planning committee - bassetlaw · planning committee. agenda . meeting to be held in . the...
TRANSCRIPT
PLANNING COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Meeting to be held in The Ballroom,
Retford Town Hall, DN22 6DB on Wednesday, 24th April 2019
at 6.30 p.m.
(Please note time and venue)
Please turn mobile telephones to silent during meetings. In case of emergency, Members/officers can be contacted
on the Council's mobile telephone: 07940 001 705.
In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, audio/visual recording and photography at Council meetings is permitted
in accordance with the Council’s protocol ‘Filming of Public Meetings’.
1
PLANNING COMMITTEE Membership 2018/19
Councillors D. K. Brett, H. Burton, G. Clarkson, S. Fielding, G. Freeman,
K. H. Isard, G. A. N. Oxby, D. G. Pidwell, M. W. Quigley, S. Scotthorne, A. K. Smith and T. Taylor.
Substitute Members: None
Quorum: 3 Members
Lead Officer for this Meeting
John Krawczyk
Administrator for this Meeting
Bethany Pinkney
NOTE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (a) Please do not take photographs or make any recordings during the meeting without the
prior agreement of the Chair. (b) Letters attached to Committee reports reflect the views of the authors and not
necessarily the views of the District Council.
2
G:\REPORTS\Planning\24th April 19\Final\1 index.doc
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 24th April 2019
AGENDA
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS * (pages (Members’ and Officers’ attention is drawn to the attached notes and form)
(a) Members
(b) Officers 3. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 6TH MARCH 2019 * (pages 4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 18TH
FEBRUARY AND 18TH MARCH 2019* (pages 5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST * (page SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC Key Decisions
None Other Decisions 6. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION *
(a) Public Interest Test: (Ms B Alderton-Sambrook, Head of Regeneration, has deemed that all Items on the Agenda are not confidential)
(b) Appeal Decisions Received (pages (c) Consultation Update and Proposed Discontinuance of a Proposed Article 4(1)
Direction for Misson Conservation Area (pages (d) Proposed Article 4(1) Direction for Woodend Farmhouse, Coach Road, Shireoaks
(pages (e) Planning Applications and Associated ltems (pages
Exempt Information Items The press and public are likely to be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972. SECTION B - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE
Key Decisions None Other Decisions None. 7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT
3
G:\REPORTS\Planning\24th April 19\Final\1 index.doc
* Report attached NOTES: 1. The papers enclosed with this Agenda are available in large print if required. 2. Copies can be requested by contacting us on 01909 533252 or by e-mail:
4
F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Cabinet\April 2018\Final\3 declaration of interest.doc
Agenda Item No. 2
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
COMMITTEE ………………………………………………………………………………
DATE ……………………………………………………………………..
NAME OF MEMBER : ………………………………………………………………………………
Type of Interest
1. Disclosable Pecuniary 2. Non Pecuniary
Agenda Item
No. REASON * Type of Interest (1 or 2)
Signed
Dated
Note:
* When declaring an interest you must also state the nature of your interest.
Completion of this form is to aid the accurate recording of your interest in the Minutes. The signed form should be provided to the Minuting Clerk at the end of the meeting.
A nil return is not required.
It is still your responsibility to disclose any interests which you may have at the commencement of the meeting and at the commencement of the appropriate Agenda item.
5
F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Cabinet\April 2018\Final\3 declaration of interest.doc
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
HOW TO USE THIS FORM
There are now only two types of Declaration of Interest:
Disclosable Pecuniary Interests ) Details can be found in the Councillors ) Code of Conduct which is contained in ) the Council’s Constitution (a summary is
Non Pecuniary Interests ) printed below)
Upon receipt of the attached form you will need to enter the name and date of the Committee and your own name. By looking at the Agenda you will no doubt know immediately which Agenda Items will require you to make a Declaration of Interest.
Fill in the Agenda Item number in the first column of the form.
Enter the subject matter and any explanations you may wish to add in the second column.
In the third column you will need to enter either if you are declaring a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a non pecuniary interest.
The form must then be signed and dated. Please remember that if during the actual meeting you realise that you need to declare an interest on an additional Agenda Item number please simply amend the form during the meeting.
The form must be handed into the Committee Administrator at the end of the meeting.
NB. The following is a summary prepared to assist Members in deciding at the actual meetings their position on INTERESTS it is not a substitute for studying the full explanation regarding INTERESTS, which is contained in the Council’s Constitution and the Code of Conduct for Councillors, which is legally binding.
Members and Officers are welcome to seek, PREFERABLY WELL IN ADVANCE of a meeting advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer on INTERESTS.
Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Action to be Taken May relate to employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain May relate to sponsorship May relate to contracts May relate to interests in land May relate to licences to occupy land May relate to corporate tenancies May relate to securities
Must disclose to the meeting - existence of the interest - the nature of the interest - withdraw from the room - not seek improperly to influence a decision on the matter
Non Pecuniary Interests
Action to be Taken May relate to any body of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by the Council May relate to any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 A Member may also have a non pecuniary interest where a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting wellbeing or the wellbeing of other council tax payers, or ratepayers or inhabitants in the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision. . (Note – there are special provisions relating to “Sensitive Interests” which may exclude the above provisions in certain circumstances.)
Must disclose to the meeting - existence of the interest - the nature of the interest - not seek improperly to influence a decision on the matter.
6
Agenda Item No. 3
DRAFT PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 6th March 2019 at Retford Town Hall Present: Councillor D G Pidwell (Chair) Councillors D Brett, G Clarkson, S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, G A N Oxby, M W Quigley, S Scotthorne, A Smith and T Taylor. Officers in attendance: K France, C Hopkinson, D Jones, J Krawczyk and M Tagg (Agenda
Item No. 6(b) only). (Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.) (The Chair welcomed all to the meeting, introduced Members and officers and read out the Fire Evacuation Procedure. He also enquired as to whether any member of the public wished to film the meeting or any part thereof; this was not taken up.) The Chair welcomed D Jones, Major Projects Planner and J Krawczyk, Planning Development Manager to their first meeting of the Committee. 75. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor H Burton. 76. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (a) Members There were no declarations of interest by Members. (b) Officers There were no declarations of interest by officers. 77. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6TH FEBRUARY 2019 The Chair advised that since the last meeting there has been a referendum on the Carlton-in-Lindrick Neighbourhood Plan and the Plan has been made. RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6th February 2019 be approved. 78. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 21ST
JANUARY AND 11TH FEBRUARY 2019 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 21st
January and 11th February 2019 be received. 79. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes List be received. SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC
7
Key Decisions None. Other Decisions 80. REPORT(S) OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS (a) Public Interest Test The Head of Regeneration had deemed that all Items on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature. (b) Proposed Designation of ‘Retford Station and West Fields’ Conservation Area Members were presented with a report which sought approval to designate a conservation area in Retford, incorporating land and buildings at Station Road, Victoria Road, Cobwell Road, Albert Road, Queen Street, The Crescent, Westfield Road and Pelham Road. A map showing the proposed conservation area was appended to the report. Members were advised that as part of the review and appraisal process of the adjacent Retford conservation area in early 2012, a number of non-designated heritage assets were identified in this area. In addition, several suggestions were made by local residents with regard to establishing a Conservation Area, particularly around the railway station and the Queen Street/ The Crescent areas. Due to work pressures, it was decided that no further conservation area designations would be pursued at that time. There are several historic buildings (all currently regarded as heritage assets) within the proposed conservation area which are currently at risk of being lost or irreparably harmed, especially the former Ordsall Brewery. In addition, there have been several recent enquires for new development on small plots in several locations, that have also made the designation of the conservation area more pressing. Such schemes have the potential to cause harm to the character of the area if not properly considered in terms of the area’s special character and appearance, this being a small and distinctive part of the town, essentially a Victorian suburb established after the construction of the Great Northern Railway. With regard to pre-designation consultation, whilst it is good practice, the Council does not need to carry out consultation before it designates a conservation area. In certain circumstances, consultation may result in landowners carrying out works to buildings (including demolition) which would otherwise be considered harmful to the conservation area’s character and appearance if designated. The Planning Conservation Officer advised that if Members resolve to designate the Conservation Area, a letter, map, schedule and designation statement would be sent to every household in the area. Other interested parties would also be notified (e.g. Retford Civic Society, Nottinghamshire County Council, etc). Members commented on the amount of work that had gone into producing the report and the excellent knowledge of officers. RESOLVED that:
1. The designation of the proposed Retford Station and West Fields Conservation Area be approved.
2. Delegated authority be given to officers of the Conservation Team to implement the designation of the Conservation Area.
3. Any future cost implications for employee structure be reported to Cabinet.
8
(c) Planning Application and Associated Items Application No Applicant Proposal
18/01507/OUT
Mr Scholey
Outline planning with some matters reserved, approval sought for access for residential development of up to 24 dwellings, land south of Rynes, Folly Nook Lane, Ranskill
Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission with some matters reserved for a residential development of up to 24 dwellings, with approval being sought for access. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Slides were used to show the site location, an indicative layout plan and photographs. Members were advised that the site is located outside of, but adjacent to, the development boundary and adjacent to the built form of village. The site consists of 1.03 hectares of agricultural land. The site forms part of a larger area of land for which planning permission for the erection of up to 130 dwellings was dismissed at appeal in September 2017. A summary of consultee comments received was given. Members were advised that officers consider that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the negative aspects. Councillor A Cooke spoke on behalf of Ranskill Parish Council. He advised that:
It is not the first time the site has come forward for development, the previous application was recommended to grant by officers, rejected by councillors and dismissed at appeal.
Councillors represent the people they live with and see on a regular basis. Villages need to keep their identify and not merge with others. This application goes some
way to merging with Scrooby. If approved the developer will come back for more until they get their 100 house target. Residents are not saying no to any development however they should be where they want
them not where developers want them. He asked that the application be refused as the development is inappropriate.
Mr C Darely spoke on behalf of the applicant and landowner, he commented that:
The applicant lives locally and is a significant employer. The officers recommendation to grant is in favour of the sustainable development. The applicant has sought to address issues from the previous scheme which was
considered unacceptable. The Inspector at appeal did not rule out any development in Ranskill, she was concerned
that the development was too large of this village. This application is five times smaller than the previous proposal.
The location is considered to be sustainable, Ranskill is defined as a rural service centre. The site is in walking distance to bus stops, a school, shop and a pub. New residents would help to sustain these services.
There has been no objection from Highways. There is no flood risk; a suitable service water scheme can be achieved. Contributions would be made towards open space, bus stops and affordable homes. A CIL
contribution would also be made. The scheme has many benefits and would provide much needed housing.
Members asked questions/ raised questions in relation to:
9
The number of existing dwellings in the village. The number of extant permissions in the village. The expected growth in the village. The proximity of the site to the waste management facility. Comments from Nottinghamshire County Council Policy regarding the sterilisation risk. The proximity of the boundary to Scrooby and the merging of the villages, The Inspectors comments at the previous appeal regarding the limited public transport,
particularly during the evening and that the vitality of community could be maintained with fewer new houses.
The Council now has a 7.9 year supply of land for housing The site is outside of the development boundary. Ranskill are currently producing a Neighbourhood Plan, which identifies where residents
would like to see development. Folly Nook Lane is narrow and lacks a pedestrian footpath. The S106 Agreement is light with no contributions requested by Highways or Education. The benefits of the scheme in terms of the local and wider economy and the social
contribution of future residents. The Inspectors comments in relation to the previous scheme considered that the site was
acceptable and made no adverse comments about the site itself. The Major Projects Planner commented on the Inspectors comments regarding the previous appeal, where she did not preclude the development of any housing. Each application should be considered on its own merit and there is no demonstrable harm to justify a refusal of planning permission. The Council currently has five-year supply of land for housing which is a significant consideration but all the benefits of the development need to be weighed against any harm. RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement and the conditions as detailed within the report. Voting for taking this course of action: FOR: Councillors D Brett, S Fielding, K H Isard, D G Pidwell and S Scotthorne. AGAINST: Councillors G Clarkson, G Freeman, G A N Oxby, M W Quigley, A Smith and T Taylor. ABSTAIN: None COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
The site is outside of the development boundary. The Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The lack of pedestrian facilities provided which would be to the detriment of highway
safety. FURTHER RESOLVED that the final wording of the reasons for refusal be approved at the Planning Consultation Group. Application No Applicant Proposal
18/00467/OUT
Lindrick Park Development Limited
Proposed residential development of houses, apartments, bungalows with associated adoptable access road, private courtyards and parking spaces, land to the north of Claylands Avenue, Worksop
Members were advised the application was considered by the Committee on 15th August 2018 where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement. A decision on the application has yet to be issued as the S106 remains uncompleted. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.
10
Members were advised that the officer recommendation within the report is to refuse planning permission however since the report was published the applicant has indicated that they want to sign the S106 Agreement. It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to enable the recommendation to be amended to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being signed within eight weeks. Members were advised that if the applicant signs the S106 Agreement before the next then a report would not need to be presented to the Committee. RESOLVED that the application be deferred to enable the recommendation to be amended to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement being signed within eight weeks. Application No Applicant Proposal
15/01265/OUT
Mr and Mrs James Edward
Deed of variation of S106 Legal Agreement (vary the definition of affordable housing) Olinda, Southgore Lane, North Leverton, Retford
Members were presented with an item which sought to vary the deed of variation of a S106 Agreement. Outline planning permission was granted for residential development on 6th June 2017 subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement. An application for reserved matters for the erection of 13 dwellings was subsequently approved in November 2018. The approved scheme identified 3, two bed dwellings as affordable units. The applicant seeks to amend the definition of affordable housing within the S106 Agreement as since the completion of the S106 Agreement the definition has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. Members were advised that the request does not seek to remove the requirement to provide affordable housing from the development only to update the definition. RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – That the deed of variation be agreed. COMMITTEE DECISION – That the deed of variation be agreed. (d) Development Management Performance Report Quarter 3 2018-19 Members were presented with a performance report for the Development Management function for the second quarter of 2018-19. Members were given a summary of the report. The measures of performance outcomes and current positions for determining ‘major’ and ‘non-major’ applications were given. The outcome of appeals against refused applications allowed was also given along with planning enforcement. Members commented on the excellent work of officers. It was noted that the Enforcement Officer had been off ill and that the service had done well to keep enforcement matters moving. The Chair advised that it has been suggested that Notts County Council officers attend the annual training for Members. RESOLVED that the report be received and the current performance data be noted.
11
SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE
Key Decisions None. Other Decisions None. 81. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting. (Meeting closed at 8.19pm)
12
Agenda Item No. 4(i)
PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 18th February 2019 at Worksop Town Hall Present: Councillors S Fielding, K H Isard, G A N Oxby and T Taylor. Officers in attendance: J Krawczyk and B Pinkney. (Meeting opened at 4.00pm.) 133. APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D G Pidwell. 134. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 135. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Application No Proposal 18/01509/FUL Proposed change of use from a wood burning facility to form new
agricultural tractor garage/workshop and new horse stable block, Hillcrest Farm and Barns, Town Street, Treswell.
Members were advised that the application sought change of use from a wood burning facility to form a new agricultural tractor garage/workshop and a new horse stable block. A site plan, elevations and aerial photographs were tabled. It was noted that an application was approved on the existing farm for a firewood facility in 2012. Members were advised that the site has been purchased by a new applicant and has proposed to erect a horse stable block and a garage/workshop for personal vehicles. A letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring property raising concerns regarding the noise generated from the site. The Planning Development Manager advised Members that the existing activity on the site will cease if this application is approved. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 18/01336/COU Application to retain a change of use of land to storage area for seasoned
wood associated with a diversification system of firewood processing facility, Hillcrest Farm and Barns, Town Street, Treswell.
Members were advised that the application sought to retain a change of use of land to a storage area for seasoned wood with a diversification system of a firewood processing facility. The application has been made by the current owner of the site.
13
It was noted that the application is on the same site as planning application 18/01509/FUL. An application for a firewood processing facility was granted on the site in 2012. Members were advised that an application to retain the change of use on the current site has to be approved and regulated before further development on the site can take place. A letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising concerns regarding the additional traffic and noise generation. A condition will still remain on the application to regulate the working hours on the site. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 18/01603/PIP Residential development not exceeding nine dwellings, Rosedean Farm,
Mark Lane, East Markham.
Members were advised that the application sought residential development not exceeding nine dwellings. A location map, site plans and photographs were tabled. It was noted that the application is for permission in principle; Members are asked to consider the location, land use and the number of dwellings. The application site forms part of Rosedean Farm, which consists of outbuildings and hard surfaces. The Parish Council have objected to the application due to the brown field status on the site. Members were advised that the application site is outside the village boundary. Members agreed to refer the application to a future Planning Committee. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning in principle – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer to a future Planning Committee. Application No Proposal 19/00038/CAT Removal of Horse Chestnut Tree within a Conservation Area, Old England
Cottage, 13-14 Farm Lane, East Markham.
Members were advised that the application sought removal of a Horse Chestnut Tree within a Conservation Area. A location map and photographs were tabled. Members were advised that the tree in question sits next to a Sycamore Tree and is leaning against a wall; a request has therefore been made to remove the Horse Chestnut Tree. The removal of the Horse Chestnut Tree will allow the Sycamore Tree to grow evenly and remove concerns with the wall. The Parish Council raised objection on the ground of visual amenity.
14
It was noted that the tree had previously been heavily pruned by the neighbour when the property was vacant. Initial officer recommendations – Accept the Notice – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. 136. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting. (The meeting closed at 4.30pm.)
15
16
Agenda Item No. 4(ii)
PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 25th February 2019 at Worksop Town Hall Present: Councillors S Fielding, K H Isard, D G Pidwell and S Scotthorne. Officers in attendance: D Jones, J Krawczyk and B Pinkney. (Meeting opened at 4.05pm.) 137. APOLOGIES There were no apologies for absence received. 138. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 139. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Application No Proposal 18/01635/FUL Demolish existing public house, erect 8 dwellings, construct new access
and associated car parking. The Separatist Inn, Great North Road, Torworth.
Members were advised that the application sought to demolish an existing public house and erect eight dwellings, construct a new access and associated car parking. Site plans, elevations and photographs were tabled. It was noted that the application site is a non-designated heritage asset. Members were advised that two of the proposed dwellings will front Holds Lane and six will front Great North Road. The Development Team Manager advised that there are a number of reasons for refusal; one of which regards a heritage asset assessment that is required on this site, one was submitted in January 2019 but didn’t include enough information regarding the contribution the proposal will make to other heritage assets nearby. It is considered that the proposal is out of character with the surrounding area. The public house should have been marketed for at least 12 months, as evidence only shows that the public house was marketed for 9 months the application is contrary to policy DM9. Members were advised that 41 letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following grounds:
The building is a heritage asset and should be retained. The applicant must demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to sell the
premises. The proposal is out of character with the area. Overlooking and overshadowing will occur. Loss of privacy.
17
The Development Team Manager advised that there are highway safety issues as residents may park on Great North road to get easier access to their property. Initial officer recommendations – Refuse planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 18/01524/HSE Single storey rear extension, 10 Church Close, North Wheatley.
Members were advised that the application sought to erect a single storey rear extension. A location map, floor plans and photographs were tabled. The application has been referred to the Planning Consultation Group as an objection has been received from the adjacent property raising concerns regarding a loss of light to the kitchen, the suitability of the grounds and a tree towards the bottom of the garden. Members were advised that the property is north facing, therefore the proposal will not have a big impact on the loss of sunlight to the adjacent property. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 18/01311/HSE Erection of double garage, The Old Vicarage, High Street, Gringley on the
Hill. Members were advised that the application sought to erect a double garage. A site plan was tabled. The application has been referred to the Planning Consultation Group as the applicant is a District Councillor. It was noted that the proposed double garage to the rear of the property will have a pantile roof to match the host dwelling. It is considered that the proposal will have no detrimental impact to the surrounding area. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. 140. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting. (The meeting closed at 4.22pm.)
18
Agenda Item No. 4(iii)
PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 11th March 2019 at Worksop Town Hall Present: Councillors G Freeman, K H Isard and D G Pidwell. Officers in attendance: C Hopkinson and J Krawczyk. (Meeting opened at 4.00pm.) 141. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Councillor S Fielding. 142. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 143. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Application No Proposal
19/00126/RES Reserved matters of landscaping and appearance – one detached dwelling and garage, land at White House Farm, Main Street, Styrrup
Members were advised that the original application was refused and allowed at appeal in 2016. This reserved matters application seeks approval for appearance and landscaping. Site plans, elevations and photographs were tabled. Members were advised that the site is within the setting of listed buildings. Styrrup-with-Oldcotes Parish Council object to the proposal on the grounds that the property is within too close proximity to the neighbouring property. Officers do not consider that there would be a detrimental impact to residential amenity. The proposed dwelling would not unduly cause overshadowing. There is a 14m separation distance and the side elevation of the proposed dwelling would face the neighbouring dwelling. The relationship between the dwellings and the visual impact are considered to be acceptable. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 18/00457/ADV Single freestanding totem sign, SPAR, South Street, Retford Members were advised that the application sought to erect a 7m high freestanding totem sign advertisement. The application is part of a large development for retail and employment use that has previously been approved. A location map was tabled. Conservation have raised some concerns in relation to the impact on the Conservation Area. Officers are recommending that the application be approved as the section of London Road is already visually cluttered with several totem signs in the vicinity. Given the existing appearance of
19
the area officers do not feel that there would be an impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 18/01507/OUT Outline application for up to 24 dwellings, land south of Ryanes, Folly Nook
Lane, Ranskill The application was presented to Planning Committee on 6th March 2019 where Members of the resolved to refuse planning permission.
The suggested reasons for refusal were circulated to Members for approval:
1. The application site is located in the countryside and outside the defined Ranskill development boundary. Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that new development will not be granted for development outside built up areas, except in certain specified circumstances, such as when addressing a shortfall in the District’s five year housing supply. As the District Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement published in October 2018 can demonstrate a 7.9 supply when assessed against the total five year housing land supply, the proposed development does not fall within one of the exceptions listed. If permitted, the development would be contrary to the above policy of the Development Framework and would conflict with its objectives.
2. Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of no detriment to highway safety. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 108 of Part 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development proposals should ensure that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users. The lack of pedestrian facilities provided the entirety of the site frontage, would lead to a conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, to the detriment of highway safety. Accordingly if permitted, the development would conflict with the policy and guidance outlined above.
Initial officer recommendations – Agree reasons for refusal – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal
18/01478/HSE Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension, 2 Wileman Villas, High Street, Beckingham
Members were advised that the application sought permission for a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. Site plans, elevations, floorplans and photographs were tabled. Beckingham Parish Council has raised concerns regarding the relationship with the neighbouring dwelling. Members were advised that there is an existing flat roofed extension to the rear of the dwelling. The extension would be fairly close to the neighbouring property with a 70cm separation distance however, officers feel that there is a sufficient separation distance to avoid a terrace impact. Properties within the vicinity have similar extensions. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.
20
Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. 144. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting. (The meeting closed at 4.23pm.)
21
22
Agenda Item No. 4(iv)
PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 18th March 2019 at Worksop Town Hall Present: Councillors S Fielding, K H Isard and D G Pidwell. Officers in attendance: D Jones and B Pinkney. (Meeting opened at 4.00pm.) 145. APOLOGIES There were no apologies for absence received. 146. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 147. PLANNING APPLICATIONS Application No Proposal
18/00912/RSB 18/00913/LBA
Proposed conversion of stable block to three self-contained dwellings and associated landscaping works (Resubmission of planning application 18/00237/FUL), West Retford Hall, Rectory Road, Retford.
Members were advised that the application sought to convert the existing stable block to three self-contained dwellings. A location map was tabled. Members were also asked to consider the listed building consent. The previous application was to convert the existing stable block into four self-contained dwellings, Conservation raised objection to this, and therefore the application was withdrawn. The proposal is now for three self-contained dwellings. It was noted that Retford Hall and the stables are grade II listed buildings. Members were advised that eight letters of objection have been received from local residents regarding highway safety, noise and disturbance from construction works and concerns over the conversion of the stables. No objections were received from statutory consultee’s. Members agreed to add a standard condition onto the application to limit construction work hours. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission and listed building consent – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal
19/00029/FUL
Retain change of use from equestrian use to a single traveller pitch site, The Paddock, Long Lane, East Drayton.
23
Members were advised that the application sought to retain the change of use from equestrian use to a single traveller pitch site. The Major Projects Planner advised Members that Bassetlaw have a requirement for eight pitches within the district; the application will improve this requirement. Two letters of objections have been received from local residents on the grounds of noise, disturbance and concerns regarding how they live. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions. East Drayton Parish Council have raised objection to the application on the following grounds:
Concerned that there are no services in the area. At the time of application the site has more caravans on it than asked for. How will the number of caravans be monitored?
Members were advised that the application is for a temporary 3 year permission. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal
19/00218/RSB
Outline planning application with some matters reserved (approval being sought for access) for the erection of two detached dwellings, land adjacent to Briar Lea, Main Street, Ragnall.
Members were advised that the application sought to erect two detached dwellings. A site plan was tabled. Members were advised that the application was refused planning permission on 29th May 2018. The applicant appealed the decision and went through an informal hearing. The applicant was asked to resubmit the planning application and has now been assessed under the tilted balance procedure. The application meets the guidelines of the National Planning Policy Framework. No objections have been received from statutory consultees. Two letters of objections have been received from local residents raising concerns regarding the following:
The proposal will impact on the privacy and outlook of the neighbouring occupiers. No need for any more houses on this site as the Council has now met its 5 year supply
requirement. The scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding open
countryside. The Parish Council have objected to the proposal on the same grounds as local residents. A letter of support has been received raising the following points:
There is a need for more houses in Ragnall area to help meet the needs of the village in the future.
24
The proposal will help to sustain local services in the area. Initial officer recommendations – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. 148. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting. (The meeting closed at 4.19pm.)
25
26
Agenda Item No. 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE 24th April 2019 OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST
Members please note that the updated positions are shown in bold type following each item. (DTM = Development Team Manager) Min. No.
Date
Subject
Decision
Officer
Responsible
59(d) 05.12.18 Planning Services; Establishment of a viability Protocol
The process to be reviewed and reported back to Planning Committee in 12 months.
DTM
Report to be presented to a future meeting
66(d) 09.01.19 Development
Management Scheme of Delegation for Determining Planning Applications
The Scheme of Delegation is monitored with a report presented to Planning Committee in 12 months’ time.
DTM
Report to be presented to a future meeting
27
28
Agenda Item No. 6(b)
PLANNING COMMITTEE,
03rd April 2019
INFORMATION REPORT
APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED
18/00088/OUT Mr Anthony Bamford
Appeal against the refusal of planning outline permission for residential development (of up to 10 dwellings) at The Croft, West Moor Road, Walkeringham.
DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector. The Inspector considered the main issues are:
i) Whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for housing with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area;
ii) The effect on flood risk and drainage; and iii) The effect on highway safety in relation to the proposed access arrangement and
the free flow of traffic. The Inspector concluded that: The proposal would not be in a suitable location for housing with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would not comply, in this regard, with Policies DM4 and DM9 of the DPD where they concern local character and distinctiveness, including historic development patterns and landscape character; and that new development proposals in and adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive to their landscape setting. This is in addition to the conflict that I have identified with Policy CS1. The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on flood risk and drainage. As a result, it would comply with Policy DM12B and with the Framework in this regard concerning the need for the planning system to take full account of flood risk. The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety in relation to the proposed access arrangement and the free flow of traffic. Thus, it would comply in this regard with Policy DM4 of the DPD which states that development is not to be of detriment to highway safety and with the Framework where it sets out that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The Inspector stated that he has considered all matters that have been raised, but the benefits that would arise would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations to outweigh this conflict. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. A copy of the Inspector’s decision letter follow this report. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission. FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Planning Committee
29
30
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 February 2019
by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14th March 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/18/3217007
The Croft, West Moor Road, Walkeringham DN10 4LR
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Anthony Bamford against the decision of Bassetlaw District
Council. • The application Ref 18/00088/OUT, dated 17 January 2018, was refused by notice dated
24 May 2018. • The development proposed is described as an ‘outline application for 10 dwellings’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. The application is in outline form with all matters reserved for future
consideration. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis and I have treated
any details not to be considered at this stage as being illustrative only.
3. The appellant has submitted a number of drawings and documents with the
appeal that were not before the Council at the time of its decision. They appear to relate to a subsequent re-submission to the Council that is not before
me to consider. Notwithstanding this, I have taken them into account as they
do not change my overall conclusion, and so there is no possible prejudice.
4. During the course of the appeal, an updated Revised National Planning Policy
Framework (Framework) and the 2018 Housing Delivery Test results were published, which I have considered in my decision. In the interests of fairness,
the appellant and the Council were given the opportunity to comment on this
matter.
Main Issues
5. The main issues are (i) whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for
housing with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area;
(ii) the effect on flood risk and drainage; and (iii) the effect on highway safety in relation to the proposed access arrangement and the free flow of traffic.
31
Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3217007
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Reasons
Character and Appearance
6. The appeal site consists of part of a field that is located to the rear of dwellings along West Moor Road. The boundary with the rest of the field is undefined
and the site also abuts a further field to the south. The part of the site towards
its narrow site frontage contains stable type buildings. There is a linear pattern
of built development along the same side of West Moor Road. Shortly past the site, this pattern is replaced by open countryside. On the opposite side of the
road is a field which forms part of an area known as ‘The Moor’ which this part
of Walkeringham has historically developed around, also in a largely linear fashion.
7. The part of the site where the proposed dwellings would be located lies outside
of the development boundary of Walkeringham, under the Bassetlaw Local
Development Framework Core Strategy & Development Management Policies
DPD (2011) (DPD). Policy CS1 of the DPD states development in the settlements identified in the hierarchy will be restricted to the area inside
defined development boundaries. The proposal would not accord with the
policy in this regard.
8. In these surroundings, the proposal would involve a development of some size
located well to the rear of the existing properties on West Moor Road. It would be in marked contrast to the linear pattern of built development and, hence, it
would unduly disrupt this aspect of the character of this part of the village. For
similar reasons, it would also not be in keeping with how development has
historically taken place around ‘The Moor’, and so it would further detract from the character in this respect.
9. When the site’s largely undeveloped form is considered with its proximity to the
fields, its character is also appreciably informed by the countryside. This is
further evidenced by the limited amount of development there is beyond the
site, along West Moor Road. As a consequence, it forms part of the rural setting to the village. The proposal would notably project into the countryside
representing, in effect, a distinct and outlying cluster of development at the
end of the village. This would not be in keeping with the transition from the village into the countryside and, hence, it would appear uncomfortable in these
surroundings.
10. In my view, the site is untypical of the Mid-Nottinghamshire Farmlands Policy
Zone 02: Walkeringham in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment
(LCA) because the overall poorer landscape condition of this zone is noticeably less evident where the site is found. There is a more coherent pattern of
typically countryside attributes which provide a pleasing rural and open
character around this part of the village. Detracting features that are visible from the site are few and distant, and so the visual appearance is not unduly
disrupted. Nonetheless, the associated LCA landscape actions include to
conserve what remains of the open rural landscape by concentrating new
development of appropriate design and scale around the existing settlement. The proposal, with its adverse effects on the character and appearance, would
not accord with this action.
11. The harm that would arise would not be overcome by screening from West
Moor Road by existing buildings, the proposed single storey form of the
32
Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3217007
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3
dwellings and by the proposed landscaping. These matters would not address
that the proposal would not be in keeping with the linear pattern of
development and that it would incur into the rural setting of the village. For the reasons that I have set out above, it would not represent a continuation of
the existing built development.
12. I conclude that the proposal would not be in a suitable location for housing with
regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it
would not comply, in this regard, with Policies DM4 and DM9 of the DPD where they concern local character and distinctiveness, including historic development
patterns and landscape character; and that new development proposals in and
adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive
to their landscape setting. This is in addition to the conflict that I have identified with Policy CS1.
13. The proposal would also not accord with the Framework where it states that
planning decisions should ensure developments are sympathetic to local
character. As a consequence, that the site is not in a valued landscape for the
purposes of the Framework in the sense that it is not the subject of a designation, or shares undifferentiated attributes with such land, does not alter
my conclusion.
Flood Risk and Drainage
14. Policy DM12B states that proposals for new development (other than minor
extensions) in Walkeringham, amongst other settlements, will only be
supported where it is demonstrated that it will not exacerbate existing land
drainage and sewerage problems.
15. The proposed means of surface water drainage is reliant on attenuation on site with a connection then made to discharge to the public system. Information on
the use of SuDS systems and an indication of the attenuation have been
provided. As such, the proposal would be unlikely to exacerbate existing land
drainage and sewerage problems. If I were minded to grant permission, this is a matter which could be dealt with through a planning condition.
16. The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on flood risk and drainage.
As a result, it would comply with Policy DM12B and with the Framework in this
regard concerning the need for the planning system to take full account of
flood risk.
Highway Safety
17. The site access would be formed by the demolition of part of a stables building
that abuts West Moor Road. This road allows for 2-way traffic and operates at 30 miles per hour until near to a bend to the south of the proposed site access.
A footway and grass verge also run along this side of the road. At the time of
my site visit, it was lightly trafficked and as the amount of existing development in the area is fairly limited, I have no reason to believe that at
any time it would suffer from significantly greater levels of traffic.
18. The access into the site would be set back from the carriageway so that
adequate levels of visibility would be maintained, even though part of the
building adjacent to the access would remain. The visibility of pedestrians along the footway would be satisfactory. A width of access road into the site
and the potential for footways that could be achieved would be to a similar
33
Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3217007
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4
level to West Moor Road itself. With its size, provision for turning could be
made within the site.
19. With the likely traffic generation arising from 10 dwellings, this arrangement
would not be unacceptable, including having regard to the more occasional
movements of service vehicles. Similarly, West Moor Road and the local road network would be able to accommodate the level of traffic generated.
20. The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety in
relation to the proposed access arrangement and the free flow of traffic. Thus,
it would comply in this regard with Policy DM4 of the DPD which states that
development is not to be of detriment to highway safety and with the Framework where it sets out that development should only be prevented or
refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on
highway safety.
Planning Balance
21. The Council’s most up to date position1 indicates that it has a 5 year housing
land supply of deliverable sites for the purposes of the Framework. This is
contested by the appellant although there is not substantive evidence before me to the contrary. On this basis, the potential exception under Policy CS1
which concerns addressing a shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply does
not apply. The Housing Delivery Test results also do not indicate that the delivery of housing has been substantially below the housing requirement over
the past 3 years.
22. Nevertheless, a 5 year housing land supply does not act as a ceiling or as a
disincentive to the grant of further planning permissions as the Framework
makes it clear that the Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing. The proposal would contribute towards such an objective,
as well as to the housing mix and for the needs of groups with a specific
housing requirement. The appellant has indicated it would be aimed at
meeting the needs of an ageing population and has supplied details of demand. It would also provide a benefit to the local economy, be accessible to local
services and ecological improvements are intended. These attract moderate
weight in my decision.
23. The proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of
the occupiers of the nearest dwellings. This carries neutral weight. The same applies as regards the effects on flood risk and drainage, and highway safety.
24. In relation to the Draft Bassetlaw Plan, as this is still at an early stage of
preparation, it attracts limited weight in my decision, including its approach to
the pattern of growth. For similar reasons, so does the Walkeringham
Neighbourhood Plan.
25. The Framework’s economic, social and environmental objectives are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged, as the Framework
makes clear. I have referred to the relevant matters which they contain within
my decision.
1 Bassetlaw District Council, Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement For the Period: 1 April 2018 to 31 March
2023, Published October 2018
34
Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/18/3217007
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5
26. In relation to the adverse impacts, the proposal would not be in a suitable
location for housing with regard to the effect on the character and appearance
of the area. There would be conflict with DPD policies CS1, DM4 and DM9, and with the Framework, in this regard. This is afforded significant weight in my
decision. On an overall basis, the benefits that would arise would not outweigh
the harm.
27. In addition, even if I were to conclude there is a shortfall in the 5 year housing
land supply as has been suggested by the appellant and that the policies which are most important for determining the application should not be considered
up-to-date, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
28. Interested parties have raised a number of other concerns. However, as I am
dismissing the appeal on other grounds, such matters do not alter my overall conclusion and have therefore not had a significant bearing on my decision.
Conclusion
29. I have considered all matters that have been raised, but the benefits that
would arise would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no
material considerations to outweigh this conflict. Accordingly, the appeal
should be dismissed.
Darren Hendley
INSPECTOR
35
36
Agenda Item No. 6(b) - Appendix 1
PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 at Retford Town Hall Present: Councillor D G Pidwell (Chair) Councillors D Brett, G Clarkson, S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, G A N Oxby, M W Quigley, S Scotthorne and T Taylor. Officers in attendance: D Askwith, A Broadhead (Application No.18/00022/OUT), K France,
C Hopkinson, M Joyce and B Pinkney. (Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.) (The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and read out the Fire Evacuation Procedure. He also enquired as to whether any member of the public wished to film the meeting or any part thereof; this was not taken up.) The Chair congratulated Members for getting reappointed to the Committee. He welcomed Councillor S Fielding as the new Vice-Chair of the Committee and acknowledged Councillor A Smith for her contribution as Vice-Chairman over the past three years. Councillor A Smith’s commitment was commendable, she has attended 140/150 Planning Consultation Groups in her time as Vice-Chair. 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H Burton and A Smith. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (a) Members Councillor G Freeman declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Application No. 17/01462/OUT. She left the meeting during the Item after she had spoken as ward Member. Councillor M Quigley declared a non-pecuniary interest in Application No. 17/01104/OUT, he remained in the meeting. (b) Officers There were no declarations of interest by officers. 3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28TH MARCH 2018 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 28th March 2018 be approved. 4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 19th
MARCH AND 30th APRIL 2018 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 19th March and 30th April 2018 be received. 5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST
37
In relation to Minute No. 74(b) Members were advised that a report would be presented to the Committee in due course. RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes be received. SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC Key Decisions None. Other Decisions 6. REPORT(S) OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS (a) Public Interest Test The Head of Regeneration had deemed that all Items on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature. (b) Appeal Decisions Received Members were presented with seven appeal decisions. The Development Team Manager commented on the Appeal Decision for 48 Town Street, Lound, which was allowed at appeal. The Inspector failed to properly consider the reasons for refusal and the Council have lodged an application for a judicial review. If the review is successful the decision would be quashed and the application would return to the Planning Inspector for reconsideration. RESOLVED that the appeal decisions be received.
(c) Planning Applications and Associated Items Application No Applicant Proposal 18/00186/OUT
Walker & Son (Hauliers) Ltd
Outline planning application for up to 42 dwellings plus 2 replacement dwellings, public open space, landscaping, drainage infrastructure and access, The Paddocks, 35 Station Road, Sutton cum Lound
The application sought outline planning permission for up to 42 dwellings, 2 replacement dwellings, public open space, landscaping, drainage, infrastructure and access. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. The site is located outside of the Sutton-cum-Lound development boundary and in the Neighbourhood Plan designated area. The eastern half of the site is located within an Area of Archaeological Interest. The East Coast Main Line is located approximately 160m to the west of the site. The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. Details of relevant planning policy and the sites planning history was contained within the report. A petition, 97 letters of objection from local residents, and a letter of objection from the Parish Council have been received. The District Council’s Archaeological Consultant has raised concerns that the development is likely to have a permanent impact on the significance of any archaeological interest at the site.
38
Notwithstanding the Council’s shortfall in five year housing land supply, it is considered that the development would conflict with policies of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor J Gough spoke in objection on behalf of Sutton Parish Council. He advised that:
The Parish Council strongly object. The development conflicts with Policy CS8 and the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal relates poorly to the built village. The site was the least preferred, with the most objections in the Neighbourhood Plan
consultation. There has been letters of objection from local residents and a petition. The National Planning Policy Framework enables local people to shape decisions. The Neighbourhood Plan has full weight as the Council can demonstrate a 3 year housing
land supply. The Neighbourhood Plan is a clear reason why the application should be refused. The application is ill conceived and contrary to planning policy. The application is not supported by the community or Neighbourhood Plan. The development would have a lasting impact on the village. If approved all other Parish Councils should be advised to abandon their neighbourhood
plans as they are not worth the paper they are written on. Mr N Johnson spoke in objection to the application. He advised that he is representing the Neighbourhood Plan Group. The Plan was made after a referendum in February and immediately became part of Bassetlaw Policy. The turnout at the referendum was 58.19% with 94.6% voting in favour of the plan. The community has embraced neighbourhood planning. The Inspector recently allowed an appeal – local people are appalled as the Neighbourhood Plan is proving worthless. Another appeal was refused but the Neighbourhood Plan was only included marginally. The Council are able to demonstrate a 3 year housing land supply therefore the Neighbourhood Plan has full weight. The village already has permission that would deliver 88 homes, that is just under 30% increase in the village. This application proposes a further 42 homes on the most unpopular site in the village. Mr D Tuner spoke as agent for the application. He commented that:
The development would support existing services and provide a range of homes. The Neighbourhood Plan does not propose a ceiling on housing delivery or prevent sites
from coming forward The site was given five greens, scoring equally with the preferred site. The only difference
being community support. The development is not contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal would sustain services and the vitality of the village. The Inspector has made decisions with the Neighbourhood Plan and concluded that the
benefits of development was substantive. The NPPF states that the Neighbourhood Plan must not promote less growth than the
Council local plan. The site is achievable and deliverable.
Elected Members raised comments in relation to:
The made Neighbourhood Plan and its weight. The Neighbourhood Plan identifies sites to come forward and would not have been
successful if it precluded development. The site is outside of the development boundary. The impact on the character of the village.
39
The Council’s Local Plan has not been agreed or adopted, it is a starting document for debate, the Neighbourhood Plan has full value.
The application disregards the views of the local residents. RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Refuse for the reasons as circulated. COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse for the reasons as circulated. Application No Applicant Proposal 17/01104/OUT
Mrs Natalie Sarah Holmes
Outline application with some matters reserved (approval being sought for access) for 15 self-build plots and adopted shared residential access ways, land south of Station Road, Beckingham
Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission, with some matters reserved for 15 self-build plots with access from Station Road to serve the development. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. The site is located outside of the development boundary. The site is level, almost circular in shape and lies to the south of the village. There is an existing hedge on the road side boundary for the majority of the road frontage. The site is bounded by the A631 bypass to the west, the roundabout to the south, Station Road to the east and Willow Lane to the north. The site has a total area of 0.95 hectares and lies to the southeast of Southfields, a large two storey dwelling. The 5 self-build plots would be served by a single point of access from Station Road. The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report. Members were advised that Beckingham is identified as a rural service centre and the site would be located in a sustainable location. It is not considered that the development would appear unduly discordant with the landscape and character of the area and conditions regarding landscaping are proposed. In relation to visual amenity the proposal is not considered to have a significant residential impact. Highways have raised no objection subject to conditions. Given that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing, the application would help to address the shortfall. Mr Gough spoke in objection, he commented that:
He lives on the plot of land at Southfields and this has been going on for five years, first for six house, then 12 and now 15.
At the last Committee Members said that their hands were tied. He is appealing against the fact that the dwellings are self builds as there are no time
limits. The Council need houses to be built now. His family would have to endure the development for many years to come. Beckingham was trying to put a neighbourhood plan together. There are 200 houses being built around the corner on a dangerous road. Self builds will not help targets quickly.
40
Councillor J Sanger spoke in objection as Ward Member for Beckingham. She advised that for future residents on the site it will be like living on a second roundabout with heavy traffic to the west, the south and the east of the development. The site is on Low Street and not Station Road as stated in the application, it was changed to Low Street in 2012. The serious worry of residents is the entrance to the site. Heavy articulated lorries constantly travel down to the wharf near the River Trent, plus much village traffic, does anyone realise how busy this piece of Low Street is all day and evening? It is horrendous and traffic leaving the roundabout already keeps to the speed limit. The entrance to the site is past the two houses on the left leaving the village, almost opposite the entrance to the Village Hall with approximately 30 more vehicles accessing the road from the site – it is a serious accident waiting to happen. 15 dwellings are proposed on the site as individual plots, is this not overshadowing and loss of privacy for the house in the west corner of the site? Can the layout of the site be looked at to take the house into account? There are 17 windows in this house built to enjoy the field and wildlife at the time. Can extra conditions be added? There are currently 17 but it must be correct to the existing family. She asked that the application be refused. Elected Members raised comments/ asked questions in relation to:
It could be some time before the self-build plots are built and contribute to the five year housing land supply.
How the Section 106 Agreement can be enforced on self-build plots. Affordable housing on site. The sites planning history. The responsibility for the shared access way. The adverse outcomes outweigh any benefits.
In response to questions raised the Solicitor advised of the draft Section 106 trigger points. The agreement would be between the Council and whoever the landowner is. When the plots are sold the S106 would be negotiated in the conveyance process when the land is purchased. The obligations would move with the land ownership. Members discussed the enforceability of the S106 Agreement on the applicant rather than the purchasers. RESOLVED that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee for clarification regarding the Section 106 Agreement. Application No Applicant Proposal 18/00088/OUT
Mr Anthony Bamford
Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development of 10 dwellings, land at The Croft, West Moor Road, Walkeringham
Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission, with all matters reserved for 10 dwellings. Slides were used to show the site location, an indicative layout and photographs of the site. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. The Development Team Manager presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. Letters of objection have been received from 13 local residents and the ward Member. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report. Member’s attention was drawn to the amendments and revised reasons for refusal circulated prior to the meeting. The site is considered to be in an unsustainable location and would have a significant impact on the landscape and character of village. The application lacks a flood risk assessment and SUDs and insufficient information has been provided regarding highway safety.
41
Mr P Ferry spoke in objection to the application. He advised that he lives in Honeysuckle House in front of the development and the proposed access would be on the gable end of the house. Emphasis has not been put on the flooding issues. He commented that when they bought their house it was given an amber warning for flooding, after light rainfall the garden is saturated and the field collects surface water, after heavy rainfall the field is like a lake. Using a soakaway system would intensify the problem. The properties would be built on clay and that us the basis for serous concerns. The other issue is he proposed driveway on the bend with heavy traffic. Councillor J Sanger spoke as ward Member. She advised that:
The application is not popular with residents. Residents would be grateful and relieved if the Committee see fit to agree with officers and
refuse the application. The application does not enhance the open rural character of the landscape, it is
encroaching the countryside. The proposal is not sustainable, there is no shop, no post office, the school is full with no
plans for extension, the doctors practice is overstretched, the local church may be closing and the local transport facilities are poor. The nearest bus stop is quite a walk from the site.
The site was not in the Neighbourhood Plan’s call for sites. It is not a linear development which is the main characteristic of the village layout. The area is likely to flood after heavy rainfall; nearby residents have photographs of their
gardens as proof. If permitted the application would be contrary to the objectives of the Local Development
Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework that is no safe access it the site can be achievable.
Mr D Cooney spoke as the Agent for the application. He commented on the reason to refuse due to sustainable drainage, in one of the other applications on the Agenda SUDs is part of the Section 106 Agreement prior to commencement of the development. He asked for consistency in the applications. The proposal is a small development for ten houses; in Councillor Sanger’s newsletter she states that smaller developments are more acceptable. A design and access statement has been submitted and tree planting provides a strong boundary. The site is no in a flood risk zone. He asked Members to fully consider the development. Elected Members raised comments/ asked questions in relation to:
Water management and drainage. Flooding issues. Highways. The proposal would encroach into the open landscape and is not linear in character.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Refuse for the amended reasons as circulated. COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse for the amended as reasons as follows:
1. The site is located in Walkeringham, but outside the development boundary and therefore in the Countryside. Walkeringham is identified as a Rural Service Centre of northeast Bassetlaw. Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that development will be restricted to areas within defined Development Boundaries. The development, if permitted, would therefore be contrary to the policies outlined above and would conflict with the objectives of the Local Development Framework.
Whilst the District Council is unable to demonstrate a deliverable 5-year land supply for housing, and the above policy is considered out of date it is considered that the benefits of additional housing to the proposal in increasing housing supply are significantly and
42
demonstrably be outweighed by its adverse impacts, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, contrary to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
2. The site in question is identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment as
Mid-Nottinghamshire Farmlands Policy Zone 02: Walkeringham. As part of its aims to create and enhance the open rural character of the landscape, it recommends that new development should be of an appropriate design and scale. Historically this area of the village of Walkeringham has formed around an open area of undeveloped agricultural land, known as ‘The Moor’ and taken the form of linear development. The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that new development should respect its wider surroundings in relation to historic development patterns and landscape character.
Similar advice is contained in policy DM9 states that that new development proposals in and adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive to their landscape setting and expected to enhance the distinctive qualities of the landscape character policy zone in which they would be situated. Part 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework Conserving and Enhancing the natural environment states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. The application site currently forms part of a much larger arable field which is largely flat and which affords views over the surrounding area. Being in a relatively prominent and visually isolated location it is considered that the proposed development is backland development to the rear of the properties West Moor Road which would pay little regard to the rural character and appearance of this part of the village. The proposed erection of 10 dwellings would introduce an unduly prominent and obtrusive element into the landscape to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.
If permitted, the development would result in a significant incursion into the open landscape and would seriously detract from the character and appearance of the village and would fail to respect the historic development patterns of the village, contrary to Policies DM4 and DM9 of the Local Development Framework and the National Planning Framework
3. Policy DM12 B of the Core Strategy Bassetlaw Development Framework states that
proposals for new development in Walkeringham will only be supported where it is demonstrated to the council’s satisfaction that the proposed development will not exacerbate existing land drainage and sewerage problems. The application does not include any proposals for SuDS or details that the existing drainage and sewerage problems in the village will not be exacerbated. if permitted, the development could potentially lead to and exacerbate existing land drainage problems within the village and the surrounding area. As insufficient evidence has been submitted with the application, the development, if permitted would be contrary to the objectives of the Local Development Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that
permission will only be granted for residential development that is of no detriment to highway safety. The proposed scheme has failed to demonstrate that a safe access to the development site can be achieved. Similar advice is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. The development, if permitted, would be contrary to this policy and would conflict with the objectives of the Local Development Framework and the NPPF.
The required additional information was not submitted and as such insufficient information has been received with regard to Highway safety. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DM4 and the NPPF.
43
(Councillor G Freeman left the meeting) Application No Applicant Proposal 17/01462/OUT
Mr and Mrs Neave
Outline planning application with some matters reserved (approval being sought for access) for residential development of up to 165 dwellings, land east of Doncaster Road, Langold
Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission, with some matters reserved for residential development of up to 165 dwellings. Details of access were included for consideration. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. The site is located outside of, but adjacent to, the Langold development boundary. The site is located to the north of Langold, to the east of Doncaster Road and is 7.56 hectares in area, currently the land use is agricultural. The site is bounded to the west by Doncaster Road, residential development to the south and agricultural land to north and east. The site is generally flat and there are trees and hedges along the road frontage. The site is located in Flood Zone 1, which has a low probability of river flooding. The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. Letters of objection had been received from the Parish Council and 13 local residents. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report. Given that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing, the application would help to address the shortfall. The site located in sustainable location and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on character and appearance of the area, residential amenity or highway safety. Mr M Caley spoke in objection to the application. He advised that:
The site is outside of the development boundary. The site was not included in the Development Plan in 2011. The proposal is contrary to policies CS1 and CS5. The enabling of planning permission on site in advance of the emerging Bassetlaw Local
Plan is premature. In terms of highways not all issues have been addressed in relation to the junction. The proposal is contrary to policy DM13. There are heritage constraints; to the north is Hodsock Park and Oldcotes Conservation
Area. The application is in conflict with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and
Policy DM8 of the adopted plan. The development does not compliment the character or landscape of the area. The Archelogy report submitted is inadequate. The report is only desktop and a more
thorough report could have a different conclusion. There are concerns over schooling and the question of funding for schools on another site
is not resolved. Residents are concerned as a gas main runs across the site.
Councillor G Freeman spoke as ward Member for Langold. She advised that Langold was constructed in the 1920’s to provide much needed housing for the colliery. The village was constructed like a model village with features of architectural and historical interest. She asked if the same recommendation would be given if the Council had a five year housing land supply. The site is in the designated neighbourhood plan area and it is possible that there are archaeological remains on the site that have not been explored. She commented that there would be an impact on wildlife and there is a concern the development would become a separate village.
44
Ms J Hodson spoke as the Agent for the application. She advised that the application was subject to pre-application discussion from October 2016 and the application was progressed based on advice given. The application has included additional works, a geographical survey and the access has been moved. The application was worked up and submitted with layout plans. All trees, accept at the access, will be maintained. There are facilities and services in the area of the site and bus provision. The applicant has written to the Local Authority to agree the S106 Agreement and understands CIL and S106 contributions. Elected Members raised comments/ asked questions in relation to:
Education contributions. Affordable housing. The gas line that runs across the site.
In response to questions raised Members were advised that the Education Authority initially sought a contribution for primary school provision however the figures have been recalculated and they are subsequently no longer requesting a contribution. To request a contribution that Education Authority has to prove there is a lack of capacity. The Case Officer commented that an Archaeological Statement has been submitted and the Conservation Officer is comfortable in terms of heritage impacts and has no concerns. The applicant has been aware of the gas line and this would be a site constrain that would form part of the reserved matters application. (The meeting was adjourned for legal advice to be sought) RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated. COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated. (Councillor G Freeman re-joined the meeting and Councillor M W Quigley MBE left the meeting) Application No Applicant Proposal 17/01239/RSB
Sundown Adventureland
Proposed 49 holiday lodges, 32 touring caravan pitches, 14 glamping pods, reception area with manages accommodations, store and play areas, parking and associated infrastructure (resubmission of 16/01363/FUL) land at Elmwood Lodge, Sundown Adventureland, Rampton Road, Treswell
The application was withdrawn prior to the meeting. Application No Applicant Proposal 17/00517/FUL
Mr Alexander Mills
Erect 17 one bedroom apartments following demolition of existing dwelling and construct new access , 125 Scrooby Road, Bircotes
Members were advised that the application sought to erect 17 one bedroom apartments following the demolition of the existing dwelling. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.
45
The site lies within the Harworth and Bircotes Development Boundary, to the east of and adjacent the Local Centre Boundary. The site is located within a mixed residential and commercial town centre location. The site is currently occupied by a large single dwelling which is unoccupied. The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report. Members were advised that the developer has submitted a viability assessment which has demonstrated that it would not be financially viable to develop the site should the Section 106 Contributions be required. The findings of the viability assessment have been accepted and the developer has agreed to accept an ‘overage clause’ to ensure that, should the financial situation improve, the Council would be in a clawback position. Given the Council’s lack of a five year supply of housing the site would help to address the shortfall. The site is located in a sustainable location and it is considered not to have significant detrimental impact therefore it is considered that the benefits of the proposed development to the site and community are significant and complies with planning policies. An elected Member asked a question regarding the Town Councils concerns in relation to overspill parking on Shrewsbury Road. The Case Officer advised that the proposed parking is sufficient for the development. RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated. COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated. Application No Applicant Proposal 18/00022/OUT
Mr J Smith
Outline application for planning permission (all matters reserved) for ten dwellings, land south of pumping station fronting Bawtry Road, Blyth, Worksop
Members were advised that the application sought to erect ten dwellings with all matters reserved. Slides were used to show the site location. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. The site is located outside of any development boundary. The land comprises of 0.67 hectares of a large arable field. The site is north of the A1 (M) and adjacent to the A614. Immediately to the south is an area of woodland, then the A1 services and to the north there is a sewage pumping station. The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given. One letter of support has been received from a local resident, one letter from a resident stating they have no objection and one letter making observations. Blyth Parish Council have no objection in principle. The relevant planning policies and the sites planning history was set out within the report. RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated. COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated.
46
(d) Proposed Minor Alterations to Pre-Application Protocol Members were presented with a report which detailed the need for the Pre-application Protocol in line with changes to the Council’s Charges and Schedules for 2018-19. The report sought approval for minor changes to the Protocol. The updated protocol encourages applicants to enter into a Planning Performance Agreement Protocol or bespoke charging schedule/ programme of work agreement. The changes to the Protocol were outlined within the report. The current and proposed Protocol were appended to the report. RESOLVED that:
1. The need for an amended Pre-application Protocol and its contents be noted. 2. The amendments to the Pre-application Protocol, as set out in the report, be agreed.
(e) Development Management Performance Report 2017/18 Full Year Members were presented with a performance report for the Development Management function for the whole year and the final quarter of 2017/2018, for the period 1st April 2017 to 31st March 2018. The previous year’s figures were included for comparison. Members were given a summary of the report. The measures of performance outcomes and current position for determining ‘major’, ‘minor’ and ‘other’ applications were given. The outcome of appeals against refused applications allowed was also given along with planning enforcement caseload statistics. Members commented on the positive report and thanked planning officers for their hard work and also the Enforcement Officer for his commitment. The Chair also thanked Members of the Committee for decisions that have been robustly upheld. RESOLVED that the report be received and the current performance data be noted. SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE
Key Decisions None. Other Decisions None. 7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting. (Meeting closed at 9.06pm.)
47
48
Agenda Item No. 6(c) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE 24 April 2019
REPORT OF HEAD OF REGENERATION
CONSULTATION UPDATE AND PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF A PROPOSED ARTICLE 4(1) DIRECTION FOR MISSON CONSERVATION AREA
Cabinet Member: Economic Development
Contact: Michael Tagg Ext: 3427 1. Public Interest Test
1.1 The author of this report, Michael Tagg, has determined that the report is not
confidential. 2. Purpose of the Report 2.1 To update members of the planning committee following extensive public consultation
carried out in August & September 2018 on a proposed Article 4(1) Direction in Misson Conservation Area. Also, to seek authorisation from planning committee to officially end the proposed Article 4(1) Direction process without confirming the Article 4(1) Direction.
2.2 The report explains that the Article 4(1) Direction would have removed the permitted
development rights of the owners of the identified properties to carry out development otherwise permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1 (Classes A, C and D), Part 2 (Classes A and C) and Part 14 (Class A) of the 2015 Order, as amended. This would have helped in the long objective of preserving and enhancing the Conservation Area’s character and appearance. However, due to a lack of public support, it is considered that an Article 4(1) Direction would not be suitable, as the success of an Article 4 is very much dependent on overwhelming public support. Without this, such a Direction would be unlikely to be fully adhered to.
2.3 Should planning committee agree to end the Article 4(1) Direction process, then
notifications would be sent out confirming this to the local community. 3. Misson Conservation Area and Article 4s – Background and discussion
3.1 Conservation Areas were introduced by the Civic Amenities Act 1967. They were
established to make further provision for the protection and improvement of buildings of architectural or historic merit and of the character of areas of such interest. The
49
legislation has since been consolidated under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
3.2 The Act defines Conservation Areas as: “areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance” (section 69 (1) a). Under Section 69, local planning authorities are required to review whether any parts or further parts of their area should be designated as Conservation Areas. If they determine such areas, they shall designate those accordingly. Designations shall be a local land charge.
3.3 Misson Conservation Area was designated on the 13th September 2017. This was largely a result of extensive public consultation, initially during the village’s Neighbourhood Plan process from 2015 onwards, but later in relation to a draft Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plan which was consulted on during mid-2017. The Appraisal and Management Plan, approved 13th September 2018, includes as one of its aims the creation of an Article 4 Direction. 65% of respondents supported an Article 4, as did the Parish Council. What is an Article 4 Direction?
3.4 There are certain types of development for which Planning Permission is not required. This is referred to as ‘permitted development’. These permitted development rights are set out in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (hereafter referred to as the GPDO 2015), as amended, and include a number of alterations which can be made to dwellings.
3.5 Whilst the designation of a Conservation Area removes a small number of these permitted development rights (e.g. the substantial or total demolition of buildings/boundary treatments, roof extensions or the rendering/cladding of buildings), the majority of the householder permitted development rights remain in place. This can include the alteration or replacement of windows and doors, changes to (or the addition of new) window/door openings, the replacement of roof materials, the painting of exterior masonry or the installation of solar panels. With respect to Conservation Areas, these types of alterations can often result in harm to the character and appearance of Conservation Areas, especially when undertaken on historic unlisted buildings.
3.6 An Article 4 Direction (relating to Article 4, Schedule 3 of the GPDO 2015) can be used to remove permitted development rights as set out in the GPDO 2015. This can include the extensive range of development types that can be carried out to unlisted properties. Given the harm that might be caused to the character and appearance of a Conservation Area by such alterations, it is common practice across the country for local planning authorities to impose Article 4 Directions in Conservation Areas where there is public support. There are 2 types of Article 4s: a) an ‘Immediate’ Direction, which comes into force the day it is made, but needs to be confirmed within 6 months; or b) a ‘non-immediate’ Direction, which has no weight until it is ‘confirmed’.
4. Article 4 ‘Making’ and Consultation Process 4.1 The proposed Article 4(1) Direction was ‘made’ on the 16th August 2018, following
authorisation given at planning committee on the 15th August 2018. The ‘making’ of this ‘non-immediate’ Direction did not give it any weight in the planning system, but rather, was the first step in a process that then required public consultation, after which would be needed ‘confirmation’ at a future planning committee. Accordingly, extensive public
50
consultation was carried out in the local community, between 16th August 2018 and 28th September 2018. This consultation included:
A letter and help guide hand delivered to each property within the affected area;
A letter and help guide to Misson Parish Council; Notifications sent to:
o District and County Councillors; o Historic England; o Nottinghamshire County Council; o Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Site notices displayed in 5 locations in the affected area; An advertisement in the Retford Times; All related documents and explanatory paragraphs on the Council’s website.
4.2 The ‘made’ Direction is included at the end of this report, together with a copy of the
consultation letter, a copy of the site notice, a map of the site notice locations and a copy of the Retford Times advertisement.
5. Summary of Consultation Responses 5.1 The Conservation Team received a range of consultation responses, both in writing,
email and telephone. Some of these were supportive, whilst a large number were not. Most responses were from properties within the affected area, but some were from properties outside of the boundary. A large proportion of the responses were submitted using the same letter produced by a local resident, with each property owner sending in separate signed copies. Misson Parish Council
5.2 The response from Misson Parish Council was supportive of the proposed Article 4, and commented on the following issues:
The large extent of public consultation that had been carried out regarding the Conservation Area and Article 4, including during each of the Neighbourhood Plan stages and throughout the Conservation Area designation and appraisal process;
The positive public response through each stage of the NP process and Conservation Area consultation, as a proportion of the number of respondents;
The Article 4 consultation process has been open, transparent and reasonable.
The Article 4 would help to preserve or enhance historic unlisted buildings within the Conservation Area;
New alterations would be more sympathetic. Local residents in support
5.3 A total of 12 letters/emails/calls were received from local residents in support of the Article 4. These comments covered the following:
The positive impact the Article 4 would have on preserving/enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;
How the Article 4 would help to improve the quality/appropriateness of smaller scale alterations to historic unlisted buildings;
The protection to landscape features including gardens and boundary treatments.
51
Collective objection letter 5.4 A total of 120 copies of the same letter were signed by local residents, many of which
were submitted to the Council at the same time by the same individual. This letter covered the following:
The Council are considering the introduction of an Article 4 Direction; The Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plan only included limited
information on Article 4s; Properties outside of the Conservation Area/Article 4 boundary were not
directly consulted in writing; Misson is the only village in Bassetlaw to have an Article 4 proposed; No evidence as to why Misson has been “singled out”; Misson is not “in imminent danger of harm or alteration”.
5.5 The above letter was given out at a meeting held within the village organised by local
residents. The advertisement for that meeting had the following information:
The Council will keep photographs of your property; Permitted development rights will be severely curtailed; The Article 4 would control replacing or painting front doors, the types of
woodstain for gates, windows, porches, roofs, solar panels and chimneys; Failure to obtain planning permission may result in enforcement action; The information provided was confusing; The date the consultation period ended (28th September 2018); “Once again Misson has been targeted”; “No other village in Bassetlaw is subject to an Article 4 Direction”; “An emergency meeting to discuss this has been set up in the Angel Inn
Tuesday 11th September” 5.6 An additional 4 emails/phone calls were received objecting to the Article 4. Other than
the cost of timber windows, no other specific reasons for this objection were given. 6. Conservation Responses to Objections
Misson would be the only village Conservation Area with an Article 4 6.1 Whilst this is technically correct, this is not because Misson is being singled out in
some way. Rather, it is because historically Bassetlaw District Council has not been proactive in creating Article 4s to protect its Conservation Areas. For comparison, in Newark & Sherwood District, most of their Conservation Areas have Article 4s. Misson would have been the second Conservation Area in Bassetlaw to have an Article 4, the timing merely due to the Conservation Team having only recently appraised the Conservation Area. More Conservation Area Article 4s would follow in the coming months and years.
Properties outside the Conservation Area were not directly consulted
6.2 Each property within the boundary was directly consulted (hand delivered). However, properties outside the boundary were not consulted, as the Article 4 would not directly affect them. If some of the properties within the boundary are owned by those outside the boundary, they would still know about the proposal, either through the letter, the site notices, the Bassetlaw District Council website, the Retford Times, the Parish Council notice boards or the Parish Council facebook page.
52
Misson is not in imminent danger 6.3 Various changes take place each year under permitted development, including to
windows and doors, to boundary treatments and to roofs. This is a permanent threat which is the reason so many Conservation Areas nationally have Article 4s.
The Council would keep photographs of each property 6.4 Again, this is factually correct, as this allows for a baseline of each property when the
Article 4 is confirmed, allowing the Council to ascertain whether any alterations are unauthorised. However, these photographs are taken from the public highway, and all views are available already on websites such as google streetview. Further, the Council already has photographs of most Conservation Area properties, taken whilst surveying, or when dealing with planning proposals. Again, as these are taken from the public highway, there is no data protection breach. The photographs are kept within the Council’s records for Planning purposes only and not for general use.
The Article 4 would control painting of front doors or fences 6.5 This is incorrect. The painting of existing doors or fences would not be controlled, as
this is not considered to be development. The Article 4 Direction would restrict different alterations 6.6 This is correct. The justification for this would be to preserve, and eventually
enhance, the Conservation Area’s character and appearance. Article 4s are well-used throughout the country and one of the best ways of securing preservation or enhancement.
Failure to obtain planning permission may result in enforcement action 6.7 This is correct. If such unauthorised works are considered harmful to the
Conservation Area’s character and appearance, enforcement action would be considered. This is standard practice in Conservation Areas.
The information provided was confusing 6.8 The Conservation Team firmly disagrees with this. A detailed help guide was sent to
each affected property, which clearly states what would be expected, even giving photograph examples of each type of alteration. This is above and beyond that which is required by the legislation.
An emergency meeting was held in the Angel Inn on the 11th September 2018 6.9 This was not arranged by Bassetlaw District Council, and we were neither invited nor
attended. However, a Conservation Officer did attend a Parish Council meeting the week before this, on the 5th September 2018, at the request of Misson PC, where many residents attended.
7. Other consultation issues 7.1 Of the 120 duplicated responses, it should be acknowledged that around a third of
these were from properties outside of the Conservation Area/proposed Article 4 boundary. In addition, a similar number were from separate individuals living at the same addresses.
8. Discontinuance of Proposed Article 4(1) Direction process 8.1 Although the benefits of an Article 4 Direction on the character and appearance of a
Conservation Area are self-evident, in this case, there is a lack of widespread public support. Heritage protection measures such as Conservation Areas and Article 4
53
Directions require that high level of public support, to ensure both that they are self-policing, but also that any alterations proposed by property owners are likely to be more acceptable. Without this community support, the aims of the Article 4 are unlikely to be met. In addition, it is possible that historic buildings and structures are less likely to be repaired, if residents think that permission would be needed (even if incorrectly).
8.2 With the above in mind, it is recommended that an Article 4(1) Direction would be
inappropriate in Misson at this time, and therefore, the process should be discontinued.
9. Implications
a) For service users The number and type of alterations that may be carried out without planning permission (under permitted development) will not be affected, as the Article 4(1) Direction that would restrict these rights would not be taken forward.
b) Strategic & Policy
There are no strategic or policy implications, as the Article 4 would not be taken forward. With regard to Article 4(1) Directions in general, the planning authority would have increased powers with which to control inappropriate alterations within the Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. Over time, this would help to preserve and enhance the Conservation Area’s character and appearance, a key objective of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Bassetlaw Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework, the Misson Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plan and the Misson Neighbourhood Plan. The Article 4(1) Direction would have helped to achieve broader planning objectives for environmental enhancement and the protection of the District’s heritage assets, as set out in the Bassetlaw Core Strategy. There is also evidence to suggest that conservation and enhancement of environmental assets helps to promote economic prosperity, in support of the Council’s strategic objectives (see recent studies by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, Historic England and the Heritage Alliance, amongst others). However, it is not to be taken forward, so the present policy situation would remain.
c) Financial - Ref: 20/108
Printing costs for notification letters and site notices will be met from approved budgets. There would be no other financial implications, as the proposed Article 4(1) Direction would no longer be taken forward.
d) Legal – Ref: 284/04/2019
As set out in the General Permitted Development Order 2015, as amended, the ‘made’ ‘non-immediate’ Direction as exists has no weight unless it is later ‘confirmed’. Further, the ‘made’ Direction expires 2 years from the date it was made, i.e. 15th August 2020, unless it is confirmed within that time. Therefore,
54
there would be no legal implications from this report, as the proposed Article 4(1) Direction would no longer be taken forward.
e) Human Resources
The Article 4(1) Direction would no longer be taken forward. As such, other than notifying affected properties, there would be no increase in staff work load.
f) Community Safety, Equalities, Environmental
The Article 4(1) Direction would no longer be taken forward. As such, there are no implications relating to community safety, equalities or the environment.
g) Data Protection Regulations
As the Article 4(1) Direction is no longer being taken forward, there would be no data protection implications. The notification process will comprise a letter to the Parish Council (to be displayed in the public notice boards), and site notices in the same 5 locations as previously. No personal data would be collected.
h) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number. This is not a key decision.
10. Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations 10.1 Option 1: Approve the discontinuing of the Misson Article 4(1) Direction process as
set out in this report. This means that the present planning controls over development, as set out in the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended) and as affected by the designation of the Conservation Area in 2017, would remain in place. There is only limited public support for an Article 4(1) Direction, so its success would also be limited, and is likely to be unsuccessful. Should planning committee approve the discontinuance of the process, affected residents and the Parish Council would be notified of this decision.
10.2 Option 2: Do not approve the discontinuance of the Misson Article 4(1) Direction
process. Failure to approve this discontinuance would lead to greater uncertainty for local residents and landowners, and may result in local resentment.
11. Recommendations 11.1 That Committee approve the discontinuance of the Misson Article 4(1) Direction
process.
11.2 That Committee confer delegated authority to officers of the Conservation Team to implement this discontinuance, including notifying affected properties and other consultees.
11.3 Any future cost implications for employee structure would be reported to members.
55
Appendix A – Proposed Misson Article 4(1) Direction – ‘Made’ 16th August 2018
56
57
58
59
Appendix B – Notice for Proposed Misson Article 4(1) Direction
60
Appendix C – Map of Site Notice Locations
61
Appendix D – Copy of Help Guide
62
63
64
65
66
67
Appendix E – Copy of Duplicated Letter Received from 120 Local Residents
68
69
Appendix F – Copy of Advertisement for Meeting Arranged by Local Residents
70
Agenda Item No. 6(d) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE 24 April 2019
REPORT OF HEAD OF REGENERATION PROPOSED ARTICLE 4(1) DIRECTION FOR WOODEND FARMHOUSE, COACH ROAD, SHIREOAKS Cabinet Member: Regeneration
Contact: Michael Tagg Ext: 3427 1. Public Interest Test
1.1 The author of this report, Beverley Alderton-Sambrook, has determined that the report
is not confidential. 2. Purpose of the Report 2.1 To seek authorisation from Planning Committee for the making of an immediate
Article 4 Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, to restrict permitted development rights (for demolition, rendering or painting) in respect of Woodend Farmhouse, Coach Road, Shireoaks.
2.2 The report explains that the Article 4(1) Direction would remove the permitted
development rights of the owners of the identified property to carry out development otherwise permitted by Schedule 2, Part 2, Class C (the painting of exterior stonework), and Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B (the demolition of buildings) of the 2015 Order (as amended). The owner of the property affected, in addition to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Nottinghamshire County Council, Shireoaks Parish and the local District/County Councillors, will be notified and consulted for their views as part of this process.
2.3 If the Article 4(1) Direction is made, the Direction will come into force immediately,
and will last for a total of 6 months. Representations will be invited for a period of 6 weeks from the date of notification. After this period, a further report will need to be presented to Planning Committee, within 6 months from the date of the initial Direction, in order to seek authorisation or otherwise for confirmation of the Article 4(1) Direction.
3. Requirements for Article 4 Directions
71
3.1 An Article 4 Direction (made under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended) may be made by the Local Planning Authority where the authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development (as specified in the Direction), which would ordinarily be permitted by Schedule 2 of the Order, should not be carried out unless permission is granted pursuant to an express application. Such a Direction effectively withdraws the permitted development rights as set out in the Direction.
3.2 Schedule 3, Part 2, Paragraph 1(a), of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, states that Local Planning Authorities should consider making Article 4 Directions only in those circumstances where it considers: “that the development to which the direction relates would be prejudicial to the proper planning of their area or constitute a threat to the amenities of their area”.
3.3 The two main types of Article 4 Directions are ‘immediate’ Directions and ‘non-immediate’ Directions:
Immediate Directions – can be made immediately without consultation, although they do require a final confirmation before a 6 month deadline. Immediate Directions only cover development permitted within Parts 1 to 4 and part 11 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended).
Non-immediate Directions – can cover any of the types of development within the 2015 order (as amended), although require consultation before being confirmed by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Development to which the Article 4(1) Direction is proposed to apply (Schedule
1) 4.1 Schedule 1 of the Direction (a copy of which is attached to this report) identifies the
types of development that are covered by the Direction. This relates solely to the demolition of the two historic buildings on the site (coloured red on the map), the removal of the railings and gates on the eastern boundary, and the painting of the exterior brickwork and stonework. The Schedule contains the following:
Schedule 2, Part 1 – Development in the Curtilage of a Dwellinghouse o Class A – External rendering or the removal of a chimney stack
The external rendering of the building, or the removal of an existing chimney stack.
o Class G – The reduction or replacement of a chimney stack The reduction in height, or the replacement, of an existing chimney stack.
Schedule 2, Part 2 – Minor Works o Class C – Exterior Painting
The painting of any part of the external brickwork or stone dressings.
Schedule 2, Part 11 – Heritage and Demolition o Class B – Demolition of Buildings
Any building operation consisting of the demolition of a building which is coloured red on the attached map.
72
5. Reasons for an Immediate Article 4(1) Direction 5.1 Woodend Farmhouse is regarded as a non-designated heritage asset, identified as
such in accordance with the Council’s criteria which were approved at Planning Committee in January 2011. The specific criteria which are attributed to this building are: ‘historic and architectural interest’, ‘aesthetic appeal’ and ‘association’.
5.2 The building was constructed in the late-18th century for Reverend John Hewitt of Shireoaks hall, one of a number of stone farmhouses, barns and cottages built for the Hewitt estate during this period. It is modest in scale, being one and a half storeys in height, built from the local Magnesian limestone and with a pantile roof. Architectural features include segmental stone arches, stone cills, brick gable stacks, gabled dormers and timber plank doors. Although the windows are 1960s/70s timber casements, the building retains much of its significance. Of the Council’s approved non-designated heritage asset criteria, this building is considered to have 1) historic interest, 2) architectural interest, 3) aesthetic appeal and 4) association.
5.3 In terms of the planning history of the site, the following applications are of relevance:
Outline Planning Permission was granted, by way of 16/00968/OUT, for residential development on the surrounding site. The design and access statement clearly showed the farmhouse to be retained, and therefore Conservation’s comments were supportive (subject to details) for this reason.
A Reserved Matters application was approved, reference 18/00648/RES, for the outstanding details. This was subsequently amended by way of 18/01502/RES (the amendments did not relate to the farmhouse).
A Certificate of Lawfulness for the demolition of the farmhouse was refused on 30th January 2019, reference 18/01539/CTP, the Council’s Legal advice clearly demonstrating that the outline permission did not authorise the demolition of the farmhouse, only the outbuildings.
5.4 On 21st March 2019, an application was validated for the demolition of the farmhouse, the erection of 2 dwellings and garages, together with an additional garage. The building is therefore at immediate risk as the applicant is clearly intent on demolishing rather than retaining. Whilst the Council would be within its rights to refuse that application on heritage grounds, it could not stop the building being demolished under the permitted development ‘prior approval’ process should the applicant wish to pursue that option.
5.5 In accordance with Schedule 3, Part 2, Paragraph 1(a), of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended, it is considered that the loss of these buildings would cause harm to the amenity of the locality. That amenity includes visual amenity, which the farmhouse contributes to significantly. Although currently screened from the main road by trees and hedges, these will not be in place when the permitted scheme is completed, and the farmhouse would be alongside a road. In addition, the farmhouse is an important part of the architectural and historic interest of the area, and its unjustified loss would fail to comply with the aims and objectives of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and the Revised NPPF. Its loss is also likely to cause a degree of local objection.
5.6 The making of immediate Article 4(1) Directions is common practice across the country with respect to the protection from demolition or alteration of non-designated heritage assets. Amongst the most recent examples are the Council’s making of a Direction for
73
the former North Border school in Bircotes, and Leicester City Council’s Directions on a range of its non-designated heritage assets in 2016 & 2017.
6. Implications
a) For service users The number of alterations that may be carried out without planning permission (under permitted development) will be reduced, namely the demolition of the farmhouse, the removal/alteration of a chimney stack, or the painting or rendering of the exterior stonework. However, any planning application made for development subject to the Article 4(1), i.e. demolition or painting, is exempt from a planning fee.
b) Strategic & Policy
With regard to the proposed Article 4(1) Direction, the planning authority would have increased powers with which to control the demolition or inappropriate alteration of this important non-designated heritage asset. Over time, this will help to preserve and enhance the significance of the heritage asset, a key objective of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and the Revised National Planning Policy Framework. The Article 4(1) Direction will help to achieve broader planning objectives for environmental enhancement and the protection of the District’s heritage assets, as set out in the Bassetlaw Core Strategy. There is also evidence to suggest that conservation and enhancement of environmental assets helps to promote economic prosperity, in support of the Council’s strategic objectives (see recent studies by the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, Historic England and the Heritage Alliance, amongst others).
c) Financial - Ref: 20/168
Printing costs will be met from approved budgets. In terms of staffing levels, it is unlikely that there would be any significant impact from the Article 4(1) as only 1 property would be affected. However, should there be a measured impact in the future, this would be reported to a future Cabinet meeting at that time. Planning Committee should be aware that the withdrawal of permitted development rights by an Article 4 Direction may give rise to a claim for compensation if a planning application submitted within 12 months of the date of the Direction coming into force is either refused, or if an application is granted subject to conditions. However, research published by the Historic Towns Forum in 2008 found that no incidences of claims for compensation had been made to the authorities consulted (72 in total) in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. This research found that: “The only known cases where this has occurred, have been in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights for car boot sales and Sunday markets”.
d) Legal – Ref: 02/04/2019
74
The making of an Article 4(1) Direction shall be a local land charge in accordance with the 2015 Order, as amended. Schedule 3 (‘Procedures for Article 4 Directions’) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015, as amended, requires that the Local Planning Authority gives notice to the Secretary of State on the making of any Article 4(1) Direction. After being made, notice of the Direction shall also be made by local advertisement, by site display in no fewer than two locations within the affected area and by serving the notice on the owner/occupier of every part of the land to which the direction relates.
e) Human Resources
The making of an Article 4(1) Direction is likely to result in a small increase in the number of planning applications received, and it is predicted that the work load for Development Control, Enforcement and the Planning Policy & Conservation Team will also increase by a small amount as a result. The most significant impact will be upon the Conservation Team’s resources, including the responsibility for carrying out regular surveys of the Article 4(1) Direction area and providing advice to the owners/occupiers of the buildings covered by the Article 4(1) Direction. Any future staffing level implications, which at present are unknown, would be reported to Cabinet if such issues arise.
f) Community Safety, Equalities, Environmental
The proposed Article 4(1) Direction will have no impact on community safety or equal opportunities. The Article 4(1) Direction will help to preserve and enhance the historic and architectural significance and visual, social and cultural amenity of this area.
g) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number. No, this is not a key decision.
7. Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations 7.1 Option 1: Approve the making of the immediate ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1)
Direction as set out in this report. This will provide additional planning tools to enable the preservation, conservation and enhancement of the significance of the farmhouse, both in respect to ongoing development proposals, and for the longer term. The Article 4(1) Direction will allow the Local Planning Authority to properly consider the proposed demolition of the heritage asset on the site against local and national planning policies. The Direction will also provide greater control over external alterations to the building.
7.2 Planning Committee should be aware that the withdrawal of permitted development
rights by an Article 4 Direction may give rise to a claim for compensation if a planning application submitted within 12 months of the date of the Direction coming into force is either refused, or if an application is granted subject to conditions. However, research published by the Historic Towns Forum in 2008 found that no incidences of claims for compensation had been made to the authorities consulted (72 in total) in
75
relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. This research found that: “The only known cases where this has occurred, have been in relation to the withdrawal of permitted development rights for car boot sales and Sunday markets”.
7.3 Option 2: Do not approve the making of the immediate ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article
4(1) Direction. Failure to make the Article 4(1) Direction carries a risk that the significance of the non-designated heritage asset would be completely lost by the demolition of the building. Not making the Article 4(1) Direction could undermine the distinctive visual, social, historic and cultural amenity of the area.
8. Recommendations 8.1 That Committee approve the making of the ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1)
Direction.
8.2 That Committee confer delegated authority to officers of the Conservation Team to implement the making of the ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction. Please note that following the expiry of the consultation period and after consideration of public responses, a further report shall be brought to a future Planning Committee to authorise confirmation of the Article 4(1) Direction or otherwise.
8.3 Any future cost implications for employee structure would be reported to Cabinet.
76
Appendix A – Draft ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction & Map
77
78
79
Appendix B – Draft Notice for ‘Woodend Farmhouse’ Article 4(1) Direction
80
Agenda Item No. 6(e)
BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL INDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 24.04.2019
Sheet No.
Ref No. Applicant Location and Proposal Recom. Decision
A1 19/00076/FUL
McConnells Electrical
Former Local Communal Centre, Lanchester Gardens, Worksop. Conversion of Former Local Communal Centre to Large (HMO) House in Multiple Occupation Consisting of 10 En-Suite Bedrooms and Shared Kitchen and Dining Room (Sui Generis Use Class) with External Alterations
Grant
A2 18/01037/FUL
Broadbill Ltd 4 Chapelgate, Retford. Proposed Refurbishment, Alterations and Extension to Provide 21 Residential Apartments and Studio Flats
Grant
A3 18/01038/LBA
Broadbill Ltd 4 Chapelgate, Retford. Proposed Refurbishment, Alterations and Extension to Provide 21 Residential Apartments and Studio Flats
Grant
A4 18/00467/OUT
Lindrick Park Development Limited
Land To The North Of Claylands Avenue, Worksop. Proposed Residential Development of Houses, Apartments ,Bungalows with Associated Adoptable Access Road, Private Courtyards, Parking Spaces
Refuse
A5 18/01603/PIP
Mr Tim Needham Rosedean Farm, Mark Lane East Markham. Residential Development Not Exceeding Nine Dwellings
Grant
81
82
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC
ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT
Item No: a1
Application Ref. 19/00076/FUL
Application Type Full Planning Application
Site Address Former Local Communal Centre, Lanchester Gardens, Worksop
Proposal Conversion of Former Local Communal Centre to Large (HMO) House in Multiple Occupation Consisting of 10 En-Suite Bedrooms and Shared Kitchen and Dining Room (Sui Generis Use Class) with External Alterations
Case Officer Dave Askwith
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions
Web Link: Link to Planning Documents
THE APPLICATION: The application seeks detailed planning permission for the conversion of an existing building to a large house in multiple occupation consisting of 10 en-suite bedrooms with shared kitchen and dining facilities. The existing building is a former communal centre, which was part of a larger housing complex for the elderly. The building is a large open plan room with a mono pitched roof. The site lies within an established residential area. The external alterations consist of an increase in the size of the first floor across the full width of the building on the front elevation. The accommodation is to be provided on two floors with 2 bedrooms and the communal kitchen, dining room and hallway on the ground floor and 8 bedrooms on the first floor. The building would have a render finish with false cedar panelling on the front elevation and dark grey windows, creating a contemporary elevational treatment. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows: National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
83
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC
For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Part 5 (Supply of Homes) Part 12 (Achieving Well Designed Places)
Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework
Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document
(Adopted December 2011):
Policy/Policies CS1, CS2 Policy/Policies DM4, DM5
Supplementary Planning Documents Successful Places – Guide to housing layout and design Neighbourhood Plan Worksop does not have a Neighbourhood Plan. The chart below shows the weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan set against the stage of the plan-making process. It can therefore be accorded no weight.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 02\05\00176 – July, 2005 – Granted planning permission for the change of use of communal housing for the elderly into self-contained flats and create 8 new flats. RESPONSES FROM STATUTORY BODIES: The COUNTY DIRECTOR OF RESOURCES (HIGHWAYS) has raised no objection to the proposed development on highway safety grounds, subject to the imposition of conditions.
84
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC
BASSETLAW ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH has raised no objections, subject to the imposition of a condition to control construction hours. The property would require licensing as a HMO and adequate storage and disposal of household waste needs to be considered.
BASSETLAW OPERATIONAL SERVICES MANAGER has commented that the current arrangements would not be sufficient for the additional properties proposed. Only 10 bins are proposed which would result in sharing. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that refuse
collection can be arranged privately if Council collection is not possible. This can be dealt with by condition. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED:
Ward Councillor Potts requested that the application be reported to the Planning Committee on the grounds that there would be noise disturbance to bungalows around the centre, which has had a high level of ASB and drug dealing where there are vulnerable tenants and residents. A letter of objection has also been submitted expressing concern regarding the proximity to 50 Council bungalows, increased noise disturbance, anti-social behavior problems from neighbouring multi-tennanted properties Councillor Shepard has expressed his objections in relation to increased noise, cars, the risk of anti-social behavior with 70 OAP bungalows next to the site. 20 letters of objection of a standard format have been received expressing concern in relation to high levels of anti-social behavior in the area, vulnerable elderly residents in locality, the type of residents found in HMO’s, clients not properly vetted, flats in the locality and the building should be used for community use. 1 Letter of Objection has been received from a local resident – previous experiences of anti-social behavior, high number of kitchen appliances pose a fire risk, high number of vulnerable older people in locality, may put existing residents at risk 1 Letter of Objection has been received from Lanchester Gardens RTM Company Ltd on behalf of leaseholders\owners of flats at Lanchester Gardens and its residents – worked hard to ensure rogue tenants eradicated, embarked on a costly re-furbishment programme, HMO’s
attract an undesirable element, negative impact on surrounding properties, insurance reflects fire risk from community centre and premiums will rise, normal residential occupation should be pursued, there are no rights of access through our hallway ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCREENING: The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 defined as requiring EIA Screening. CONSIDERATON OF PLANNING ISSUES: The main issues to be considered when determining this application are the requirements of national and local planning policies, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the residential amenity of adjacent residents and the impact on highway safety.
85
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC
Principle of development The application site is currently located within the Worksop development boundary as defined in the Bassetlaw LDF. The Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement published in October 2018 shows that the Council has a current deliverable housing supply of 2,681 dwellings, which equates to a 7.9 year supply when assessed against the total five year housing target of 1,701 dwellings. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF makes it clear that the development plan is the starting point for decision making. The site is located within Worksop, which is defined as a CS2 settlement in the Local Development Framework. The proposed conversion of the former local communal centre to a large HMO consisting of 10 en-suite bedrooms with a shared kitchen and dining room. The site lies within an established residential area, as such, it is considered that the principle of development is generally acceptable in this instance given all other material considerations and the relevant development management policies contained within the Core Strategy. Visual Amenity Part 12 of the NPPF refers to achieving well-designed places. Specifically paragraph 124 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; it creates better places in which to live and work in and helps make development acceptable to local communities. The existing building has stood vacant for a considerable period of time and has started to fall in to disrepair. The building has a large area of glazing to the front elevation that has been boarded-over and the building is currently considered to have a detrimental visual impact upon the surrounding area. The proposed development would modernise the building, significantly improving its appearance and is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwellings and the general residential character of the locality. The proposed development is not considered to be unduly prominent and would improve the visual amenity of the locality. Residential Amenity Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) 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; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
86
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC
Paragraph 127 of the NPPF requires that development does not materially or detrimentally affect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. In light of the proposed scale, siting and orientation of the proposed development it is considered that the proposed development would not significantly adversely impact upon the residential amenity of the adjacent properties. There have been numerous concerns raised by surrounding occupiers in terms of potential anti-social behaviour from potential residents. However, the proposed residential use is considered compatible with the surrounding area and it is considered that a vacant building is likely to attract a greater degree of anti-social behaviour than one that is occupied on a permanent basis. Any anti-social behaviour from residents in the future would be dealt with by the Police or the Council’s Community Safety Team using the appropriate legislation and is not material planning
consideration. However, the applicant’s agent has confirmed that the building will be run through
a letting agent and all tenants would be vetted and behaviour can be controlled through tenancy agreements. Highways Matters Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that schemes can be supported where they provide safe and adequate access for all. The proposed development provides adequate off-street parking provision for the proposed development and there are no highway safety objections from the County Highway Authority. Conclusion The application site is located in a sustainable location with an established residential area, close to the centre of Worksop and it is considered that the proposed development would not have a significantly adverse detrimental impact on the residential character of the area, residential amenity or highway safety. Having regards to the overall policy position, it is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with the aims and objectives of national and local planning policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning
with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the
details and specifications shown on the originally submitted drawings, as amended by drawing numbers PM 342 - A100 Rev P2 received on 12th February, 2019 and PM 342 - A101 Rev P3 received on 21st March, 2019.
Reason: To ensure the development takes the agreed form and thus results in a satisfactory form of development.
3. The facing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall only be as
stated in the application, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before development commences. In that event, the development shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed details.
87
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 1 REPORT.DOC
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development.
4. Prior to occupation of any of the units hereby permitted, the car parking shall provided in
accordance with the proposed plan and shall be available for the lifetime of the associated development. The additional car parking spaces must be surfaced in a hard, bound material and drainage measures must be included which prevent surface water from running off the parking spaces into the public highway. All of the car parking spaces should remain unallocated and available for use by all residents.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
5. Prior to occupation of any of the units hereby permitted, details of the proposed refuse
collection arrangements shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory operation of the proposed development in the interests of residential amenity.
6. All works and ancillary operations shall be carried out only between the following hours:
08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays. Deliveries of goods to and from site including the removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents during the construction phase.
7. The development shall not commence until a detailed Construction Management Plan
has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents during the construction phase.
88
89
90
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT
Item No: a2
Application Ref. 18/01037/FUL
Application Type Full Planning Application
Site Address 4 Chapelgate, Retford, Nottinghamshire
Proposal Proposed Refurbishment, Alterations and Extension to Provide 21 Residential Apartments and Studio Flats
Case Officer Dave Askwith
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions and a S.106 legal agreement
Web Link: Link to Planning Documents
THE APPLICATION: The application seeks detailed planning permission for the refurbishment, alteration and extension of the existing building to provide 21 residential apartments. The site is located outside the Primary Shopping Area boundary but forms part of a secondary retail frontage within the Retford Conservation Area, as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework. The building in question is a grade II listed building, it was last used as a public house (Yates’s Wine Bar) at ground floor level, but is no longer in use, with flats above on the first and second floor. The proposal would involve a second floor extension at the rear of the building and an extension to form a lift at the rear most part of the building. The applicant’s agent has submitted documents in support of the application including:- Plans and elevations Heritage Impact Assessment Planning Policy and Design and Access Statement Flood Risk Assessment All these documents are available for inspection in the Council’s Offices or on the Council’s website. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows: Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017
The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 defined as requiring EIA Screening.
91
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out‑of‑date, permission should be granted unless: (i) The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or (ii) Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The following sections of the framework are applicable to this development: Part 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Part 12. Achieving well-designed places Part 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework
Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document
(Adopted December 2011):
Policy/Policies CS1, CS3 Policy/Policies DM4, DM5, DM8, DM11, DM12, DM13
Supplementary Planning Documents Successful Places – Guide to housing layout and design Neighbourhood Plan Retford does not have a Neighbourhood Plan. The chart below shows the weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan set against the stage of the plan-making process.
92
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 01\00\00104 – October, 2000 – Granted planning permission for ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO CREATE 17 FLATS 01\00\00103\L – October, 2000 – Granted listed building consent for ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO CREATE 17 FLATS 01\01\00120 – September, 2001 – Granted planning permission for ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO LISTED BUILDING TO CREATE 6 FLATS, PUBLIC HOUSE AND ANCILLARY SPACE 01\01\00121\L – September, 2001 – Granted listed building consent for COMPREHENSIVE INTERNAL REORGANISATIONS, 2 STOREY REAR EXTENSION, EXTENSION TO EXISTING SECOND FLOOR AND MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING ELEVATIONS TO CREATE 6 FLATS AND PUBLIC HOUSE PLUS ANCILLARY SPACE 01\01\00015 – June, 2001 – Granted planning permission for CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR AND PART FIRST FLOOR TO PUBLIC HOUSE RESPONSES FROM STATUTORY BODIES: COUNTY DIRECTOR OF RESOURCES (HIGHWAYS) has raised no objection on highway safety grounds and the lack of parking is not likely to be an issue in a town centre location.
BASSETLAW CONSERVATION OFFICER has raised no concerns, subject to the imposition of conditions. It is considered that the special interest of the listed building and character of the wider Conservation Area, would be unaffected by the alterations to the rear and the internal space. Therefore, Conservation has no concerns with the rear element of the proposal from a heritage point of view, subject to conditions. With regard to the alterations to front of the building, the closing of the large 1960s openings and reinstallation of traditional narrow openings and fenestration is very much welcomed. This would, subject to appropriate joinery and finishes, result in an enhancement to the special interest of the Listed Building and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area overall. Therefore, Conservation has no concerns, subject to conditions. HISTORIC ENGLAND – does not wish to offer any comments BASSETLAW STRATEGIC HOUSING has commented they would expect to achieve the provision of 25% affordable housing. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING has raised no objection and has provided detailed comments in relation to planning policy, minerals and waste, education, transport, healthy communities, archaeology, ecology, highways and flood risk and developer contributions. They have requested a contribution via S.106 for bus stop improvements to the value of £13,000 BASSETLAW ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH has raised no objections, subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure control over the hours of construction. ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has no comments to make in this instance.
93
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT TEAM (Lead Local Flood Authority) has no comments to make in this instance.
BASSETLAW OPERATIONAL SERVICES MANAGER has commented as follows:- This development in theory would be subject to our usual arrangements in terms of Refuse collection, which means each individual apartment would have a blue bin for recycling and a green bin for residual waste. This will mean 21 of each bin, which would be very difficult if not impossible to accommodate. We would be interested to see what proposals if any there are for refuse collection provision. Any bin stores would need to be accessible and unlocked on collection day with no obstructions. If the proposal is for larger four wheeled communal bins, then the narrow access to the left hand side of the development would not suffice. It may be preferable and certainly more sensible for the double doors to the right hand side of the development to be the only area for refuse container storage.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT has commented that no further archaeological is required into this application. Copies of all the responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED:
RETFORD CIVIC SOCIETY – object to the proposed development, summarised as follows:- 1. surprised and disappointed that the Heritage Team support the application on the basis that the ground floor frontage windows are a desirable improvement 2. the reinstatement of original features does not necessarily make the development acceptable 3. proposal ignores the contribution of the building to the Conservation Area 4. loss of commercial function changes commercial character of the area, potentially harming the vitality of the town centre through the loss of a commercial frontage 5. consider that the changes would harm the appearance of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area 6. proposal go beyond what is needed to ensure that the building is fully used 7. Poor standard of accommodation is proposed, limited outdoor amenity space 8. the scale of the development should be reduced Copies of all the detailed responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices. CONSIDERATON OF PLANNING ISSUES: The main issues to be considered when determining this application are the requirements of national and local planning policies, the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the impact on the residential amenity of adjacent residents, the impact on highway safety and the impact on ecology.
94
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
Principle of development Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision making. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy states that until the adoption of the site allocations DPD, development in the settlements identified in the hierarchy will be restricted to the area inside defined settlement boundaries. However, additional permission may be granted where the development proposal would address a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply or its employment land supply. Paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that policies in development plans should be reviewed and where necessary updated every 5 years. The Bassetlaw Core Strategy dates from 2011 and its policies have not been reviewed in the last 5 years as the Council is working on a new local plan to replace it. In this situation, paragraph 213 of the NPPF states that policies in an adopted development plan do not become automatically out of date because they were published before the framework; policies must be considered having regards to their consistency with the framework. The Core Strategy was prepared using a settlement hierarchy which included development limits to control development. As such, it is considered that this approach is now out of step with that identified in the NPPF and as such, the weight given to policy CS1 is reduced. As policy CS1 is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process, part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged and this scheme must be considered under the tilted balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole. The Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement published in October 2018 shows that the Council has a current deliverable housing supply of 2,681 dwellings, which equates to a 7.9 year supply when assessed against the total five year housing target of 1,701 dwellings. Having regards to the overall policy position as outlined above and the fact that the tilted balance test in paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies, consideration of whether this proposal constitutes sustainable development will be assessed in relation to the matters outlined below and a balanced decision will be reached in the conclusion to the report. In light of the recently revised housing supply figures, and the sustainable nature of the site, it is considered that the proposed development of the site is acceptable in principle. It is considered that, if permitted, the development would secure the future of this valuable listed building and help maintain the viability of the town centre. It is also important to consider that the Section 106 contributions generated by the development would secure an affordable housing contribution and a financial contribution in respect of bus stop improvements. The extent of marketing information is limited, however, in light of the outdated policies of the Local Plan and the conservation benefits of finding a new use and new investment into the listed building, albeit for residential purposes, it is appropriate to apply the titled balance test. Although the ground floor commercial element of the building would be lost, the proposal does support its long-term conservation and reduces the risk of a heritage assets not being in use and the dis-benefits that follow.
95
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
Sustainability of the Proposal Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions for sustainable development, economic, social and environmental:
“an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;
a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and
an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
In reaching a decision on this case, the NPPF at paragraph 9 makes it clear that the objectives referred to above should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions and are not criteria against which every planning application should be judged against. Residential Amenity Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of a high quality design, respects the character of the area and provides adequate residential amenity for new and existing residents. Section 12 of the NPPF refers to achieving well designed places. Specifically, paragraph 124 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; it creates better places in which to live and work in and helps make development acceptable to local communities. Paragraph 127 states that decisions should aim to ensure that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong sense of place, create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit, optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses and support local facilities and transport networks. Furthermore it provides that development should respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. The NPPF goes on to state it is “proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness” (para 127) and permission should be “refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions” (para 130). Policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy also provides similar guidance and requirements to that listed above and as such, it is considered that the policy carries significant weight in the consideration and determination of this proposal. Accordingly, it is considered that a suitably designed scheme would be compliant with the provisions of the policies and guidance outlined above.
96
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
The site relates well to the existing settlement and would not therefore appear unduly discordant in terms of the character of the locality. It is considered that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the listed building would be enhanced. It is considered that the proposed development is in compliance with the NPPF (para.127), Part 16 and LDF policies DM4 and DM8. Visual Amenity Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments: a) 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; b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit; e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience. In addition, paragraph 130 of the NPPF also states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework, states that all major development proposals will need to demonstrate that they make clear functional and physical links with the existing settlement and surrounding area and have not been designed as standalone additions. It also states that new development should respect its wider surroundings in relation to historic development patterns and landscape character. It is considered that, although the commercial element of the building would be lost, the proposal does support its long-term conservation and reduces the risk of a heritage assets not being in use and the dis-benefits that follow. Highways Matters The Highway Authority has assessed the proposals in terms of traffic impact, geometry, highway safety, accessibility and parking provision and has no objections and they have indicated that subject to conditions the proposed development would have no adverse impact on highway safety. Accordingly, the development would comply with the provisions of policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan and paragraph 108 of the NPPF which require that development is of no detriment to highway safety.
97
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
Affordable Housing The scheme provides for 21 apartments, however, the proposed development is treated as brownfield land within the town centre, as such it is possible under the terms of the new National Planning Policy Framework, to consider a proportionate contribution. To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are to be re-used or re-developed, any affordable housing contribution that is required can be reduced by a proportionate amount, in this instance, equivalent to the existing floorspace. As such, when considering the new or additional floorspace, only the second floor extension needs to be taken into account for the purposes of calculation of the affordable housing requirement. On this basis, a total of only 8 new residential units are to be created within the new floorspace, which would result in a requirement of 25% provision, that is, two residential units. As such, the provision of two residential units would meet the affordable housing requirement in this instance. The alternative to on-site provision would be an off-site contribution, which would amount to £80,000 in this instance, based on the Affordable Housing SPD calculation formula. The applicant has confirmed that they are willing to make an off-site contribution in this instance, in line with existing planning policy, and this would be secured through a S.106 legal agreement. Heritage Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that the historic environment shall be protected and enhanced to secure its long term future and that any development that would be detrimental to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting, will not be supported. This is re-iterated in paragraph 194 of Part 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that any harm to or loss of the significance of heritage assets should require clear and convincing justification. In considering Policy DM8 and NPPF paragraphs 192, 193 and 196, from a Conservation point of view, the Conservation Team are confident that the use is consistent with the building’s conservation. The building is a single building in this much larger heritage asset of the conservation area and, as such, the degree of harm to the conservation area, if any, could only be considered as less than substantial, in which case the application would be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits are defined in Planning Policy Guidance.
Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework. Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.
Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as:
sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting
reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset
securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation
Although the ground floor commercial element of the building would be lost, the proposal does support its long-term conservation and reduces the risk of a heritage assets not being in use and the dis-benefits that follow.
98
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
It is considered that there are benefits with the proposal and as such it is unlikely that an objection could be sustained on Conservation policies alone. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would accord with the provisions of the above policy and guidance. Financial Implications The proposed development is CIL liable. The proposed residential development will trigger the need for an affordable housing contribution and a bus stop improvement contribution to be secured via a Section 106 legal agreement. CIL Calculation The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL IS PAYABLE on the development hereby approved. Based on the information submitted by the developer, the estimated overall new floorspace to be created would be approximately 334sqm which would result in a fee of approximately £26,570.89, although this would be subject to a further detailed calculation at the submission stage. Any CIL Charge quoted above is based on the application submission at the time of issuing this report. The final charge will include indexation figures for Permission Year Index and Charge Year Index. Conclusion Whilst the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, case law has determined that strategic policies such as that contained in the Council’s Core Strategies that have not been reviewed within 5 years of their adoption are now out of date, so therefore the weight to be apportioned to the Core Strategy policies is limited in decision making. As the Core Strategy is deemed to be out of date having regards to the contents of paragraph 33 of the NPPF, paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes it clear that the scheme should be considered under the tilted balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole. The benefits of the development would include 21 new apartments, a new use and new investment into the listed building, an off-site affordable housing contribution of £80,000 and £13,000 for bus stop improvements and CIL contributions. The extent of marketing information is limited, however, in light of the outdated policies of the Local Plan and the conservation benefits, albeit for residential purposes, it is appropriate to apply the titled balance test. Although the ground floor commercial element of the building would be lost, the proposal does support its long-term conservation and reduces the risk of a heritage assets not being in use and the dis-benefits that follow. It is considered that the proposed development of the site is acceptable in principle and, if permitted, the development would secure the future of this valuable listed building and help maintain the viability of the town centre. In addition, having assessed the proposal, it is considered that such development would have no adverse impact on highway safety, residential amenity, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the heritage asset.
99
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
Having regards to benefits outlined above, and the scale and form of the development, it is considered that these outweigh any identified harm and as such the proposal would constitute sustainable development as defined in paragraph 11 of the NPPF and accordingly the scheme can be granted planning permission. It is recommended therefore that planning permission be granted for the development subject to the conclusion of an agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which secures: 1. Bus stop improvements of £13,000 2. An off-site Affordable housing contribution of £80,000 RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning
with the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the
details and specifications shown on the originally submitted drawings, as amended by the drawing number 06 Rev C received on 21st December, 2018.
Reason: To ensure the development takes the agreed form and thus results in a satisfactory form of development.
3. The facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall
match those used in the construction of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development.
4. All frontage doors and windows shall be hung so not to over sail the footway.
Reason: To prevent collision with highway users and to comply with the Highways Act 1980.
5. Prior to occupation of any of the units hereby permitted, details of the proposed refuse
collection arrangements shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory operation of the proposed development in the interests of residential amenity.
100
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
6. All new external joinery including windows and doors shall be of a timber construction only. Details of their design, specification, method of opening, method of fixing and finish, including the design of any outer framing, in the form of drawings and sections of no less than 1:20 scale, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before they are installed. The works shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: Inadequate details of these matters have been submitted with the application and in order to ensure that the works preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
7. In relation to the above condition, trickle vents shall not be inserted into the
windows/doors hereby granted consent.
Reason: To preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. 8. Before the new flats hereby approved are occupied, the existing fascia and projecting
signs shall be removed.
Reason: The present projecting sign is unauthorised and its removal, together with the removal of the fascia lettering, would enhance the appearance of the Listed Building.
9. All works and ancillary operations shall be carried out only between the following hours:
08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and; at no time on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays. Deliveries of goods to and from site including the removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area.
101
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 2 REPORT.DOC
102
104
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT
Item No: a3
Application Ref. 18/01038/LBA
Application Type Listed Building Consent
Site Address 4 Chapelgate, Retford, Nottinghamshire
Proposal Proposed Refurbishment, Alterations and Extension to Provide 21 Residential Apartments and Studio Flats
Case Officer Dave Askwith
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions
Web Link: Link to Planning Documents
THE APPLICATION: The application seeks listed building consent for the refurbishment, alteration and extension of the existing building to provide 21 residential apartments. The site is located outside the Primary Shopping Area boundary but forms part of a secondary retail frontage within the Retford Conservation Area, as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework. The building in question is a grade II listed building, it was last used as a public house (Yates’s Wine Bar) at ground floor level, but is no longer in use, with flats above on the first and second floor. The proposal would involve a second floor extension at the rear of the building and an extension to form a lift at the rear most part of the building. The applicant’s agent has submitted documents in support of the application including:- Plans and elevations Heritage Impact Assessment Planning Policy and Design and Access Statement Flood Risk Assessment All these documents are available for inspection in the Council’s Offices or on the Council’s website. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows: Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017
The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 defined as requiring EIA Screening.
National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied.
105
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
Paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out‑of‑date, permission should be granted unless: i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The following sections of the framework are applicable to this development: Part 12. Achieving well-designed places Part 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework
Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document
(Adopted December 2011):
Policy/Policies CS1, CS3 Policy/Policies DM4, DM5, DM8
Neighbourhood Plan Retford does not have a Neighbourhood Plan. The chart below shows the weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan set against the stage of the plan-making process.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 01\00\00104 – October, 2000 – Granted planning permission for ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO CREATE 17 FLATS 01\00\00103\L – October, 2000 – Granted listed building consent for ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS TO CREATE 17 FLATS
106
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
01\01\00120 – September, 2001 – Granted planning permission for ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSION TO LISTED BUILDING TO CREATE 6 FLATS, PUBLIC HOUSE AND ANCILLARY SPACE 01\01\00121\L – September, 2001 – Granted listed building consent for COMPREHENSIVE INTERNAL REORGANISATIONS, 2 STOREY REAR EXTENSION, EXTENSION TO EXISTING SECOND FLOOR AND MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING ELEVATIONS TO CREATE 6 FLATS AND PUBLIC HOUSE PLUS ANCILLARY SPACE 01\01\00015 – June, 2001 – Granted planning permission for CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR AND PART FIRST FLOOR TO PUBLIC HOUSE RESPONSES FROM STATUTORY BODIES: BASSETLAW CONSERVATION OFFICER has raised no concerns, subject to the imposition of conditions, commenting as follows:- 4 Chapelgate is a grade II Listed Building (first listed 5th November 1976) and is within the Retford Conservation Area (last designated 6th July 2011). The front part of the building dates to the early 18th century and was originally called the Crown Inn, one of several large coaching inns within the town. The ground floor, which originally had similar window openings to those above, was drastically altered in the 1960s, with large openings installed. Internally, no features of significance survive on the ground floor, although a simple cornice above the doorway is of interest. The upper floors of the historic building were converted into residential use in recent years, 6 units in total. The large ground floor openings either side of the door were also enlarged again, resulting in the present appearance. At the rear of the building is a large extension added in the early 2000s. Other than being built of brick, this structure is of no significance. The scheme would see the modern rear extension raised to provide room in the roofspace. The structure would be extended to the rear primarily to provide lift access and an escape staircase. The whole modern extension space would be converted to provide additional residential units. Finally, the front façade, ground floor, would see the large openings replaced with new smaller window openings more akin to the layout as per the 1911 appearance. Alterations to rear and internal space With regard to the alterations on the rear extension, the existing structure is of a modern construction and of no significance. The proposed works, although making the structure taller, would still not be visible from the road or any other public vantage points. Matching facing materials and timber windows/doors would be used. The internal works would be limited to the modern extension. On this basis, it is considered that the special interest of the Listed Building, and character of the wider Conservation Area, would be unaffected. Therefore, Conservation has no concerns with the rear element of the proposal from a heritage point of view, subject to conditions. Alterations to front The closing of the large 1960s openings and reinstallation of traditional narrow openings and fenestration is very much welcomed. This would, subject to appropriate joinery and finishes, result in an enhancement to the special interest of the Listed Building and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area overall. Therefore, Conservation has no concerns, subject to conditions. HISTORIC ENGLAND – does not wish to offer any comments
107
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
Copies of all the responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED:
RETFORD CIVIC SOCIETY – object to the proposed development, summarised as follows:- 1. surprised and disappointed that the Heritage Team support the application on the basis that the ground floor frontage windows are a desirable improvement 2. the reinstatement of original features does not necessarily make the development acceptable 3. proposal ignores the contribution of the building to the Conservation Area 4. loss of commercial function changes commercial character of the area, potentially harming the vitality of the town centre through the loss of a commercial frontage 5. consider that the changes would harm the appearance of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area 6. proposal go beyond what is needed to ensure that the building is fully used 7. Poor standard of accommodation is proposed, limited outdoor amenity space 8. the scale of the development should be reduced LOCAL RESIDENT neither objects nor supports the application but suggests that the applicant’s statement that they would target the 55+ age range should be imposed as a planning condition. Copies of all the detailed responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council Offices. CONSIDERATON OF PLANNING ISSUES: The main issues to be considered when determining this application are the requirements of national and local planning policies and the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Principle of development As policy CS1 is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process, part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged and this scheme must be considered under the tilted balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole. Having regards to the overall policy position as outlined above and the fact that the tilted balance test in paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies, consideration of whether this proposal constitutes sustainable development will be assessed in relation to the matters outlined below and a balanced decision will be reached in the conclusion to the report. If permitted, the development would secure the future of this valuable listed building and help maintain the viability of the town centre. It is considered that the special interest of the listed building and character of the wider Conservation Area, would be unaffected by the alterations to the rear and the internal space. With regard to the alterations to front of the building, the closing of the large 1960s openings and reinstallation of traditional narrow openings and fenestration is welcomed. This would result in an enhancement to the special interest of the Listed Building and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area overall.
108
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
The extent of marketing information is limited, however, in light of the outdated policies of the Local Plan and the conservation benefits of finding a new use and new investment into the listed building, albeit for residential purposes, it is appropriate to apply the titled balance test. Although the ground floor commercial element of the building would be lost, the proposal does support its long-term conservation and reduces the risk of a heritage assets not being in use and the dis-benefits that follow. Heritage Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that the historic environment shall be protected and enhanced to secure its long term future and that any development that would be detrimental to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting, will not be supported. This is reiterated in paragraph 194 of Part 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that any harm to or loss of the significance of heritage assets should require clear and convincing justification. In considering Policy DM8 and NPPF paragraphs 192, 193 and 196 the Conservation Team are confident that the use is consistent with the building’s conservation and have not raised any concerns regarding the impact of the proposed extension and alterations to the historic interest and architectural merit of the building. Retford Civic Society have raised concerns that the loss of the commercial use to the ground floor of the building would result in harm to the character of the town centre. The site comprises a single building in this much larger heritage asset of the conservation area and, as such, the degree of harm to the conservation area, if any, could only be considered as less than substantial, in which case the application would be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits are defined in Planning Policy Guidance.
Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework. Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.
Public benefits may include heritage benefits, such as:
sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting
reducing or removing risks to a heritage asset
securing the optimum viable use of a heritage asset in support of its long term conservation
Although the commercial element of the building would be lost, the proposal would support its long-term conservation and reduces the risk of a heritage asset remaining vacant and the dis-benefits that follow. It is considered that there are benefits with the proposal and as such it is considered that an objection could not be sustained on Conservation grounds alone. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal would not result in harm to the listed building and would therefore accord with the provisions of the above policy and guidance. Financial Implications The proposed listed building development is not CIL liable.
109
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
Conclusion As the Core Strategy is deemed to be out of date having regards to the contents of paragraph 33 of the NPPF, paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes it clear that the scheme should be considered under the tilted balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole. The benefits of the development would include 21 new apartments and the historic environment would be protected and enhanced by securing the improvements to the listed building in terms of its long term future and the development would not be detrimental to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting. The extent of marketing information is limited, however, in light of the outdated policies of the Local Plan and the conservation benefits, albeit for residential purposes, it is appropriate to apply the titled balance test. It is considered that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the visual amenity of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the heritage asset. Although the ground floor commercial element of the building would be lost, the proposal does support its long-term conservation and reduces the risk of a heritage assets not being in use and the dis-benefits that follow. It is considered that the proposed development of the site is acceptable in principle and, if permitted, the development would secure the future of this valuable listed building and help maintain the viability of the town centre. Having regards to benefits outlined above, and the scale and form of the development, it is considered that these outweigh any identified harm and as such the proposal would constitute sustainable development as defined in paragraph 11 of the NPPF and accordingly the scheme can be granted planning permission. RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions 1. The works to which this consent relates shall be begun no later than three years from
the date of this consent.
Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act. 2. The works hereby given consent shall be carried out only in accordance with the
details and specifications shown on the amended drawing number 06 Rev C received on the 21st December, 2018.
Reason: To ensure that the works take the agreed form envisaged by the Local Planning Authority when determining the application and to preserve the special interest of the listed building.
3. The facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted
shall match those used in the construction of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development.
110
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
4. All new external joinery including windows and doors shall be of a timber construction only. Details of their design, specification, method of opening, method of fixing and finish, including the design of any outer framing, in the form of drawings and sections of no less than 1:20 scale, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before works commence. The works shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: Inadequate details of these matters have been submitted with the application and in order to ensure that the works preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
5. In relation to the above condition, trickle vents shall not be inserted into the
windows/doors hereby granted consent.
Reason: To preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
6. Before any repainting of the existing first and second floor windows takes place,
details of the paint colour/type/brand to be used on these windows shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the paint colour is appropriate to the historic setting and preserves the special interest of the Listed Building.
7. The new windows on the frontage hereby permitted shall be set into reveals of a
distance to match those existing window openings found on the first and second floor of the frontage.
Reason: To ensure the new windows are installed to reflect traditional joinery and to preserve the special interest of the Listed Building.
8. Before the rendered frontage is repainted, details of the paint colour/brand/type to be
used on the frontage shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the paint colour is appropriate to the historic setting and preserves the special interest of the Listed Building.
9. Before the new flats hereby approved are occupied, the existing fascia and projecting
signs shall be removed.
Reason: The present projecting sign is unauthorised and its removal, together with the removal of the fascia lettering, would enhance the appearance of the Listed Building.
111
G:\REPORTS\PLANNING\24TH APRIL 19\FINAL\ITEM 3 REPORT.DOC
112
113
114
NO SITE VISIT Item No: a4
Application Ref. 18/00467/OUT
Application Type Outline Planning Application
Site Address Land To The North Of Claylands Avenue, Worksop.
Proposal Proposed Residential Development of Houses, Apartments, Bungalows with Associated Adoptable Access Road, Private Courtyards, Parking Spaces
Case Officer Dylan Jones
Recommendation Refuse permission
Web Link: Link to Planning Documents
THE APPLICATION Site Context The site lies on the northern side of Claylands Avenue in Worksop with adjoining residential development on its eastern boundary and allotments to its northern boundary. To the west and south-west an industrial estate continues. The site was formerly in a commercial use but has lain vacant for some years. The site has an area of approximately 7400 square metres and rises significantly in a westerly direction. Proposal This scheme sought permission to erect up to 40 dwellings with an associated access on land to the north of Claylands Avenue. It was proposed to use the existing access with a road running internally serving the dwellings with side and to the north internally. The application as submitted was in outline form and was accompanied by an indicative layout of how the site could be developed at the later reserved matters stage. This application was considered by the planning committee on the 15th August 2018 where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 agreement. A decision on this case has yet to be issued as the S106 remains uncompleted.
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011
The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 defined as requiring EIA Screening.
115
National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied. The following paragraphs apply: Para 56 – Tests applied to a legal agreement Para 57 - Contributions and viability assessments Para 92(e) - Places great weight on providing an integrated approach in decision making to the location of housing, economic uses, community facilities and services. Para 94 – Development and the provision of school places. Para 96 – Development and the delivery of quality open space. Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework
Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan
Document (Adopted December 2011):
Policy/Policies CS1, CS2, DM4, DM5, DM7, DM9, DM11, DM12, DM13 (
Neighbourhood Plan (including status and relevant policies)
Worksop is not a Neighbourhood Plan area and as such, there isn’t an adopted Neighbourhood Plan in place for consideration as part of this scheme.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 14\00393\OUT – Outline planning permission for up to 32 dwellings and exiting access alteration- Withdrawn
116
PLANNING ISSUES This scheme came before the Planning Committee on the 15th August 2018 where a resolution was made to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 agreement. The scheme sought permission for 40 dwellings and contributions were sought under S106 of the Planning Act to mitigate the impact of the scheme on local infrastructure in line with the requirements of the Council’s adopted policies. The following contributions were requested in line with paragraph 56 of the NPPF:
Affordable Housing at 15% of the total (6 dwellings) An Education contribution of £91,640 towards improvements at the Redlands Primary
School to cater for the additional pupil places needed at the school as a consequence of this development.
A Public Open Space contribution of £7,172.50 in lieu of the provision of open space on site and to facilitate improvements elsewhere within the locality.
A contribution of £2500 towards improvements to the BA0443 and BA0468 bus stops on Hamilton Street.
In reaching a decision on this case, the contents of section 57 of the NPPF is applicable as it makes it clear that where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. The NPPF goes on to state that the weight given to viability assessments is up to the decision maker and this depends on the circumstances of the case. Paragraph 92(e) of the NPPF is also applicable as it places great weight on providing an integrated approach in decision making to the location of housing, economic uses, community facilities and services. Paragraph 94 of the NPPF also places great emphasis on the need to make school places available to meet the needs of new communities. Paragraph 96 places great emphasis on the delivery of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity in relation to development as it is important for the health and well-being of communities. The site was formerly in a commercial use and the case was originally recommended for approval to the committee on the basis that the proposal would bring back a vacant site into a beneficial use. Furthermore, it would provide 40 additional houses into the area and this would also bring short term construction related jobs and long term economic benefits due to the occupiers of the new dwellings contributing to the local economy. In considering the loss of the previous commercial use of the land, significant weight was attached to the benefits that the scheme would bring to the locality in terms of the contributions which would help the scheme to meet the community infrastructure requirements as outlined in paragraphs 92(e), 94 and 96 of the NPPF. The Planning Committee on the 15th August 2018 agreed with the officer recommendation to approve this scheme on the basis that a S106 agreement was to be completed to bring forwards the necessary infrastructure improvements outlined by the Council’s consultees. This case was brought to the 6th March 2019 Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse as after almost seven months from the date of the original resolution to approve, there appeared to be very little prospect that the S106 agreement was going to be completed. However, a decision on the case was deferred at the 6th March meeting as the applicant had seen the amended resolution to refuse permission for the scheme and had contacted the Council and advised that they now wished to progress with signing the notice.
117
Following the deferment of the case, the Planning Committee also resolved that should the legal agreement have not been signed by the 3 April Planning Committee meeting, that the case should be returned to that meeting and the position with it reconsidered again. The 3rd April meeting was cancelled and as such, this case could not be reconsidered at that time. However 7 weeks have now elapsed since the 6th March meeting and very little progress has been made in this period by the applicant to complete the agreement. CONCLUSION The report put before the committee on the 15th August 2018 recommended that the scheme constituted sustainable development which should be approved permission under the requirements of paragraph 11 of the NPPF as the benefits that it would bring were considered to significantly outweigh its negative aspects. This recommendation was only on the basis that the S106 agreement that accompanied the application was signed to ensure that the necessary local infrastructure to support 40 new dwellings was brought forwards. Paragraph 57 of the NPPF is clear that contributions expected from developments that comply with policy will be assumed to be viable. Should contributions not make a scheme viable, then it is expected that a viability assessment is submitted for consideration and the weight apportioned to its contents is up to the Council to determine. In this case, the applicant has submitted a viability report, but the accompanying documents with it state that it relates to a new and different application that the applicant intends to submit for this site. As this is the case, it is clear that the requirements of paragraph 56 and 57 of the NPPF apply to this scheme as it is not considered to be acceptable without the provision of the necessary community infrastructure that is required under paragraphs 92(e), 94 and 96 of the NPPF and policy CS2 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy. As almost 8 months have now elapsed since the original resolution to approve this scheme, it is considered that the prospect of completing the s106 agreement appears to be highly unlikely and the prospect of achieving the infrastructure that is necessary to make this development acceptable is not forthcoming. Therefore, having regards to the planning balance test in paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it is considered that this will count heavily against the scheme as the adverse impacts of the scheme would now significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that it would bring. As such, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of paragraphs 57, 92(e), 94 and 96 of the NPPF and the requirements of policy CS2 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy. CIL CALCULATION The original CIL liability will stand if the S106 agreement is signed and a positive decision is made on this scheme. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the scheme is REFUSED permission for the following reason:
This proposal fails to constitute sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11 of the NPPF as the adverse impact of the scheme: namely the fact that the community infrastructure requirements for affordable housing, funding to provide education places, public open space and improvements in public transport that are necessary in relation to the provision of 40 dwellings on site cannot be delivered and this would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that the scheme would bring. The scheme is therefore contrary to the requirements of policy CS2 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and paragraphs 57, 92(e), 94 and 96 of the NPPF.
118
119
120
ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT Item No: a5
Application Ref. 18/01603/PIP
Application Type Permission in Principle
Site Address Rosedean Farm Mark Lane East Markham Nottinghamshire NG22 0QU
Proposal Residential Development Not Exceeding Nine Dwellings
Case Officer Mandy Freeman
Recommendation GTD – Grant
Web Link: Link to Planning Documents
THE APPLICATION Site Context The site is on the edge of the village of East Markham outside the development boundary as defined in Bassetlaw Local Development Framework and outside the East Markham Conservation Area. It is currently occupied by the Scrumpy Wasp Cider brewery with on-site bar with car parking under the Dutch barn and within the former farmyard, and with planning permission for associated events plus overflow car parking in the adjacent paddock. Proposal The application is for Permission in Principle for up to 9 residential dwellings. The scope of permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development. Issues relevant to these ‘in principle’ matters should be considered at the permission in principle
stage. Other matters should be considered at the technical details consent stage. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows: Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017
The proposal does not fall into any of the categories of development contained in Schedule 1 or 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 defined as requiring EIA Screening.
121
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) presumes in favour of sustainable development. The principle of residential development within sustainable settlements is acceptable under Policy CS1 of Bassetlaw LDF which requires that the distribution of new development in Bassetlaw, over the period covered by this Core Strategy, will be in accordance with the aims of the settlement hierarchy (i.e. to ensure that the scale of new development is appropriate in relation to the size, function and regeneration opportunities of each tier). Paragraph 33 of the NPPF makes it clear that spatial development strategies (be they Core Strategies, Local Plans or Neighbourhood Plans) must be reviewed every 5 years from their adoption to ensure that they remain up to date and relevant in decision making. The Bassetlaw District Core Strategy has not been reviewed in the last 5 years and the Council is progressing towards adopting its new local plan, as such, paragraph 33 makes it clear that the Core Strategy is now out of date for decision taking and limited weight can be accorded to the support it gives this scheme. Due to the fact the Core Strategy is now out of date, the decision on this case falls to be made under the tilted balance test in paragraph 11 of the NPPF which states that permission must be granted unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
Part 5 (Supply of Homes) Part 9 (Sustainable Transport) Part 11 (Effective use of Land) Part 12 (Achieving Well Designed Places) Part15 (Natural Environment)
Paragraph 12 of the NPPF also relates to Neighbourhood Plans and emphasises that where an up to date Neighbourhood Plan is in force, it shall be used as the starting point for decision making. East Markham has been designated as a Neighbourhood Plan area, and has an adopted Neighbourhood Plan that is less than 5 years old. Therefore, significant weight can be accorded to it when carrying out the tilted balance test to determine this application.
The Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement published in October 2018 shows that the Council has a current deliverable housing supply of 2,681 dwellings, which equates to a 7.9-year supply when assessed against the total five-year housing target of 1,701 dwellings.
122
Bassetlaw District Council – Local Development Framework
Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan
Document (Adopted December 2011):
Policy/Policies CS1, CS8. Policy/Policies DM3, DM4, DM5, DM9, DM12, DM13.
Neighbourhood Plan (including status and relevant policies)
Following a successful referendum on the 26th April 2018, the East Markham Neighbourhood Plan is now ’made’ and forms part of the statutory local development plan. The chart below shows the weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan set against the stage of the plan-making process. It can therefore be accorded full weight.
Neighbourhood Plan Considerations Community Objective 2: To ensure that new development is small in scale and designed to a high quality to reflect the distinctive local character of the village including the character within and outside of the conservation area boundary. Community Objective 3: To ensure that future housing growth provides a mix of house types particularly smaller dwellings (including bungalows) to meet local as well as district needs for properties for downsizing and for starter homes. Community Objective 4: To improve pedestrian safety in the village by ensuring that on street parking is minimised POLICY NP1: Development Design Principles POLICY NP2: A Mix of Housing Types POLICY NP7: Reducing the Risk of Flooding POLICY NP8: Car Parking on Residential Development RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 16/90/00017 Planning permission was granted for change of use to Class B1 on 14 December 1990. When planning permission was granted for the change of use to Class B1 to allow the operation of the cider making business, a condition was attached limiting the change of use to land outlined in the application. 17/00790/COU Planning permission was granted to Retain Change of use of Existing Agricultural/Light Industrial Buildings to Allow the Manufacture of Alcoholic Beverages With the Provision for Tasting and the Sales and Consumption of Products on site and Create Car Parking Area on 13 September 2017.
123
RESPONSE OF STATUTORY BODIES Bassetlaw Waste & Recycling The development would need sufficient access and safe egress for collection vehicles of 32 Tonnes GVW. Adequate room would need to be provided wherever vehicles are expected to turn round whilst on the development, and all roads would need to be built to adoptable highways standards. All properties would need to place bins out for collection to their boundary, otherwise communal collection points would need to be provided to the roadside. Whilst all properties will have two wheeled bins for residual and recycling waste, there is a further option of a brown wheeled bin for the opt in service of garden waste collection - this may or may not be a consideration when ensuring each property has sufficient room for bins.
East Markham Parish Council object to the proposal for the following reasons: Road Safety: The exit from this site is on to Mark Lane which at this point is outside the 30 mph speed limit, something the Parish Council has long considered to be dangerous. With work now underway at the former poultry farm site to build 41 homes which will also exit onto Mark Lane, Council is very concerned about both road safety on the lane and also of the Mark Lane/Beckland Hill junction where the sight lines both to the north and south are restricted. Combined with the additional housing on Beckland Hill which is currently being built, this puts yet more pressure on what the Parish Council believe is an unsafe road junction. Parking: The Parish Council question that sufficient parking could be provided on the proposed site for 9 dwellings in accordance with East Markham Neighbourhood Plan Policy NP8. There are already issues with on road parking in that area of the village which exacerbate the road safety issues mentioned above. Land Supply: Bassetlaw now has in excess of a 7.5 year land supply. East Markham has seen a disproportionate amount of planning permission being granted for new development for its size in recent years and the Parish Council feel that yet another development in the village is not needed. Brownfield Site: The Parish Council are concerned that this site is being put forward as brownfield. They do not agree with this designation and would urge planning officers to visit the site before considering the application on this basis. Nottinghamshire Highways Authority has no objection in principle, but has commented:
In addition to parking for any proposed development, an adequate amount of off-street parking / servicing / manoeuvring space must be kept available for any existing uses which will be retained.
The existing footway will need to be extended at the applicant’s expense, potentially
across the whole of the site frontage (depending upon the proposed layout). This may also require associated drainage works within the public highway.
The existing 30mph speed limit and street lighting will need to be extended (at the
applicant’s expense) as part of the works.
124
The layout (including visibility splays, gradients, turning heads etc.) should be designed in accordance with this Authority’s Highway Design Guide. Bassetlaw Environmental Health has commented in relation to noise that hours of construction should be limited to safeguard the amenities of local residents. No burning on site and in relation to contaminated land the site may have previously been used for potentially contaminative uses and there is the presence of a sensitive receptor. Development shall not commence until a phase 1 desk study and if required a phase 2 intrusive site investigation has been carried out to identify any contamination and any remedial measures necessary have been carried out. Historic Environment Officer has commented that no archaeological input is required. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES As previously stated, the scope of permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development. Matters such as visual amenity, residential amenity, the impact upon highway safety, drainage, ecology and any environmental protection considerations will be considered as part of any future application for technical details consent. Location Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision making. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy states that until the adoption of the site allocations DPD, development in the settlements identified in the hierarchy will be restricted to the area inside defined settlement boundaries. However, additional permission may be granted where the development proposal would address a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply or its employment land supply. Policy CS8 of the council’s Core Strategy identifies East Markham as a rural settlement that offers a range of services and facilities the makes it a suitable location for limited growth. The application site lies outside the defined East Markham development boundary and as such the scheme is not supported under policies CS1 and CS8 of the Core Strategy. Paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that policies in development plans should be reviewed and where necessary updated every 5 years. The Bassetlaw Core Strategy dates from 2011 and its policies have not been reviewed in the last 5 years as the Council is working on a new local plan to replace it. In this situation, paragraph 213 of the NPPF states that policies in an adopted development plan do not become automatically out of date because they were published before the framework; policies must be considered having regards to their consistency with the framework. The Core Strategy was prepared using a settlement hierarchy which included development limits to control development which is a similar scenario to the Doncaster appeal case outlined above. As such, it is considered that this approach is now inconsistent with that identified in the NPPF and as such, the weight given to policy CS1 is reduced. As policy CS1 is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process, part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged and this scheme must be considered under the tilted balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole.
125
In relation to the supply of housing, the NPPF requires Councils to identify and update, on an annual basis, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide for five years’ worth of housing provision against identified requirements (paragraphs 73 & 74). For sites to be considered deliverable: they have to be available; suitable; achievable and viable. Under the requirements of the new NPPF, the Council can demonstrate 7.9 years worth of housing and as such, a deliverable 5 years supply of housing can be achieved. The fact that the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply will be given weight and considered as part of all of the relevant material considerations in the tilted balance test assessment to this scheme. Having regards to the overall policy position as outlined previously and the fact that the tilted balance test in paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies, consideration of whether this proposal constitutes sustainable development will be assessed in relation to the matters outlined below and a balanced recommendation will be reached in the conclusion to the report. East Markham is a rural service centre, which is therefore considered a sustainable settlement, where housing is acceptable in principle subject to other material considerations in line with Policy CS8 of the Local Development Framework.
Therefore it can be argued that the proposed dwellings would be developed in the context of the above and would help to contribute towards the housing needs of the village of East Markham and the 5 year supply for the district and will also contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy through the creation of temporary construction related jobs and the on-going contribution to the economy of the village through the occupation of the houses. This scheme also meets the requirements of paragraph 78 of the NPPF which encourages schemes to promote sustainable development in rural areas by locating houses where they will enhance or maintain the viability of rural communities and allow them to grow especially where this will support local services. So therefore this scheme has benefits for the local community if approved which will need to be considered in reaching a balanced conclusion on this scheme.
The site is not within the Conservation Area for East Markham and there are no designated heritage assets within the setting of any development on the site, however the traditional farm buildings that form part of the proposed development site do form part of the historic form and character of the village being a loose knit character at the edge of the village.
Land use The site currently forms part of a former farm yard, which is now used for cider making as Scrumpy Wasp Cider. There is also a small on-site area for public to sample cider. NPPF paragraph 83 refers to sustainable growth, expansion and diversification of existing rural businesses. The development of the site for housing would result in the loss of an employment site. The supporting documents refer to the use of the buildings for other industrial processes as not being practical due to its location and transport links. However, the site is on the edge of the village, with fields to the south and east, limiting impact on neighbouring properties and East Markham is in close proximity to A1/A57/A620 junction at Markham Moor. Policy DM3 of the Local Development Framework, section B. refers to the re-use of previously developed land in rural areas outside of development boundaries. The current proposal does not meet the criteria set out in this policy.
126
NPPF paragraph 77 supports housing reflecting local needs, particularly where this enables affordable housing to come forward and NPPF paragraph 78 promotes housing to enhance and maintain the vitality of rural communities. The application is for PIP and there are insufficient details to demonstrate that it would meet these criteria. As such there is insufficient detail to establish whether the proposal is the most effective use of land and not undermine the economic sectors as set out in NPPF paragraph 121. Policy DM7 also aims to protect employment sites unless the benefits outweigh the loss of such sites. Amount of development The proposal is for residential development not exceeding nine dwellings. The proposal would therefore not be a major development that would require planning obligations. Community objective 2 of East Markham Neighbourhood Plan aims to ensure that new development is small in scale. The scale of the development would be acceptable in the context of East Markham with a new development recently of 9 dwellings nearby on Beckland Hill and 41 proposed on the former poultry factory site opposite. Application Summary- The Planning Balance Permission in Principle can only be considered on grounds of location, land use and amount of development. The amount of development proposed for up to 9 dwellings is considered appropriate in the context of East Markham. The proposal is an application for permission in principle for residential development not exceeding 9 dwellings. The site does not lie within the development limits for the settlement of East Markham and as such the scheme is contrary to the requirements of policies CS8 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy. Whilst the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year
supply of housing, the NPPF at paragraph 33 has deemed that strategic policies as contained in Core Strategies that have not been reviewed within 5 years of their adoption are now out of date, so therefore the weight to be apportioned to the Core Strategy policies is limited in decision making. The East Markham Neighbourhood Plan is a fully made and adopted document. The proposal reflects the community objective for small-scale developments. In terms of other Neighbourhood Plan policies in terms of layout, design, type and mix, as this is an application for permission in principle, these are not being considered at this time. As the Core Strategy is deemed to be out of date having regards to the contents of paragraph 33 of the NPPF, paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes it clear that the scheme should be considered under the tilted balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole.
127
The benefits of the proposal include the fact that up to 9 new dwellings will contribute towards housing supply in East Markham and in the wider district. The construction of the dwellings and their infrastructure will have a positive impact on the local economy in terms of construction related jobs and increased patronage for existing local facilities. The loss of the traditional farm buildings on the site and impact on the character of the village cannot be considered in detail until the technical details approval and is therefore considered to carry limited weight. In the absence of relevant up to date development plan policies, the balance is tilted in favour of sustainable development and granting planning permission except where the benefits are ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweighed by the adverse impacts or where
specific policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise. It is considered that the proposal for up to nine dwellings meet the policies in the NPPF and meet the overarching economic, social and environmental objectives in NPPF paragraph 8. It is not considered that the loss of the employment use or the demolition of the existing traditional farm buildings would significantly outweigh the benefits of the proposal for residential development on the site. RECOMMENDATION: Grant Permission in Principle
128
129