellings

together with various infrastructure and landscaping works,

following demolition of existing buildings and subsequent site

clearance

Applicant Pembroke East Ltd

Agent PWA Planning

Parish/ward Howard Town Ward Date registered 3rd July 2017

If you have a question about this report please contact: Mark

Ollerenshaw, Tel. 01538 395400 extension 4921,

mark.ollerenshaw@highpeak.gov.uk

REFERRAL The application is referred to committee as it is a major development. 1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement and

Conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The application site is located to the east of Ellison Street and is currently vacant having been previously occupied by Fabricare, an industrial sized laundrette business. There are various vacant buildings and areas of hardstanding and the site therefore constitutes previously developed land. Existing residential properties border the site to north and east (King Edward Avenue and Drovers Walk), whilst Glossop Police Station adjoins the southern boundary of the site. The site takes access off Ellison Street to the west which is to be utilised with relevant improvement works as part of the proposals. 2.2 A number of trees on the site were felled before submission of the application, however, none of the trees on the site are protected by a TPO. 2.3 The site is within the built-up area boundary of Glossop within relatively close proximity to the Town Centre. The site is not within a conservation area but the boundary of the Norfolk Square Conservation Area is within close proximity to the west of the site.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 3.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 22 no. dwellings following demolition of existing buildings on the site. The proposals include complete site clearance and the construction of 17 no. houses and 5 no. apartments comprising a mix of two, three and four bedroom units, ranging from two to two and half storeys in height, and comprising both linked and semi-detached properties. 3.2 The existing access off Ellison Street is to be retained with improvement works proposed and formation of an internal access road to serve the development. 3.3 Revised plans were submitted during the course of the application following discussions between officers and the applicant. 3.4 The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents:

Planning Statement

Affordable Housing Statement

Design and Access Statement

Draft Heads of Terms

Drainage Strategy

Heritage Statement

Land Contamination Assessment

Landscape Layout

Noise Impact Assessment

Phase 1 Habitat Assessment and Bat Survey Report

Transport Statement

Tree Survey and Report

Sustainability Statement

Waste and Refuse Statement 3.5 Full details of the application can be viewed at: http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=217330

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY No recent planning history.

5. PLANNING POLICIES, GUIDANCE AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

High Peak local Plan 2016 S1 – Sustainable Development Principles S1a – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

S3 – Strategic Housing Development S5 – Glossopdale Sub-area Strategy EQ1 – Climate Change EQ5 - Biodiversity EQ6 – Design and Place Making EQ7 – Built and Historic Environment EQ9 - Trees, woodlands and hedgerows EQ10 – Pollution Control and Unstable Land EQ11 – Flood Risk Management E4 – Change of Use of Existing Business Land and Premises H1 – Location of Housing Development H2 – Housing Allocations H3 – New Housing Development H4 – Affordable Housing CF4 – Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities CF6 – Accessibility and Transport CF7 – Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy Supplementary Planning Guidance • Residential Design • Sustainable Development National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Achieving Sustainable Development Section 1 Building a strong, competitive economy Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7 Requiring good design Section 11 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment Section 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment National Planning Practice Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS

Site notice Expiry date for comments: 29/08/2017

Press notice Expiry date for comments: 24/08/2017

Neighbours Expiry date for comments: 16/08/2017

Neighbours Two letters from neighbouring occupiers have been received, in which the following issues are raised:

A number of trees were removed prior to the application being submitted – these provided a habitat for birds.

Any further trees removed should be replaced.

Who will be responsible for removing a tree in the neighbour’s back garden, the roots of which have been undermined?

Who will be responsible or the boundary fencing around the site?

Lack of affordable housing.

Dense layout. Consultees

Consultee

Comment Officer

response

DCC Highways Original comments

The submitted details include a Transport Statement

and propose a development of 22no. dwellings all

served via a modified access with Ellison Street on a

site currently occupied by industrial buildings.

It’s assumed that the proposed internal site road is

to remain private and the following comments are

made on this basis.

Access to the site is demonstrated as being formed

by means of kerbed entry and exit radii with a new

footway across the site frontage with Ellison Street

to form a link between the existing facilities to the

north and south of the site. Acceptable exit visibility

sightlines of 2.4m x 43m are shown to the nearside

carriageway channel in each direction although that

to the north should also be demonstrated to the

tangent of the bend in alignment. Whilst there is no

objection in principle to this layout, it’s considered

that creation of the access as a dropped kerb

crossing of the footway would reinforce the private

nature of the road.

Beyond the access, the service road corridor should

be of adequate dimension to accommodate a layout

complying with the recommendations of the 6C’s

Design Guide. Although not an adoptable layout, the

minimum corridor width of 7.5m is satisfied as far as

the proposed turning facility at which point areas

available for shared use are a less clear e.g. this

distance isn’t available between the dwelling on Plot

16 and parking spaces fronting Plots 17 – 20. Is the

area shaded yellow around Plots 15 – 16 intended

for shared use or private curtilage?

The driveway serving Plots 13 – 14 and an off-street

Paras 7.31

– 7.36

parking area is of inadequate width to enable two

vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass.

Coupled with the apparent lack of forward visibility,

this may result in awkward reversing manoeuvres, a

situation considered against the best interests of

safety for the more vulnerable pedestrian users of

the route.

Swept path analysis has been submitted

demonstrating suitability of the internal road layout

to enable a Large Refuse Vehicle of 9.86m length to

enter and exit the site in a forward gear. However, it

should be noted that the Manual for Streets Design

Guide advises that the largest such vehicles in

current use are of 11.6m length. It’s recommended

that the larger vehicle is accommodated unless

otherwise deemed acceptable by the local refuse

collection service that may, given the private status

of the road, require a bin storage point to be

provided adjacent to, but clear of, the existing

highway for use on collection days.

The Transport Statement makes reference to off-

street parking being provided at a level meeting the

standards of your Authority. I trust that you will

ensure that this is satisfactory. It should be noted

that current guidance recommends that spaces are

of 2.4m x 5.5m minimum dimension with an

additional 0.5m of width to any side adjacent to a

physical barrier e.g. wall, hedge, fence, etc.

It was recommended in pre-application

correspondence that pedestrian links should be

made to the existing infrastructure to the east of the

site. The proposed site layout does not appear to

include any such links nor give any reason as to why

these haven’t been included.

Therefore, it’s recommended that the applicant is

given opportunity to provide details of measures to

satisfactorily address the above issues. However, if

you are minded to determine the proposals as

submitted, I shall be grateful to receive further

opportunity to provide recommendations for

Conditions and Advisory Notes for inclusion within

the decision.

Notwithstanding the above, if the applicant is

intending to seek adoption of the proposed internal

roadway to be maintained in future at public

expense, the road layout will need to be re-designed

to comply with the recommendations contained

within the 6C’s Design Guide that may be found on-

line.

Revised comments

The new road layout will not be offered for adoption.

Suitability of the ‘spine’ road for use by a Large

Refuse Vehicle has been demonstrated and,

presumably, the local collection service will be

prepared to collect from within the site rather than

from Ellison Street (if the latter, a storage area

adjacent to, but outside of, the public highway will

need to be provided).

Just a couple of main points that will alter as a result

of non-adoption; the access should take the form of

a dropped kerb crossing of the footway and details

of future maintenance arrangements, e.g.

Management Company, should be made the subject

of Condition on any Consent.

Conditions recommended by the Highway Authority

are awaited and will be detailed on the Update

Sheet.

Derbyshire

Wildlife Trust

The ecological survey work that has been undertaken is fit for purpose and has been undertaken to an appropriate standard and has been completed at an appropriate time of year. If the Council are minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development it is recommended that conditions are attached to require the recommendations and enhancement measures set out in the Ecological Appraisal Report and the Biodiversity Enhancement Letter to be implemented in full.

Paras 7.37

– 7.39

Arboricultural

Officer

There was significant pre-emptive felling of trees on this site. Unfortunately this has left the remaining trees on the eastern boundary (T10 to T17) appearing unbalanced with limited lower branching. These trees are on a raised area around the site and it is unclear how these will be successfully

Paras 7.40

– 7.41

accommodated within the scheme in terms of alterations to levels. It is not considered that these trees will be sustainable within the proposed development. As such a better approach would be for these trees to be removed and a good quality landscaping scheme put in place to replace these trees on a 2:1 basis in accordance with the Council’s Local plan policy. The only tree suitable for retention on this site is the Beech T1. However this will require a Arboricultural Method statement to ensure this tree will be protected during construction. In particular this will need to include details of a no–dig solution for the part of the access road which will encroach within the Roots Protection Area (as defined by BS5837:2012). The landscaping scheme provided is inadequate and there are opportunities for further tree planting on the site particularly in the rear of gardens 21-22. Also if addition tree planting is added to the scheme this should increase the diversity of species used. There appears to be some incidental amenity land within this scheme not included in the garden areas. We need details of how these areas will be managed in the future, at least the next 10 years, to ensure that they are maintained to a high standard. This plan also needs to include details of the proposed future ownership of the land and as such who will ultimately be responsible for its management. The plan needs to include who will be responsible for the management of the land beyond the initial 10 year period. As such I do not consider that the landscape element of the proposal can be approved at this time. Although the pre-emptive felling and the density of the scheme have made the opportunities for tree retention very limited and there has been significant tree loss, it is considered that if the planning balance is in favour of development the arboricultural issues should not be a reason for refusal as long as the issues of tree protection and landscaping can be dealt with via condition.

The following conditions should be applied to any approval: LA01, LA02 & LA06 – landscaping scheme, implementation and future management; LA10 and LA11 - tree retention and Arboricultural Method Statement.

HPBC Project

Officer

(Operational

Services)

Due to the size of the proposed development and it’s proximity to several existing recreational open spaces we would not be requesting any on site open space provision, and therefore we would be requesting off site contributions. In accordance with Policy CF4 of the Local Plan we would be looking to secure a contribution for all four typologies. We would be looking to target the equipped play, outdoor sports and parks and gardens contribution towards Manor Park which is approximately 600 meters away from the proposed development. This would be for improvements to the existing play equipment and the creation of a multi-use games area to accommodate the increased usage and capacity from potential new residents, as well as towards park improvements such as additional seating (benches and picnic benches) and litter bins. In terms of the allotment contribution, this would be targeted towards Jordan Street Allotments adjacent to Manor Park, for infrastructure improvements to the site where there may be potential new tenants from the proposed development. The contribution costs based on 22 properties would be as follows:- Equipped Play - £4,032 Parks and gardens - £12,562 Outdoor sports - £10,766.80 Allotments - £1,692.90

Paras 7.15

– 7.16

DCC Policy

and Monitoring

No Education S106 Contribution required. Para 7.17

Economic

Development

(HPBC)

The applicant was advised via a pre-application

response that the application should justify the loss

of an unallocated employment site. The applicant

has indicated the site was marketed by property

consultants for almost two years with little interest,

however no evidence of this is provided. The

applicant should provide evidence that the property

Paras 7.9 –

7.10

has been marketed for a minimum of 6 months, for a

range of commercial uses and tenures. HPBC

Economic Development Officers receive a high

number of enquiries from businesses seeking B1

employment space and would request that this

evidence is provided before a change of use is

considered. Subject to this information being

provided, the outputs for each option are considered

below.

Employment use outputs

The building provides 941sqm of B1 employment

space within a 0.52ha site. Using the ODPM

Guidance (2015) on job ratios, the building could

accommodate between 47 and 67 direct jobs. This

could provide between £65,518 and £93,398

employee expenditure in the local area per annum,

as well as generate business rate income to the

Council.

Residential development outputs

A development of 22 dwellings could generate

Council tax of approximately £4311 and household

expenditure in the area of £202,453 per annum.

Construction of the units could create 37 jobs within

construction or the associated supply chain.

Design Review

Panel

The site is outside the conservation area but just

opposite a row of listed back to back cottages. No

objections in principle to demolition of the buildings

on the site and development for residential units.

Layout:

Frontage development is welcome and echoes the

development pattern of Ellison St and the wider

area. There is a stone boundary wall fronting Croft

House and it is not clear if this is being retained at

its current height and alignment or will require

modification to allow access and visibility lines.

Consideration should be given to reorienting 5, 6

and 7 so that they have a greater street presence

and face the road. Plots 18 and 19 should be

realigned so that they sit adjacent to plots 15 and 16

and form a courtyard development and give a more

Paras 7.19

– 7.26

interesting closed view when entering the site. This

could also result in moving some of the parking for

these plots to the rear and be hidden.

House Design:

The houses on Ellison Street (Type A and B) are

acceptable in terms of their form and massing but

the window proportions should have a much

stronger vertical emphasis with the ground floor

stone heads being located just higher than the door

heads. I would refer the applicant to the small back

to back cottages opposite. Chimney stacks on at

least the frontage cottages would be welcome. Of all

the proposed house types on the site Type A and B

have the most potential.

General comments on all types as follows:

· Some need chimneys

· Dormers should be removed and rooflights

introduced

· Stronger vertical emphasis to some of the window

openings

· Omit canopies

· All windows require heads and cills and doors

require heads and jambs on some

· Watch the positioning of the first floor window as

these should be located above the ground floor

opening - Type B

· Windows should be located just underneath the

eaves and there shouldn’t be a large gap here (this

affects the house types with dormers)

Materials:

Materials on the front cottages should be natural

stone and slate with timber windows and doors

(painted finish). Inside the site a good art stone and

slate would be acceptable.

Boundary details:

No close boarded fencing in prominent or visible

locations.

Parking:

Areas where there is a long run of spaces should be

broken into smaller areas with planting to offer some

relief.

HPBC

Environmental

Health

No objection subject to conditions.

DCC Flood

Risk

The additional information submitted demonstrates

that the proposed design has considered

discharging at the practical minimum of 5l/s, but the

ability to undertake this within the development

allocation is unlikely to be feasible due to the levels

within the site. An agreement with United Utilities

has been made to allow a discharge of 17l/s into the

combined system as such the LLFA have no further

comments to make on the proposed discharge rate

and accept the 17l/s rate. The use of permeable

paving within the development should be considered

further at the detailed design stage. A condition is

recommended requiring submission of a detailed

design and associated management and

maintenance plan of surface water drainage.

7. POLICY AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE

Planning policies 7.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7.2 Section 38(6) requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations." The Development Plan currently consists of the High Peak Local Plan Policies Adopted April 2016. 7.3 Other material considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). 7.4 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. This is reflected in Adopted Local Plan Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Principles) and S1a (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development). For decision makers this means that when considering development proposals which accord with the development plan, they should be approved without delay, but where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant

policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. 7.5 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF identifies the three dimensions to sustainable development as economic, social and environmental. Principle of development 7.6 The site is entirely within the built up area boundary of Glossop and is unallocated. 7.7 The site is within close proximity of Glossop Town Centre and is adjacent to existing residential development. The site is well connected to bus stops, public footpaths and Glossop Railway is within easy walking distance of the site. The site is therefore considered to be within a sustainable location. In considering the suitability of this site for housing, consideration is given to advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) as well as conforming to policies set out in the High Peak Local Plan Policies 2016. 7.8 Section 6 of the Framework relates specifically to the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. Paragraph 49 advises that Local Planning Authorities should consider housing applications in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy H1 of the development plan provides support for new housing development on unallocated sites within the built up area boundary of the towns. Policy S5 is supportive of new housing on sustainable sites within the built up area boundary. Although the Council is able to demonstrate a five year housing supply, the proposed dwellings would make a contribution towards the supply of housing in the borough and provide a contribution economically and socially to the area. The site is in a mainly residential area and is adjacent to residential properties. As such, the proposed development would be compatible with adjoining land uses. The principle of residential development on the site would therefore aaccord with Policies S2 and H1, subject to consideration of the relevant policies of the Local Plan and any other material considerations. 7.9 Policy E4 (Change of Use of Existing Business Land and Premises) states that development involving the redevelopment or change of use of existing business or industrial land or premises for non-employment uses will only be permitted where the continuation of the land or premises in industrial or business use is constrained to the extent that it is no longer suitable or commercially viable for industrial or business use as demonstrated by marketing evidence commensurate with the size and scale of development; and the proposed use is compatible with neighbouring uses. Proposals that would result in an under-supply of suitable employment land in relation to identified needs will not be permitted. 7.10 Whilst the site is not allocated for employment, its previous use was for industry and as such it is necessary to consider whether the proposal complies with Policy E4. The applicant has provided marketing evidence which shows that the site was put on the market in June 2015 until its sale date in November 2016. Interest in the site came predominantly from those interested in redeveloping the site for

housing. There was very minimal interest from prospective parties looking to use the site for industrial purposes due to the current dilapidated state of the buildings and the substantial costs associated with bringing the site up to modern day, manufacturing standards. Given that the site has been marketed for employment for a reasonable length of time without a positive outcome, and also that if the site were to be brought back into an active industrial use, it may cause harm to the amenity of existing residents, it is considered that the proposals are compliant with Policy E4. 7.11 Taking the above into account, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle. Planning Obligations 7.12 Policy CF7 of the Local Plan states that development proposals will be required to provide, or meet the reasonable costs of providing, the on-site and off-site infrastructure, facilities and/or mitigation necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms through the appropriate use of planning obligations and/or conditions. 7.13 Policy H4 (Affordable Housing) requires residential developments to achieve 20% affordable housing on sites of 5-24 units. The proposed development does not include any affordable housing. In a judgment handed down on 11th May 2016, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision to quash the Government's affordable housing exemptions for small scale development and vacant building credit, as a result the guidance on vacant building credit was reintroduced into the National Planning Policy Guidance. Vacant building credit is defined as:

National policy provides an incentive for brownfield development on sites containing vacant buildings. Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions may be required for any increase in floorspace.

7.14 Vacant building credit seeks to incentivize the re-use of previously development sites and can be utilized provided the existing buildings were not made vacant for the sole purposes of redevelopment nor are covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same or substantially the same development. In this case, Fabricare formally vacated the site in early 2015 having ceased business operations in mid late 2014. The existing buildings no longer meet the needs of modern day industrial business use and it is understood Fabricare moved to other sites elsewhere. It is considered that the buildings were not made vacant for the sole purpose of redevelopment and the site does not benefit from any extant or recently expired planning permissions for development. A commonly used calculation for vacant building credit has been applied to this scheme. The existing gross internal area of the buildings to be demolished exceeds the total gross internal area of the 22 dwellings. On the basis of the vacant building credit calculation showing an overall decrease in floorspace it is considered that no affordable housing should be sought as part of this application in line with government policy.

7.15 Policy CF4 (Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities) of the Local Plan allows the Council to request developer contributions for different typologies of open space which includes equipped children’s play, outdoor sports facilities and allotments. Due to the size of the development and proximity to several existing recreational open spaces on-site open space provision would be inappropriate but an off-site contribution is both reasonable and necessary. The total contribution required based on 22 properties would be:

Equipped Play - £4,032

Parks and gardens - £12,562

Outdoor sports - £10,766.80

Allotments - £1,692.90 7.16 The above contribution would be targeted towards Manor Park which is approximately 600 meters away from the proposed development. This would be for improvements to the existing play equipment and the creation of a multi-use games area to accommodate the increased usage and capacity from potential new residents, as well as towards park improvements such as additional seating (benches and picnic benches) and litter bins. The contribution would also be targeted towards Jordan Street Allotments adjacent to Manor Park, for infrastructure improvements to the site where there may be potential new tenants from the proposed development. 7.17 Derbyshire County Council Policy Team advises that no education contribution is required since the relevant normal area primary school and secondary school would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional pupils arising from this development. 7.18 The Section 106 has yet to be finalised. Once agreed, the contributions will meet the requirements of the Planning Obligations SPD and Local Plan Policy in this regard. Character, Design and Layout 7.19 The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Paragraph 58 requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area for the lifetime of the development. It should respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials whilst reinforcing local distinctiveness. 7.20 Adopted Local plan policies S1 and EQ6 require new development to contribute to a sense of place by taking account of the distinct character, townscape and setting of the area and securing high quality and locally distinctive design and amenity. The adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Design (2005) also provides guidance on the approach to new residential development and the factors which contribute toward local distinctiveness. 7.21 The layout incorporates 22 dwellings arranged around a cul-de-sac layout with most of the houses backing onto the site perimeter. The heights of the

properties will have a similar overall height and massing to surrounding properties. The house designs are relatively traditional to reflect the character of the area. The proposals comprise a mix of dwelling types of various sizes which will contribute to a sustainable housing stock and will provide flexible accommodation which is capable of future adaptation. The existing warehouse building facing Ellison Street is to be replaced by 4 mews houses which are of appropriate scale and design which contribute to the character of the street scene. These would be stone built and include chimney stacks and stone heads and cills to the window openings. The removal of the existing buildings on the site and replacement with new properties and soft landscape measures will enhance the visual amenity of the area. 7.22 The development is relatively dense however this is considered to reflect the pattern of development of the neighbouring sites and would not harm the character and appearance of the existing development. 7.23 The Design Review Panel made a number of comments and recommendations on the original plans, which the applicant has taken on board and a revised set of plans has been submitted. The revised plans detail alterations to window openings to some of the properties, with a vertical emphasis given to window proportions. Chimney stacks have been added and dormers and canopies previously proposed have been removed. The parking to the front of plots 17-20 has been broken up with planting. 7.24 Overall, the amended scheme is considered to be acceptable from a design perspective and accords with Policy EQ6. However, one outstanding concern is the proposed use of brick to the properties further within the site. The applicant considers that the use of brick would not be inappropriate given that adjacent housing to the north and east are constructed in brick. It is considered that the use of a good quality artificial stone and slate would more appropriate for the properties within the site as this would be more in keeping with the character of existing development along Ellison Street and the nearby Conservation Area. The applicant is willing to give further consideration to the proposed construction materials and it is considered that this matter can be adequately addressed by way of conditions to ensure a high quality finish. As noted above, the new properties fronting Ellison Street would be in natural stone and slate, which is considered appropriate. 7.25 The site is not within a conservation area, but land directly to the west on the opposite side of Ellison Street is within the Norfolk Square Conservation Area. There is also a grade II listed building, 3-9 Ellison Street approximately 12 metres to the west of the site. The design of the plots facing towards Ellison Street is traditional and sympathetic to the area. These dwellings would be adjacent to the footway and constructed in natural stone and slate and comprise chimney stacks and window openings with a strong vertical emphasis. It is considered that the development would be sympathetic to the setting of the Conservation Area and nearby listed building and accords with Policy EQ7 of the Local Plan and Section 12 of the NPPF. 7.26 In light of the above, the development is considered to comply with policies S1, EQ6, EQ7 along with guidance contained within the Councils Residential Design SPD, Paragraph 17 and the Sections 7 and 12 of the Framework all of which seek to ensure that the new development integrates into the natural, built and historic

environment and overall design, scale, density, massing, landscaping and use of materials are sympathetic to the character of the area. Residential Amenity 7.27 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF requires a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Adopted Local Plan Policy EQ6 also stipulates that development should achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjacent development and should not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shadowing, overbearing or other adverse impacts on local character and amenity. Careful consideration will thus need to be given to the design, orientation and siting of the new dwellings to ensure that the occupiers have a satisfactory level of amenity and do not result in a loss of amenity to occupiers of the adjacent properties. 7.28 The site is adjacent to residential occupiers on King Edward Avenue, Drovers Walk and Smithy Close to the north and east, Croft House to the north and properties on the other side of Ellison Street to the west. The SPD advises that, as a guide, a minimum separation distance between facing windows of 21m is normally expected in new developments. In cases where any building exceeds 5m eaves height or there is a difference in base levels, then the distance between properties should increase by 1m for every 0.5m of elevation. In cases where existing windows would face a blank gable wall within the new development the Council generally considers a distance of 10-12 metres to be appropriate. 7.29 The proposals broadly accord with the amenity standards outlined in the SPD in respect of overlooking, shadowing and overbearing issues. However, it is noted that the four plots fronting Ellison Street would be below the recommended 21m separation distance from existing properties on the opposite side of Ellison Street. This is considered acceptable in this instance as terraced properties on Ellison Street and elsewhere within the surrounding area do not generally meet the 21m standard and this is an established feature of the area. 7.30 The proposed dwellings on the site would be served by private gardens and off road parking provision. The layout of the development generally meets the standards set out in the SPD with regard to separation distances. The 5 apartments do not have gardens, however, this is not considered unacceptable given that there would be a communal grassed area within the site and the site is within close proximity of several public open spaces within Glossop, including Manor Park to the east. It is therefore considered that the future occupiers of the site would enjoy high levels of amenity. Access and Highway matters 7.31 The NPPF promotes sustainable transport and recommends that local planning authorities should seek to encourage and facilitate where possible sustainable patterns of transport using practical alternatives to private motor vehicles so that people have a real choice about how they travel.

7.32 Local Plan Policy CF6 seeks to ensure that new development can be accessed safely, provides access to a range of transport modes and minimises the need to travel by unsustainable modes. The site is located within the development boundary close to Glossop Town Centre and within walking distance to the local primary school, shops, services, bus stops and the railway station to Manchester. 7.33 The proposed layout has been subject to discussion between the applicant and County Highways. Sufficient visibility at the site access has been demonstrated. Highways requested further detail on parking spaces, driveways and swept path analysis demonstrating suitability of the internal road layout to enable a large refuse vehicle. 7.34 Following receipt of further details from the applicant’s transport consultant, the Highway Authority’s revised comments suggest that the layout of the site is now generally acceptable on the basis that the internal estate road serving the development is not to be adopted as it is not to an adoptable standard. Suitability of the internal estate road for use by a Large Refuse Vehicle has been demonstrated. As a result of non-adoption of the estate road the access would need to take the form of a dropped kerb crossing of the footway and details of future maintenance arrangements, e.g. Management Company, would need to agreed as part of a condition. The Highway Authority’s recommended conditions are not currently available but will be reported on the Update Sheet. 7.35 The Highway Authority have suggested that the possibility of pedestrian links should be explored to the existing infrastructure to the east of the site. The applicant has investigated the possibility of a pedestrian link from the east of the site to the existing footway that runs north from Smithy Close, however the level differences between the site and the footway would appear to preclude the provision of such a link. 7.36 Subject to the conditions recommended by the Highway Authority, it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on the local road network and the proposals therefore comply with the provisions of section 4 of the NPPF, and Local Plan policy CF6 in this regard. Biodiversity and Trees 7.37 Section 11 of the NPPF outlines that Local Planning Authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Paragraph 109 seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Adopted Local Plan policy EQ5 echoes this advice, advising that biodiversity and ecological resources should be conserved. 7.38 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) advise that the ecological survey work has been undertaken to an appropriate standard and has been completed at an appropriate time of year. DWT recommend that conditions are attached to require the recommendations and enhancement measures set out in the Ecological Appraisal Report and the Biodiversity Enhancement Letter to be implemented in full.

7.39 Subject to the ecological enhancement measures recommended in the ecological appraisal being secured by condition, the proposals comply with Local Plan Policy EQ5 and the proposals will not adversely affect any ecological or biodiversity interests. 7.40 The pre-emptive felling of the trees on the site has left the remaining trees on the eastern boundary appearing unbalanced with limited lower branching. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer does not consider that these trees will be sustainable within the proposed scheme. As such, it is considered that a better approach would be to remove these trees and replace the trees on a 2:1 basis as part of a high quality landscaping scheme. The only tree suitable for retention on the site is T1, a beech tree. An Arboricultural Method Statement will be required to ensure that this tree will be protected during construction. 7.41 The landscaping scheme is considered inadequate and there are opportunities for further tree planting on the site. It is considered that a high quality landscaping scheme can be agreed as part of appropriately worded conditions. A condition will also be required to ensure that the open amenity land within the site, which is not within private gardens, is maintained and managed to a high standard. Subject to the conditions recommended by the Arboricultural Officer, it is considered that the development accords with Policy EQ9. Other Matters 7.42 The Environmental Health Officer has suggested a number of conditions including the need for a contaminated survey given the former use of the building, and a number of condition to protect residential amenity. These are considered to be reasonable, necessary and directly related to the development. Planning Balance 7.43 In defining whether the site would constitute “sustainable development” the Framework identifies the three dimensions - social; economic and environmental. 7.44 This site lies within the built up area boundary of Glossop. The site is adjacent to public transport links and within a suitable distance to local services and facilities. The revised scheme is considered to be acceptable from a layout and design perspective and the proposed development can be accommodated on the site without significant adverse impact on neighbouring residents. The access and parking provision for the site is shown to be appropriate and the site is in a sustainable location and well connected to public transport links and local shops and services. 7.45 The scheme would deliver social benefits by contributing towards meeting the housing needs of the Borough. The scheme would also provide some economic benefits through the creation new jobs during the construction phase and contributions to the local economy from future residents and potential New Homes Bonus. In terms of environmental issues, the proposal will regenerate a currently derelict and underused site and thereby enhance the appearance of the surrounding area. The s106 off site contributions towards improvements to nearby public open

space are considered acceptable and reasonable. Overall, highways and environmental matters are satisfactorily addressed, subject to conditions. 7.46 The proposal is therefore considered to be sustainable development under the terms of the NPPF, and complies with Policies S1, S1a, S5, H1, H2, H3, H4, EQ5, EQ6, EQ7, E4, CF4 and CF6 of the High Peak Local Plan and approval is recommended. 8. RECOMMENDATIONS A. APPROVE the application subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the following contributions towards off site public open space improvements:

Equipped Play - £4,032

Parks and gardens - £12,562

Outdoor sports - £10,766.80

Allotments - £1,692.90 And the following conditions

Code Brief description Notes

TL01 Development to begin in 3 years

AP01 Development in accordance with approved plans

DE01 Samples of construction materials to be submitted for approval

LA01 Hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted for approval

LA02 Landscaping scheme to be carried out and maintained

LA06 Landscape maintenance and management schedule

LA09 Boundary treatment to be submitted for approval

LA10 Tree retention

LA11 Arboricultural Method Statement to be submitted for approval

NSTD Recommendations / enhancement measures detailed in the ecological reports to be implemented

NSTD Submission of a detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan of surface water drainage

NSTD Site investigation and risk assessment in relation to contamination and remediation scheme to be submitted for approval

NSTD Hours of demolition / construction

works restricted

NSTD Asbestos survey and risk assessment to be submitted for approval

NSTD Noise insulation scheme to be submitted for approval and specified internal noise measurements to be met.

NSTD Highway maintenance and management schedule

B. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager - Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision. This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process and thorough discussion with the applicant. In accordance with Paragraph 187 of the NPPF the Case Officer has sought solutions where possible to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Site Plan