(public pack)agenda document for planning committee, 14 ...planning committee agenda meeting to be...

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Meeting to be held virtually through

Microsoft Teams software

on Wednesday, 14th October, 2020

at 6.30 pm

(This virtual meeting will be livestreamed to YouTube and

recorded, the meeting can be accessed at

https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/planningcommittee. The video

archive can be accessed on the Council’s website)

If you are participating in this virtual meeting, please turn mobile telephones to silent during meetings to avoid interruptions. 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 during Council meetings is permitted

in accordance with the Council’s protocol ‘Filming of Public Meetings’.

Public Document Pack

PLANNING COMMITTEE Membership 2019/20 Councillors: D G Pidwell, S Fielding, H M Brand, D Challinor, M Charlesworth,

G Freeman, G A N Oxby, M W Quigley MBE, M Richardson, N J Sanders, L Schuller and B Tomlinson.

Substitute Members: None. Quorum: 3 Members. Lead Officer for this Meeting J Krawcyzk Administrator for this Meeting J Lavender

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 14th October, 2020

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

(a) MEMBERS

(b) OFFICERS

3. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 SEPTEMBER 2020 (Pages 5 - 10)

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD 7 AND 21

SEPTEMBER 2020 (Pages 11 - 20)

5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST (Pages 21 - 22)

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(S) DECISION

None.

(c) PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND ASSOCIATED LTEMS (Pages 23 - 64)

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

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 533 232 or by e-mail

[email protected]

PLANNING COMMITTEE Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday, 16th September, 2020 at MS Teams Present: Councillor D G Pidwell (Chair) Councillors: S Fielding H M Brand D Challinor M Charlesworth G A N Oxby M Richardson N J Sanders L Schuller Officers in attendance: E Hinsley, J Krawczyk, J Lavender, S Wormald. Apologies: G Freeman M W Quigley MBE B Tomlinson (The meeting opened at 6.30 pm.) The Chair welcomed all to the virtual Planning Committee and explained that councils have been enabled to hold virtual meetings in order to allow business to be conducted while maintaining social distancing due to the outbreak of Covid-19. He then introduced Members and Officers by doing a roll call. The Chair outlined that in the event of the livestream failing or Members losing connection the meeting would be adjourned to allow the connection to be re-established. He also reminded participants to take appropriate safety precautions from their place of livestreaming. 106 APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Freeman, Quigley and Tomlinson. 107 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS 108 Members There were no declarations of interest received by Members. 109 Officers There were no declarations of interest by officers. 110 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26 AUGUST 2020 RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 26th August 2020 be approved. 111 MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 10 AND 24 AUGUST 2020 RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 10th and 24th August 2020 be noted. 112 OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST RESOLVED that the outstanding minutes list be noted.

Agenda Item 3

PLANNING COMMITTEE

113 REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION 114 Public Interest Test (Ms B Alderton-Sambrook, Head of Regeneration, has deemed that all Items on the Agenda are not confidential) 115 Planning Applications and Associated ltems Application No

Applicant Location and Proposal

19/01653/FUL Rose & Co Developments Ltd

Land South Of Ranskill Churchyard, Great North Road, Ranskill, DN22 8NW. Erect 20 Dwellings (A Mix of 3, 4, and 5 Bedroomed Properties) With Associated Parking and Access and the Provision of Communal Open Space.

Members were advised that the application sought full planning permission to erect 20 dwellings (a mix of 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed properties) with associated parking and access and the provision of communal open space on land south of Ranskill Churchyard, Great North Road, Ranskill, DN 22 8NW. The application site lies to the north of the settlement form of Torworth and covers an area of approximately 1.5 hectares and is enclosed with mature hedgerows. There is an existing field access off the Great North Road. Torworth stretches north along the A638, with the majority of the settlement lying to the east of the road. The settlement forms a continuous ribbon until it meets the southern edge of the Site. The northern edge of the site is bounded by the Ranskill Church Graveyard with the church lying some 270m further north. It is proposed to erect 20 dwellings on the site with a new access being taken from Great North Road with the proposed dwellings being served by a private driveway which would extend through the site. In order to meet visibility splays three trees will need to be removed from Great North Road, however it is proposed to plant 48 trees within the development along with hedgerows. Slides were used to show site plans, proposed access, layout and landscaping, dwelling designs and photographs of the current site. It should be noted that Nottinghamshire County Council Highways have concerns regarding the internal layout of the site, specifically around vehicles emerging from the dwellings on to the private driveway. Torworth and Ranskill Parish Town Councils have objected to the development and 11 letters of objection have also been received which included the following:

The coalescence of the villages of Torworth and Ranskill;

The site is outside the designated village boundary;

Loss of agricultural land and natural habitats;

The adverse impact on the serenity of the graveyard;

Dwelling designs not in keeping with village character;

Noise and disturbance caused by the construction;

The detrimental impact on visual amenity;

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Overdevelopment, there is no need for another 20 dwellings. The applicant has submitted a landscape and visual impact appraisal which concluded that the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the village setting and is only visible at a short distance. To assess the developments impact the Council .contracted an independent chartered landscape architect who concluded that the scheme would not have a substantial visual impact on the surrounding landscape. Councillor Paul Nicholls spoke in opposition on behalf of Ranskill and Torworth Parish Councils on the following grounds:

The site falls outside of the development boundary;

The development was included during its neighbourhood plan, however its overall rating (38%) was low compared to other sites and so it did not progress;

The site is too close to the cemetery;

Erosion of the villages separate identities;

The site is not within walking distance of local amenities which will increase stress on highways, exacerbate parking and access issues.

Mr James Helliwell spoke in objection on the following grounds:

Enough residential land has been identified within Torworth and Ranskill for 10 years and therefore this site is not necessary;

Torworth residents would be expected to cover the additional costs from the increase in their settlement even though the site is in Ranskill who would therefore receive financial support;

The development is not seeking to address the affordable housing issue;

Concerns that the peaceful atmosphere of the adjacent cemetery will be affected;

The application seeks to retain all internal roads privately which could potentially lead to a future gated community and hinder assimilation with the wider local community;

The Highways Authority have recommended a refusal as the development would not offer a suitable and safe means of access;

The Ranskill village plan has identified a suitable site to the north of the village which could accommodate 111 houses;

The loss of open countryside and the coalescence of the two villages.

Mr Dean Dixon, the applicant, spoke in support of the application on the following grounds:

The company supports the local economy by using local trades from Worksop, Retford and the surrounding areas;

This development would maintain job security for the existing team as well as creating additional jobs;

There are also 12 apprenticeships ongoing at present with additional roles to be generated should this development progress;

All properties are spacious family homes on above average sized plots, including affordable homes, both houses and bungalows, all ranging between three and five bedrooms;

The development has been designed to recreate the historic feel and heritage of Torworth, with the use of traditional materials and the plotting of houses around a courtyard.

In response to questions submitted by Members in advance of the meeting the Planning Development Manager advised that the County Council as the education authority have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate places arising from this development; the local planning authority do not consider the internal layout to have a detrimental effect on

PLANNING COMMITTEE

highway safety; it is considered that the removal of three street trees is mitigated by the planting proposed within the site; the nearest play facilities are approximately 850 metres away on Mattersey Road, Ranskill. Members raised questions and concerns relating to:

Clarification on the development’s relation to Ranskill and Torworth Parish Councils;

Whether any mining subsidence surveys have been completed to as the area has suffered from mining subsidence in the past;

Whether building envelope boundaries can be used as a reason for refusal;

The removal of trees and hedging;

The Highways Authority’s concerns regarding access to the site

The Highways Authority’s concerns regarding footways and pedestrian access;

Whether there are any concerns around the refuse team being able to access and manoeuvre around the site;

Regarding the removal of trees, is this a series of trees which would then be rendered visually inconsistent;

The responsibility of the planted trees;

The responsibility of the roads on the internal layout;

Whether species included in the landscaping plan are indigenous to the area;

In response the Planning and Development Manager advised:

The parish boundary runs directly along southern site border meaning that although the site will lie in Ranskill Parish, it will effectively be an extension to Torworth. Torworth will see the impact of the development but Ranskill will receive the CIL monies. However this would not be a material consideration for a refusal as the company will be paying all required contributions and so mitigating its impact.

The Coal Authority has not identified the area as being high risk for development so there was no requirement to undertake any surveys. However footing and foundation solutions will have to be agreed with Building Control to ensure they are suitable for the land being developed.

As neither village has a current neighbourhood plan it is considered that the core strategy is out of date and as such the boundaries cannot be afforded a great deal of weight and should not be used as a reason for refusal;

The only removal of hedgerows is to facilitate the access point and the updated report shows that it is not considered that there is any unnecessary removal of trees or hedgerows;

The Highways Authority has not raised concerns regarding access to the site. Their concerns relate to visibility on the internal layout, however, this can encourage safer driving and given the type of development the driveway will be predominantly used by residents and visitors.

The proposed footways are a metre wide which the Highways Authority considers to be inadequate however officers have assessed this and determined it to be an acceptable arrangement as the character that the developer is attempting to capture would otherwise be eroded;

A refuse wagon would be able to access, manoeuvre around the site and leave again safely;

As the trees are not evenly spaced and in fact quite irregularly positioned this should not look incongruous;

The maintenance of the landscaped areas on the site would fall to the applicant who has submitted a landscape management plan and a biodiversity management plan has also been set as one of the conditions;

PLANNING COMMITTEE

The maintenance of roads would be the responsibility of the developer as a private driveway;

Trees in the landscaping plan include, lime, white beam, apple, pear, cherry, scots pine, silver birch, field maple and magnolia.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant subject to conditions and the execution of a S106 agreement/ unilateral undertaking with the obligations as detailed within the Infrastructure/ Contributions and Highways sections of the Report. COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant subject to conditions and the execution of a S106 agreement/ unilateral undertaking with the obligations as detailed within the infrastructure/Contributions and Highways sections of the Report. 116 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. (The meeting closed at 8.00 pm.)

This page is intentionally left blank

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 7th September 2020 via MS Teams Present: Councillors D G Pidwell, S Fielding, H Brand, M Quigley MBE. Officers in attendance: L Dore and J Krawczyk. (Meeting opened at 4:00pm). 210. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Councillor G Freeman. 211. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None. 212. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No. Description

20/00620/FUL

Erect Employment and Distribution Development Floorspace (Use Classes B1, B2, and B8), Drainage Works, Associated Car and HGV Parking, Associated Warehouse Plant and Infrastructure, Utilising the Existing Access of A57 at DHL (Phase 3), Sherwood Drive, Manton Wood, Worksop.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for development of a further warehouse building as Phase 3 of the DHL industrial development off the A57 Worksop Bypass, Manton Wood, Worksop. Phase 3 comprises a smaller building (18.5m in height), than for permission requested in Phase 2 (approx. 30m in height), and also includes for office accommodation, car and HGV parking and a separate gatehouse at the site entrance. Site plans, designs and structural elevations had been circulated to Members prior to the start of the meeting. Members were further advised that the proposed development will sit at a lower ground level due to land grading and therefore the visual impact will be much less than Phase 2 which was a much larger building that has now been granted permission. No objections to the application had been received from Highways, Nottinghamshire County Council Policy Team, the Environment Agency, the Gardens Trust, Environmental Health, Natural England or Lead Local Flood Authority. The Council’s Conservation Team and the National Trust had however, objected to the application due to the close proximity to Clumber Park, a heritage asset and the lack of assessment provided in respect of the impact upon heritage assets. Historic England had not formally objected but commented that the Local Planning Authority should be satisfied that enough information has been provided to allow as an assessment to be undertaken in respect of the impact on nearby heritage assets. The applicant had not submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment but had included a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. It was noted that the proposed development would not be seen from the access road to Clumber Park and as it would not be visible, the impact was acceptable. Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Agenda Item 4

Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision.


20/00772/FUL

Erection of 5 Bedroom Detached House at Plot 1, Land at Mattersey Road, Sutton cum Lound.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for the erection of a five-bedroom house on Plot 1, Land at Mattesey Road, Sutton cum Lound. There had previously been several other applications submitted at this site, including for 8 residential units, i.e. 3 dwellings on Lound Low Road and 5 dwellings on Mattersey Road. The land has Outline Planning Permission and no further Reserved Matters can be proposed due to the expiry date having passed, hence this Full Application. Site plans, property plans and elevations of the proposed property had been circulated to Members prior to the start of the meeting. Members were further advised that there is also a current application for 9 dwellings on land to the rear of the proposed development, (delayed due to a S106 Agreement being required for affordable housing and education), and that this application had been received in the interim. No objections had been received from Highways. Comments had been received from 2 members of the public citing:

The proposed development is too large and at odds with existing properties.

It would have an overlooking impact.

The development should have a 1.8m high solid boundary treatment imposed by condition.

Sutton Parish Council had objected on the following grounds:

The development is piecemeal.

Houses would not be in keeping with a road which mainly contained bungalows.

There is insufficient infrastructure.

It is on the opposite side of the road to a Listed church (a Heritage asset).

The size of the proposed property is detrimental to the Heritage asset. In response to comments and objections, Members were advised:

To the side elevation, upper floor windows would be of obscure glass as the window is to an en-suite bathroom, therefore not overlooking.

There is already permission on the frontage for 4 two-storey dwellings with Plots 2 and 3 granted planning permission for properties of a similar scale.

The development for 8 dwellings had already been approved and on approval it was not considered that the development would impact on the church or its setting.

The proposed 8 dwelling development is currently delayed due to discussions regarding a S106 Agreement as collectively the site would have permission for 14 dwellings, i.e. in excess of 10 dwellings which would therefore require an S106 Agreement.

The application is part of a larger planning application. With a ‘piecemeal’ development, the total number of dwellings are always considered and the impact mitigated.

The proposed 5-bedroom dwelling on this plot replaces a previously proposed 4-bedroom property.

Any treatment of the boundary and a restriction on limited development rights would be prescribed by condition to protect the character of the scheme.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision.


17/00300/OUT Variation of the Section 106 Agreement of Planning Permission to Gate Cottage and Land to the south of Lound Low Road, Sutton cum Lound

Members were advised of a request for a variation to the Section 106 Agreement in reference to planning permission granted at Gate Cottage and land to the south of Lound Low Road, Sutton cum Lound. The outline planning application in 2017 for a residential development had been refused but then subsequently approved by the Inspector on appeal in 2018. The current Section 106 Agreement provides for 25% affordable housing and requires a scheme to offer the properties, (8 dwellings), to an affordable housing provider (AHP). However, no AHP, or the Council, wished to manage these properties. The proposed variation to the S106 Agreement is to construct 4 affordable housing units on the site within 12 months of the initial site set up and that these be marketed for sale to Qualifying purchasers, initially off plan, for a period of eight months at a discounted price 20% below market value. Should they not sell, they would be marketed for a further four months to non-residents of Bassetlaw who otherwise meet the Qualifying Criteria. This alteration is permissible as set out in paragraph (d) of the Annex 2 glossary of the NNPF (2019) which defines affordable housing. The current scheme provides for the Council to receive £675k therefore in lieu of these dwellings, the Council would instead receive a 50% contribution, i.e. £337k. Members were advised that the £337k would be ring-fenced for other Council affordable housing schemes including refurbishment. Initial officer recommendation – Approve the Variation to the Section 106 Agreement – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision. (Meeting ended at 4:30 pm).

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 21st September 2020 via MS Teams Present: Councillors D G Pidwell, S Fielding and H Brand. Officers in attendance: J Krawczyk and J Lavender. (Meeting opened at 4:05pm). 213. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Cllr Mike Quigley MBE. 214. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST A non-pecuniary declaration of interest was received from Cllr David Pidwell regarding PA 19/01137/RES, therefore he did not participate in this item. 215. PLANNING APPLICATIONS


20/00714/FUL 20/00713/LBA

Change of Use From Dwellinghouse (C3) to Guest House (C1) including Minor Alterations to Fabric, Proposed Car Parking, Access Improvements, Solar Panels, Plant Room (Energy Centre), Repairs and Maintenance of Existing Building. Cuckney House, Langwith Road, Cuckney.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for a Change of Use of Cuckney House from a Dwellinghouse to a Guest House, including minor alterations to the fabric of the property, proposed car parking, access improvements, solar panels, plant room, repairs and maintenance to the existing building. Cuckney House lies off the A60 south of Cuckney and is a Grade II listed property. Documents containing the floor plans, site plans, layouts and proposed elevations were circulated to members prior to the meeting. The Parish Council had raised an objection regarding the loss of amenity to neighbouring properties and the development being a detriment to the Conservation and Heritage status of the area. As the site sits in an isolated position and the neighbouring properties being sited quite a long way from this site, the Planning Team consider there would be a no significant detriment to the amenity of the surrounding properties, with the exception of the occasional wedding or private function. The Conservation Team worked closely with the applicant to make sure any improvements to the building were suitable to protect its listed status and the status of the surrounding area. No objections from received from members. Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision.


20/00126/FUL

Demolition of the Existing Bagging Warehouse and the Erection of a New Attached Warehouse at the Eastern Part of the Site, Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Social-Club Building. Albion Mills, Eastgate, Worksop.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for the demolition of an existing bagging warehouse and the erection of a new attached warehouse at the eastern part of the Albion Mills Site in Eastgate, Worksop, as well as the demolition of an existing office building and social-club building. The area of vacant land in question was in the ownership of the company based at Albion Mills. Documents containing the site plans, proposed elevations and photographs of the site were circulated to members prior to the meeting. Although the site lies within the Worksop Conservation Area, no objections regarding the visual impact of the development were raised from the Council’s Conversation Team. The Nottinghamshire County Council’s Highways Authority raised no objections to the application and the Applicant had submitted a detailed Transport Assessment which explained how they would mitigate the impact of additional traffic arising from this development. Four objections were raised from members of the public living in houses to east of the site. They objected upon the following grounds;

Increase in noise pollution;

Increase in dust pollution;

Increase in traffic.

The Applicant had submitted a Detailed Noise Impact Assessment, which included a list of machinery types and the maximum noise levels they can emit. A planning condition was included to limit external noise from the site to 79 decibels. The Environmental Health Team raised no objections. Members raised concerns about the impact of the development upon the Albion Mill Building, which has architectural and historical interest to the area, but the Planning Development Manager reiterated that the Planning department would never support its demolition. It was also confirmed that the Conservation Team raised no objections to this application. Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision.


20/00497/RES

Reserved Matters Application for the Approval of Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale for the Erection of 33 Dwellings with Associated Highways, Parking and Open Space following Outline Application 17/00300/OUT. Gate Cottage And Land To South, Lound Low Road, Sutton Cum Lound.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 33 dwellings with associated highways, parking and open space. An outline application had been previously refused by the Council but a successful appeal was made by the applicant. Cllr Rob Boeuf requested that this application be considered by Planning Committee on the following grounds;

Overlooking and loss of amenity of neighbouring properties;

Diversion of the main sewer through Sutton Cum Lound would exacerbate existing capacity;

The Development would be detrimental to highway safety. The Nottinghamshire County Council Highways Authority, Severn Trent Water, the Flood Agency and Lincolnshire Archaeology raised no objections to this application. Sutton Cum Lound Parish Council raised similar objections to Cllr Boeuf on the grounds of insufficient drainage and concerns about the diversion of the sewers in the village. Concerns were also raised regarding the layout of the site and the impact of local wildlife. Natural England identified badgers on site, so measures would be included to mitigate the loss of their habitat. The Wildlife Trust raised concerns that the applicant’s mitigation measures for the loss of habitat were insufficient. 70 letters of objections were received from members of the public based on the following grounds:

Foul drainage system;

Lack of facilities to support an increase in population;

Increase in traffic;

The development would have detrimental impact to the local character of the village;

Overshadowing of neighbouring properties;

The development is against the Neighbourhood Plan;

Density of the scheme is inappropriate;

Only 8, 3-bed houses. 2 letters of support were received for this application. A variation to the S106 Agreement was approved at the last PCG meeting on 7th September 2020 to construct 4 affordable housing units on the site within 12 months of the initial site set up. These would be marketed for sale to Qualifying purchasers, initially off plan, for a period of eight months at a discounted price 20% below market value. Should they not sell, they would be marketed for a further four months to non-residents of Bassetlaw who otherwise meet the Qualifying Criteria. The current scheme provides for the Council to receive £675,000 therefore in lieu of these dwellings, the Council would instead receive a 50% contribution, i.e. £337,000. Members were advised that the £337,000 would be ring-fenced for other Council affordable housing schemes including refurbishment. Access to the site was already approved at outline stage. The mixture of properties proposed will add visual interest and be in keeping with the character of the village. The Lead Local Flood Authority did not raise any objections to the scheme over surface water drainage.

It would be Severn Trent Water’s responsibility to maintain or divert the sewers. Members felt that because Cllr Boeuf had called in this decision, it was necessary to discuss this application at Planning Committee. Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer to Planning Committee.


19/01137/RES Reserved Matters Application for the Approval of Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale Following the Granting of Hybrid Application 15/01457/FUL to Erect 400 Dwellings. Former Firbeck Colliery, Doncaster Road, Costhorpe.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of a hydrid application to erect 400 dwellings on the former Firbeck Colliery site in Costhorpe. Dwelling designs and site layouts were circulated to members prior to the meeting. Concerns were raised from Case Officers about the dwellings abutting the existing commercial sites. In response, the applicant amended the layout to propose a bund between the two sites. The Case Officers also raised concerns about the design quality of the site layout which have now been addressed. No objections were received from the Environmental Health Team or the Flood Authority. The Wildlife Trust raised no objections and welcomed the financial contribution that is being made to fund improvements to the nearby local wildlife site. The Parish Council supported the proposal. Local residents have raised no objections and 5 letters of support were received. Members asked questions about the full history of application process. The application was submitted in 2015 and referred to Planning Committee in 2017. The final Section 106 agreement was made last year. Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision.


19/01635/FUL Proposed New Replacement Dwelling. Land At Prospect Farm, Springs Road, Misson.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the construction of a new, 2-storey replacement dwelling. Photographs, designs and site layouts were circulated prior to the meeting.

The original proposal was for a much larger and more contemporary dwelling due to the high roof pitch. The Applicant has since amended the proposal. When Planning requested amendments to the proposals, the Case Officer looked at existing properties in the area. Misson Parish Council objected to the proposal on the grounds that the development would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the countryside. The proposed dwelling is now considered to be in keeping and sensitive to the surrounding area. The scale of the site does not have a detrimental impact on the openness of the countryside. Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision.


20/00859/FUL Retain Dwellings on Plots 1, 2 and 3 and Erect 6 Dwellings (Resubmission of P.A. 18/00989/FUL). Land Including Folly Nook House, Folly Nook Lane, Ranskill.

Having declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application, Cllr David Pidwell stepped down as Chair and Cllr Sybil Fielding took over as Vice-Chair for this item. Members were advised that permission was being sought for the retention of dwellings on Plots 1, 2 and 3, and erect 6 dwellings on the land around Folly Nook House. This development was approved by Planning Committee in July 2019. The approved layout and proposed layout circulated prior to the meeting. Ranskill Parish Council raised objections to the application on the grounds that the Developer hasn’t provided necessary CIL payments. 11 letters of objection were received from local residents on the following grounds:

The development would have a detrimental effect on highway safety;

Concerns about drainage and surface water run-off from the development;

Overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties;

Lack of service provisions;

Lack of parking spaces;

No footpaths on Folly Nook Lane.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways raised no objections, but a condition was included in the previous application to include a footpath linking Folly Nook Lane. The plots proposed are of similar scale to the ones which have already been approved. An open space has been provided for drainage. Planning Officers believed that no additional overshadowing and overlooking would be caused to the neighbours when compared to the development already approved Visitor parking spaces have been proposed for the site.

The Parish Council’s concerns about the CIL payments are being investigated by the CIL Officer. Surcharges and interest charges are applied on late payments. If there is a failure to pay, the developer can be taken to court. Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Refer for Officer Decision. (Meeting ended at 4:58pm).

PLANNING COMMITTEE 15th October 2020 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

62(d) 05.02.20 Planning Services; Establishment of a viability Protocol.

The process to be reviewed and reported back to Planning Committee in 18 months’ time.

DTM

Report to be presented to a future meeting

62(e) 05.02.20 Development

Management Scheme of Delegation for Determining Planning Applications.

The Scheme of Delegation is

monitored with a report

presented to Planning

Committee in 18 months’ time.

DTM

Report to be presented to a future meeting

Agenda Item 5

BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL INDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 14.10.2020

Sheet No.

Ref No. Applicant Location and Proposal Recom. Decision

A1 – pp. 25 - 50

20/00497/RES Sutton CL Limited Gate Cottage And Land To South Lound Low Road Sutton Cum Lound Reserved Matters Application for the Approval of Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale for Erection of 33 No Dwellings with Associated Highways, Parking and Open Space Following Outline Application 17/00300/OUT

Grant

A2 – pp. 51 - 64

20/00696/COU Bassetlaw District Council

Bridge Court, Bridge Place Worksop. Change of use from Class A (Comprising A1 shops & Retail Outlets, A3 Food and Drink, A4 Drinking Establishments, A5 Hot Food and Take Away) and Sui Generis (Night Club) to Class D1 Non-Residential Institution

Grant

Agenda Item 6c

ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT Item No: a1

Application Ref. 20/00497/RES

Application Type Reserved Matters

Site Address Gate Cottage And Land South of Lound Low Road, Sutton Cum Lound.

Proposal Reserved Matters Application for the Approval of Appearance, Landscaping,

Layout and Scale for Erection of 33 No Dwellings with Associated Highways,

Parking and Open Space Following Outline Application 17/00300/OUT

Case Officer Mandy Freeman

Recommendation GTD - Grant

Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

_________________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICATION The principle of residential development has already been established on the site with the granting of outline planning permission, allowed on appeal on 27 March 2018 which is still extant. The outline planning permission, reference 17/00300/OUT, includes the reserved matter of access. The Decision of the Planning Inspectorate in respect of this application is provided at the end of this report. SITE CONTEXT The site is made up of three individual parcels of land and is within the context of the existing village form with existing residential properties to the north and west, Sutton primary School and residential properties on Portland Place to the south, and agricultural fields to the west. Access to the site has been granted under the outline planning permission from Lound Low Road. The site is of archaeological interest and is within the setting of the grade I listed St Bartholomew’s Church. There is a silver birch tree on site that is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. PROPOSAL The application is a reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale following on from outline planning permission 17/00300/OUT for the change of use of land for residential development, which included the means of access. It is proposed to erect 33 dwellings, all of which would be 2 storeys in height. The development would comprise a mixture of semi-detached and detached dwellings and would include 8 no. 3-bedroom homes and 25 no. bedroom homes. 4 of the proposed 3-bedroom dwellings would be delivered as affordable low-cost market homes. The proposed dwellings would be of a simple but contemporary appearance with pitched roofs and projecting gables to the front elevations. The dwellings would be largely finished in brick

http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q9GCK1CSMAA00

with clay tile roofs and would feature brick band detailing, chimneys and some render in order to create variation within the scheme. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows:

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with an up to date development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission shall be granted unless: i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The following paragraphs of the framework are applicable to this development: Para 7 – Achieving sustainable development Para 8 – Three strands to sustainable development Para 10 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 11 – Decision making Para 12 – Development plan as the starting point for decision making Para 33 – Strategic policies in development plans should be reviewed every 5 years. Para 38 – Decision making should be done in a positive way. Para 55 – Planning conditions to be kept to a minimum and to meet the tests. Para 56 – Planning obligations Para 59 – Councils to boost housing supply Para 68 – Small & medium sized sites Para 78 – Location to enhance vitality of rural areas Para 91 – Planning to achieve healthy, safe and inclusive communities. Para 94 – Provision of sufficient school places Para 96 – provision of high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity. Para 105 – Local parking standards Para 108 – 110 – Highway safety Para 124 – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Para 127 – Development should reflect local characteristics. Para 130 – Poor design should be refused permission. Para 170 – Decisions should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural and local environment. Para 175 – Impact on biodiversity.

BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document

(Adopted December 2011):

CS1 - Settlement hierarchy

CS8 - Rural Service Centres

DM4 - Design & character

DM5 – Housing Mix and Density

DM9 - Delivering open space and sports facilities

DM11 - Developer contributions and infrastructure provision

DM12 - Flood risk, sewage and drainage

DM13 - Sustainable transport

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN (INCLUDING STATUS AND RELEVANT POLICIES)

Sutton-cum-Lound Neighbourhood Plan was formally 'made' by Bassetlaw District Council following the Referendum held on 15 February 2018. The Neighbourhood Plan is currently under review to update the Sutton cum Lound Neighbourhood Plan, specifically focused on correcting an error identified in Policy 6 to include the erroneously omitted section d). A seven week Regulation 14 consultation was held between December 2019 and February 2020, with work currently underway to prepare the Submission version of the 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 full weight.

Policy 1: Design of Residential Development 1. Proposals for residential development should demonstrate a high design quality that enhances the distinctiveness and quality of the village by contributing to its historic rural character. In order to achieve this development should; a) use a locally inspired range of materials to ensure a narrow colour palette is utilized in keeping with the character of the surrounding properties; and b) use low walls made from local materials and hedges as boundary treatments, to delineate public and private space; and c) Be of a scale and mass that retains openness in the built form and retains views out to surrounding countryside; d) demonstrates a layout that maximises opportunities to integrate new development with the existing settlement pattern; and e) protects and where possible enhances heritage assets (including their setting).

2. Where development is located along a through road the design should respect neighbouring plot size and spacing and the orientation and set back of surrounding buildings. 3. Where development adjoins the countryside, proposals should; a) demonstrate how they accord with the actions in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment by containing new development within existing field boundaries where possible; b) use landscaping to provide a green soft edge to site boundaries; and c) reflect existing character by orientating rear gardens to meet the edge of the settlement boundary unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the district council that a more suitable layout, that retains the rural character, can be demonstrated. 4. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that their scheme accords with national design standards including Building For Life 12 or equivalent successor documents (9 greens in accordance with BfL 12 or equivalent). Policy 2: A Mix of Housing Types 1. Planning applications for housing schemes are required to deliver a housing mix that reflects the demonstrable need for smaller market dwellings. 2. Developers are required to demonstrate how this has been in taken into account in the different house types and bedroom numbers proposed. Policy 6: Infill and Redevelopment in Sutton cum Lound Village 1. Residential development on infill and redevelopment sites will only be supported where the proposals meet all the following criteria; a) The scheme is in keeping with the character of the area particularly in relation to historic development patterns and building plot sizes; and b) Where listed buildings and their settings are affected the scheme preserves or enhances their significance and in respect of non-designated heritage assets the effect of development on their significance is taken into account including the scale of any harm or loss of building lines and boundary treatments should reflect the positive characteristics of the area; and c) Building lines and boundary treatments of the development should respect those already existing in the area surrounding the site Proposals that include smaller dwellings on infill sites that are within a safe walking distance of local amenities will be encouraged. d) The scheme is small in scale (one or two dwellings unless it can be demonstrated to the District Council’s satisfaction that a higher number, perhaps due to dwelling size, would not cause material harm to the character of the area.) 2. Proposals that include smaller dwellings on infill and redevelopment sites will be particularly supported.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 47/81/00006 Planning permission was refused for residential development on 17 March 1981. 47/95/00004 Planning permission was granted to erect dwelling house and garaging and construct new access on 13 September 1995. 17/00300/OUT Planning permission was refused for Outline Planning Permission with Some Matters Reserved (including means of access) for the Change of Use for land for Residential Development on 3 August 2017 and was subsequently allowed on appeal on 27 March 2018. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways

Initially were of the view that the shared surface layout fails to meet the guidance given in Manual for Streets and therefore fails to achieve the objectives of paragraphs 108 and 109 of

the National Planning Policy Framework. The Highway Authority therefore lodged a holding objection to the proposal. Further amendments have been submitted to address Highway Authority concerns and additional comments have been received from the Highway Authority that in order to ensure that the street layout is delivered in a satisfactory manor, conditions are requested in relation to provision and surfacing of access and parking areas; provision of roads, footways, bin stores and visitor parking spaces; and provision of wheel washing facilities. Nottinghamshire County Council Planning Policy No further comments to make on the reserved matters application. Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way Sutton cum Lound Footpath No.3 runs adjacent to the site. The Design & Access Statement acknowledges this and is the reason for locating the open space on the north east side. The path should not be affected by any construction. The applicant is considering linking to the right of way from the development. The RoW team are happy to discuss the practicalities of this. Advice is given that no structure adjacent to the footpath must encroach onto the right of way and in relation to boundary maintenance. Nottinghamshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority No objection to the reserved matters application. Isle of Axholme and North Nottinghamshire Water Level Management Board Commented that the site is within its district, but there are no Board maintained watercourses in close proximity to the site. The Board’s consent is required for any works that increases the flow or volume of water to any watercourse or culvert within the Board’s district, irrespective of any planning permission gained under Town and Country Planning Act 1990. No development should commence until a drainage scheme has been approved by the LLFA in conjunction with the Local Planning Authority. Natural England No objection to the proposal and considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes. Natural England’s generic advice on other natural environment issues was attached. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

Concerned over the timing of the full ecological report, as this was undertaken in 2016 and surveys that are 18-24 months old are likely to be invalid in most cases. Furthermore the survey was undertaken in November, which is suboptimal timing in order to fully assess habitats and their value to protected species on site. Reiterate that precautionary working measures are adopted and recommend a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should be submitted. Clearance of the site should be carried outside the bird breeding season. Fully support the installation of bespoke nest boxes and bat roosting boxes. Concern about loss of trees identified as having bat roost potential, as these will require bat survey if removed. A licence will be required from Natural England in relation to development of the site. In relation to habitats and landscaping, the development does not appear to mitigate for the loss of habitat areas identified on site. The masterplan does not appear to reflect recommendations in B J Collins 2016 ecological survey. A detailed landscaping plan should be submitted which

includes recommendations from the ecologist. Due to concerns raised, NWT cannot support the application. Historic Environment Officer – Archaeology

The site has been subject to an archaeological trial trench evaluation by Allen Archaeology (April 2020) which concluded the overall, the archaeological potential of the site is low. Although the presence of an undated, but pre-medieval, ditch is interesting, it would be unreasonable to recommend that further archaeological work be carried out and the archaeologist advises that no further archaeological input is necessary for this site. Bassetlaw Strategic Housing Expect to achieve 25% delivery for affordable housing of these 10% should be should be should be made available for affordable market homes as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018). Proposals to reduce the on-site delivery of Affordable Housing should be supported by a full and open viability study. Taking in to account the council stock and bid data. The need for social housing is greatest for 2/3 bed family accommodation and 2 bed older person bungalows. Severn Trent Water Foul sewerage is proposed to connect to the public sewer, which will be subject to a formal section 106 sewer connection approval. A sewer modelling study may be required to determine the impact this development will have on the existing system and if flows can be accommodated. Severn Trent may need to undertake a more comprehensive study of the catchment to determine if capital improvements are required. If Severn Trent needs to undertake capital improvements, a reasonable amount of time will need to be determined to allow these works to be completed before any additional flows are connected. Sutton cum Lound Parish Council

Object to the proposal as the current proposed development is too big and the site too small in this location to accommodate 33 houses:

1. There are already drainage problems in the village and the mains sewer runs straight through the site. Concern with the ability of the sewer system to cope with the additional houses and particularly as it is proposed to divert the sewer with 90 degree bends to follow the road layout, giving potential for increased blockages.

2. Access is from an already difficult and dangerous part of Town Street, between two dangerous bends/road junctions, both having restricted visibility. This is exacerbated by the public house, as customers regularly park along Town Street/Lound Low Road at busy times, which narrows the road even further, and adds additional dangers to both pedestrians and road users. The size of the development, coupled with restricted access in and out of it for probably an additional 60+ cars, is unacceptable in this area.

3. Nowhere in the village are there any 3-storey developments, and we feel that this is not in keeping with the rural village character, and is instead more akin to an urban town house development. Hence the current proposals would not be in line with resident’s views detailed in our Neighbourhood Plan and not acceptable.

4. Whilst the village Neighbourhood Plan welcomes smaller affordable houses, only 24% of the total development is likely to address this and, based upon the asking price of the recent 12 house development round the corner, the remaining 76% of the proposed houses are also likely to be well outside of the “affordable” category required by the residents and their Neighbourhood Plan.

5. In terms of layout he site proposes a hammerhead on the south west end. This current layout indicates an intent to further expansion and development of adjacent land, and

residents of the village are naturally concerned that this will encourage even more growth in an already densely populated part of the village.

6. It is understandable that a previously ‘wild’ piece of land bordering local wildlife reserves would attract many wild animals to live in it. The Parish Council is aware that there are currently weaning badgers on the land and recently local police officers have been involved in monitoring access to the site because of the badgers. The Parish Council request that the applicant obtains further ecological advice before proceeding with any development to ensure that safe actions are taken with respect to any occupying wildlife.

SUMMARY OF PUBLICITY This application was advertised by neighbour letter, site notice and press notice and 70 letters of objection and 2 letters of support have been received. The objections raise the following points:

1. No infrastructure improvements. Already problems with foul drainage system. 2. No facilities being provided and existing facilities are poor with no shop and concern

over strain on local primary school. 3. Increase in traffic and question safety of access onto Lound Low Road, particularly with

narrow footpaths. 4. Since the original application in 2017 the operation of the Gate Inn has changed which

greatly increases traffic along Town St and Mattersey Road. The Gate Inn has also converted its own car park into an outside seating area. As a result there is increased on-street parking by customers to the Gate Inn.

5. Detrimental impact on privacy of neighbouring properties due to how close the houses will be to Portland Place gardens and on Town Street.

6. Detrimental impact on wildlife, destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of green space. 7. Damage to the rural character of the village by building houses on green field sites and

creation of a housing estate. 8. Increased noise and disturbance from vehicles. 9. Overshadowing of neighbouring properties 10. Proposal not in line with the Neighbourhood Plan, which identifies other preferred

options and Bassetlaw has already sufficient land to meet its 5-year residential land supply target.

11. Potential flooding issues with surface water running off to south east towards the school.

12. Density - Too many houses are proposed for the size of the site. 13. There are only 8 x 3-bed houses out of a total of 33. This increases the exclusion of

young/downsizing families.

The letters of support; 1. No objection provided the tree line backing onto Portland Place is left in situ. 2. The proposed development is of size and type of houses that the village needs. The

size and design of the houses would suggest that they will be set at a lower price level than the recent developments, which will attract families and young people into the village that would breathe young life into village life and provide the local school with local pupils.

District Councillor Boeuf

Wildlife on Gate Cottage Site Members of the local community report regular sightings of badgers, foxes, bats, snakes and an abundancy of bird life. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust have been invited to comment on the proposals. It is by no means clear whether the Trust will manage to visit the site given the Covid-19 restrictions. Hopefully the Trust will indeed be able to offer comment. In the light of

the significance of the site to local wildlife it is arguably even more important that Natural England are asked as Consultees to provide their assessment to the committee. Without a comprehensive survey of the wildlife by Natural England the determination of the application should be held in abeyance. Access to the Public Right of Way to the East of the site The access to the proposed development moving into the site is initially by a 5.5 metre wide road with 2 metre pavements either side. The road is reduced in width to 4.8m with a single 2m pavement on one side and a .7 metre strip on the other described as an "adoptable shared surface arrangement to provide a more informal feel to the development and addresses potential vehicle speed by modifying the user hierarchy of the spaces provided". If this arrangement, currently finding limited favour with the Highways Authority is allowed then it is of importance that the pressure on the single pedestrian walkway is reduced by creating an access through to the public right of way to the east of the development. Such a move has already been investigated by the developer but should be pursued with renewed vigour. Giving access from the development to the public right of way would allow school children access to the school without running the gauntlet of the single pavement along the "adoptable shared surface arrangement" or indeed Town Street (see Town Street Access).

Proposal to Divert the Main Sewer & Other Concerns At the time of writing Severn Trent have not responded to the consultation their response must be sought prior to determination. There is a main sewer that takes much of the sewage from Sutton cum Lound and Barnby Moor through to a pumping station downstream of the development site where it is thence pumped to the Lound Sewage Treatment Plant. With reference to Severn Trent Water's Sewer Record that shows the Development Site X: 468169 Y: 384844 and the appended Developers Drawing Drainage Strategy 4055/100. In order to maximise the number of building plots on the site the application requires that the main sewer, that currently runs diagonally between manholes 1601 and 3701 is re-routed by the addition of dog legs (90 deg or thereabouts) to divert the flow so that it follows the line of the proposed estate roadway. We believe that such a proposal will compromise the effectiveness of the main sewer, imposing restrictions to flow that might ultimately impact upon the capacity of the sewage network and likely create maintenance problems for Severn Trent Water and Sutton cum Lound residents. There are already, on occasions, problems with the sewage system on Portland Place, largely it is believed as a consequence of substandard work by the original building contractor. We believe therefore that the main sewer should remain as it is, which on the current development proposal would mean 3 plots would be left vacant. If not then in order to overcome the additional resistance to flow imposed by re-routing the sewer, a new pumping station might be required in the vicinity of manhole 1601. There is an understanding by local people that the existing main sewer running across the development site between the access manholes "has dropped". We believe that it is essential that the sewer is inspected by Severn Trent Water before any development work takes place to undertake repair/reinforcement if necessary before heavy vehicles involved, in connection with the development are run over it. Town Street Access The section of Town Street in front of the development along to the Gate Inn carries traffic from Lound and properties within and on the outskirts of Sutton village. Regular use by locals, occasionally by farming vehicles and a bus service all use Lound Low Road/Town Street. There is a large and regular attendance at the Gate Inn on weekday evenings and again at weekends. The Gate Inn has very limited parking at the rear of the restaurant so customers currently park along Town Street. Access along Town Street in the vicinity of the Gate Inn is

severely restricted when the restaurant is serving. One side of the road can be full of parked cars, the side of the development. I am aware that Highways have given the access a green light in the outline consent previously. Might that decision have been based on a desk study or perhaps more likely a weekday visit between 09.00 to 17.00 when the Gate Inn was under a previous management. The current publican has transformed the Gate Inn into a very popular venue with significant trade travelling to the Gate by car, hence the problems described above. Highways must re-visit when the pub restaurant is open to update their take on the parking and access arrangements for the development. The access to the development and impediment to through traffic as a consequence of the popularity of the Gate and associated parked up cars presents a real danger to pedestrians and through traffic alike. This issue that will be compounded with traffic from the development itself. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The principle of development has already been established with the granting of outline planning permission (including means of access) for the change of use for land for residential development on 28 March 2018. This is an application that seeks approval of the reserved matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale APPEARANCE & VISUAL AMENITY Section 12 of the NPPF refers to achieving well designed places. Specifically, paragraph 124 states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; it creates better places in which to live and work in and helps make development acceptable to local communities. Paragraph 127 states that decisions should aim to ensure that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong sense of place, create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit, optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses and support local facilities and transport networks. Furthermore it provides that development should respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation. The NPPF goes on to state it is “proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness” (para 127) and permission should be “refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions” (para 130).

Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy provides general design principles which should be applied to all schemes. The policy states that all development proposals will need to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the wider area and when they are in historic locations, they should respect existing development patterns. All schemes must respect their context and not create a pastiche development which would be incorrect in their context. There is a wide mixture of styles within Sutton cum Lound from traditional cottages to modern estate houses. In determining the appeal against the Council’s refusal of outline planning permission the ‘Inspector stated Housing in the village is an eclectic mix with no predominant style, though red brick and roof pantiles are common materials. Portland Place, which is a relatively modern addition to the village, is a mixture of houses, bungalows and dormer bungalows or varying size and both detached and semi-detached. There are also a few small terraces of three or four houses or bungalows. By contrast, Town Street has many older houses, mostly detached or terraced, but predominantly with larger spaces between buildings.’

The proposed housetypes are of a simple form with gable ends dominating the front elevations, but with slightly different configurations to provide variation and visual interest throughout the scheme. Brick band detailing, chimneys and some render are also introduced to create variations within the dwellings proposed. The amount of render to be used has been reduced during the application process, so that it provides variety, but does not dominate the use traditional brick and pantiles, reflecting the village character when seen in the wider context. It is acknowledged that the appearance of the proposed dwellings is modern, but set back from Lound Low Road is not considered detrimental to the character of traditional buildings along the older street frontages. The development is considered to have an appropriate appearance in the context of the mixed character of Sutton cum Lound Having regards to the above, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of paragraph 124 of the NPPF in terms of good design and it will also make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The scheme also meets the requirements of policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework. LAYOUT

The proposed development would be accessed from the approved access point off Lound Low Road. The proposed road within the site would be constructed to an adoptable standard and runs south straight into the site and turns east across the bottom of the site, and includes two private drives off the internal estate road. Amendments have been made during the course of the application process, such the details are acceptable in highway safety terms. Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy requires that development does not materially or detrimentally affect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. This requirement also forms part of paragraph 127 of the NPPF. The layout provides adequate parking, private amenity area and separation distances in line with the ‘Successful Places’ SPD. The proposed layout of the scheme is considered to constitute good design in line with the requirements of paragraph 124 and 127 of the NPPF and the requirements of part B) of policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy as the layout and density would be reflect the surrounding settlement. Concern has been raised that a development of 33 dwellings would appear to be excessively dense on this site but the density of the development proposed is not considered to be at odds with the character of the housing that lies to the west and south of the application site. In allowing the appeal against the refusal of outline planning permission the Inspector stated ‘Given its comparative size and the relatively densely packed housing in Portland Place, I consider that character of the village to be suburban rather that rural. The village is surrounded by countryside, whereas the appeal site is surrounded on three sides by housing and consequently relates more closely with the built form within than with the open land beyond the settlement.’ The layout proposed would create a new cul-de-sac with the dwellings arranged to front on to the road. The layout of the scheme and design of the dwellings would ensure active frontages throughout the development which along with the variation in house types and materials, would create visual interest and variation within the development. Bassetlaw ‘Successful Places’ SPD requires a minimum of 70m² and 90m² minimum private outdoor amenity space for 3 and 4-bed houses respectively. The proposed dwellings would comply with this requirement and would offer a suitable level of residential amenity to future occupiers. The SPD also recommends a minimum bin carrying distance of 30m. Plots 21 would be at this limit, however bin collection points are shown to serve the private drives.

Concern has been expressed by neighbours over the loss of privacy and overshadowing of their properties. The development of this currently undeveloped site will inevitably result in a greater level of overlooking to surrounding occupiers than they already experience. The ‘Successful Places SPD’ recommends a minimum separation distance of 21m between the rear elevations of opposing dwellings. The layout provides adequate private garden areas, separation distances and car parking spaces in line with the Council’s SPD documents. The closest point of the proposed dwellings to existing properties is between the proposed Plot 5 and Portland Place, which would have a 25m separation distance. Given this exceeds the minimum recommended by the ‘Successful Places’ SPD it is not considered that the development would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking to surrounding occupiers and the distance of separation between existing and proposed dwellings would ensure neighbouring occupiers would not be unacceptably overshadowed. The Section 106 legal agreement accompanying the outline planning permission requires the provision of 10% open space within the site, as well as 4 low cost affordable houses. The site area on the original outline planning application was 1.46 hectares. The open space requirement is therefore for 1,460m² of public open space. The layout proposes two areas of open space. One would cover an area 806m² lies to the west of the access road into the site, with a further grassed area to the east of the access road and 759m² on the eastern side of the site adjacent to the public footpath. The layout includes 4 affordable houses, being 3-bed semi-detached properties on plots 1,2,31 and 30. SCALE The proposal is for 33 three and four bedroom houses which would comprise two-storey detached and semi-detached properties. The majority of the dwellings proposed are of a similar height to ridge of around 8.4m, except 4 houses, type 3A, which are slightly taller at 8.7m to the ridge. The initial submission included some three-storey houses. However concern was expressed was both members of the public and Officers that, in terms of the overall character of the village, 3-storey dwellings may appear to be somewhat incongruous. The applicant has given consideration to these concerns and amended the scheme to remove the 3 storey dwellings. The development is now entirely 2-storey. The dwellings proposed would be a mixture of 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings. The surrounding area is, as identified by the Inspector, characterised by a mixture of dwelling types with no prevailing style and a mixture of sizes. The dwellings proposed are considered to have appropriate footprints when compared to those within the vicinity of the site and the dwellings proposed would not appear to be overly cramped within the context of the available plot of each property. The scale of the development is considered to meet the requirements of amenity and relationships in the Council’s SPD document ‘Successful Places’, as well as providing open space in accordance with Section 106 requirements. The scale of the dwellings is considered to be appropriate having had regard to the character of the surrounding area. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment which show trees to be retained as part of the development. The proposed hard and soft landscaping layout plan shows the trees to be retained and new low level planting and trees. A further detailed landscaping plan has also been submitted.

There is a small silver birch tree on the site that is subject to a Tree Preservation Order, being a replacement for a tree that had been removed from the site. This has been retained within an area of public open space. 23 trees require removal to accommodate the proposed development. These include 13 category ‘B’ trees of moderate quality and 10 category ‘C’ trees of low quality. In order to mitigate the impact of the removal of the trees, it is proposed to plant 24 trees throughout the development comprising a mixture of species including oak, rowan, maple, hornbeam and cherry. It is considered that the proposed landscaping scheme would adequately mitigate the impact of the development and allow the development to visually assimilate in to the surrounding area. The submitted Boundary Treatment Plan shows 1.8m high close timber boarded fencing to the rear gardens and between proposed dwellings, with 1.8m high brick walls where the garden boundary faces the public street. It is considered the proposal for walls to prominent boundaries within the street scene would ensure the development is of a high standard of appearance. The brick walls would ensure the character of the development is retained due to the robust nature of the material used. The neighbour at 42 Town Street has commented that a six foot wall should be built along the boundary with her property at the entrance to the site to ensure privacy. This should be built in brick retained from demolition to reflect the historic character of the site and would be more in keeping at the entrance to the site around the open space area than the close boarded fence proposed. HIGHWAYS MATTERS

Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that schemes can be supported where they provide safe and suitable access for all. This requirement is also contained in policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF makes it clear that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that all development should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which encourage social interaction, are safe and accessible and enable and support healthy lifestyles. Paragraph 108 of the NPPF requires schemes to provide safe and suitable access for all users as well as looking at appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes. Paragraph 110b of the NPPF requires schemes to address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport. Paragraph 110e of the NPPF requires schemes to be designed to enable charging of plug-in electric vehicles (EV) and other ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV) in safe, accessible and convenient locations. As with mobility vehicles, there are currently no County standards on what provision developers must provide as part of their schemes, but this is to change soon as the County is working on such a policy and has considered it to be appropriate to request provision here in line with the requirements of paragraph 110e of the NPPF. The means of access to the site was approved as part of the outline application 17/00300/OUT. Comments have been received from residents regarding access issues. However, the access to the site was granted as part of the outline application and the amendments have been made during the course of the application to the layout of the roadway following comments from the Highway Authority, who are now satisfied with the internal layout subject to conditions to secure safe access and parking arrangements.

FLOODING/DRAINAGE

The NPPF at paragraph 155 and policy DM12 of the Core Strategy makes it clear that development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from the areas at the highest risk. Paragraph 163 of the NPPF requires that proposals do not increase flood risk elsewhere and should be developed in line with a site specific flood risk assessment which incorporates a Sustainable Urban Drainage solution. It should be noted that planning permission has already been granted for this development and this application seeks the approval of the reserved matters of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping only. The Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection to the reserved matters application. Concern has been received from the Local Ward Member and residents that the proposed development would require the diversion of a main sewer that crosses the site. This is maintained by Severn Trent Water. Strong concerns have been raised that the development would compromise the effectiveness of the main sewer, imposing restrictions to flow that might ultimately impact upon the capacity of the sewage network and likely create maintenance problems for Severn Trent Water and Sutton cum Lound residents. Severn Trent have commented that the developer will be required to enter into the required agreement with them to connect to and undertake works to the existing sewer. Severn Trent Water have also advised have also advised that may need to undertake a more comprehensive study of the catchment to determine if capital improvements are required. Should any improvements be required this would be a matter of agreement between the developer and Severn Trent Water. ECOLOGY

The content of paragraph 175 of the NPPF is applicable as it states that in dealing with planning applications, councils must consider the harm of a scheme on biodiversity. Some harm to biodiversity is allowed, but it states that significant harm should be avoided, adequate mitigation should be provided or if this is not possible, the loss should be compensated for. If none of the above is possible, then permission should be refused. Concerns have been raised by the Local Ward Member and residents that the site has an abundance of wildlife and the detrimental impact that would occur to the habitats available on the site. This application is seeking reserved matters approval for appearance, scale, layout and landscaping only and planning permission has been granted for a residential development on this site. Specific concern has been raised regarding the potential for badgers to present on the site. Should there be any potential for badgers to be present on the site the developer would be required by law to close down any set by utilising the licenced powers of a of a fully qualified ecologist in conjunction with the appropriate notification and licencing from Natural England. ARCHAEOLOGY

Para 197 of the NPPF advises that Councils should consider the impact of a proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset when making a decision. Paragraph 199 of the NPPF is also particularly applicable where archaeology has been identified as a potential issue on site. This paragraph requires that applicants record to provide documentary evidence to advance the understanding of the significance of the heritage asset. Policy DM8 of the

Bassetlaw Core Strategy states that there will be a presumption against development that detrimentally affects the significance of a heritage asset. The Inspector gave consideration to the archaeological impact of the development when determining the appeal and imposed the following conditions; No development shall take place until a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions - and: i) the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording; ii) the programme for post investigation assessment; iii) the provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording; iv) the provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation; v) the provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation; vi) the nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. And No development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation approved under condition 5. A Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Evaluation has been submitted as part of this application and an Archaeological Evaluation Report following the excavation of seven evaluation trenches undertaken. The Council’s Archaeological Consultant is content with the findings of the evaluation work undertaken and has stated that no further works are required. INFRASTRUCTURE/CONTRIBUTIONS

Paragraph 56 of the NPPF makes it clear that contributions can be sourced from schemes where they make the scheme acceptable in planning terms. Paragraph 61 requires that Council’s plan to deliver a wide choice of housing to meet local needs and this includes the provision of affordable housing. Paragraph 94 of the NPPF makes is clear that it is important that there are sufficient school places to meet the needs of existing and new communities and that council’s should proactively work with school providers to resolve key planning issues relating to development. Paragraph 96 emphasises that access to high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important and this is a consideration in determining planning applications. The outline planning permission 17/00300/OUT is subject to a S106 legal agreement, requiring the following as part of the development:

1. 4 on-site affordable houses at a 20% discount of the market price and also an off-site contribution of £337,500in line with the requirement of Policy CS8.

2. SuDS drainage management and maintenance in line with the requirement of Policy DM12

3. £2,407 per dwelling education contribution towards primary school provision, which equates to £79,431 for 33 dwellings submitted as part of this reserved matters application in line with the requirement of Policy DM11.

4. £2,298 library contribution if development exceeds 50 dwellings in line with the requirement of Policy DM11. This obligation is not payable with 33 dwellings proposed.

5. 10% public open space provision within the development in line with the requirement of Policy DM9.

CONCLUSION/PLANNING BALANCE

The application is a reserved matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for 33 dwellings with associated highways, parking and open space following on from outline planning permission granted for the change of use of land for residential development that included the means of access. The appearance of the development has variations on a general design theme and includes details in brickwork and inclusion of some render, although predominantly using red brick and terracotta roof tiles to reflect typical materials elsewhere in the village. The two-storey dwellings are not considered out of keeping with the overall character of the village, where there are a vast array of building styles. The landscaping proposed includes the retention of some existing trees, including the silver birch subject to the TPO, as well as new trees at key points and on the open spaces. Other planting of shrubs and grass is included and native hedge planting along the boundaries of the entrance into the site and around the open space adjacent to the public footpath. The layout of the site provides open space at the entrance, so that the new development is set back from historic elements along Lound Low Road and does not dominate the character of the street. The internal layout also provides adequate amenity for proposed and existing residents. The scale of the development in terms of number of dwellings proposed and the type and size of the 2-storey detached and semi-detached properties is not out of keeping with the scale of other residential development elsewhere in the village. On balance it is considered that the appearance, landscaping, scale and layout are acceptable and the development proposed would constitute good design and would be in compliance with the policy requirements set out above. RECOMMENDATION: Grant reserved matters approval subject to conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the

details and specifications included on the submitted planning application form and shown on submitted documents and drawings which include the following:

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01010-S2-P8 Proposed Site Layout

received on 20 August 2020. - Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01011-S2-P3 Hard and Soft Landscape

Layout received on 20 August 2020. - Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01020-S2-P4 Boundary Treatment Layout

received on 20 August 2020. - Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01030-S2-P3 Parking Layout received on 20

August 2020. - Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01040-S2-P3 Material Identification

received on 20 August 2020. - Drawing No. A4696-01B Landscaping Scheme received on 20 August 2020. - Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-3A-ZZ-DR-A-02001-S2-P3 House Type 3A GA Plans

received on 27 April 2020. - Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-3A-ZZ-DR-A-03001-S2-P2 House Type 3A Elevations

received on 27 April 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-3B-ZZ-DR-A-02001-S2-P3 House Type 3B GA Plans received on 27 April 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-3B-ZZ-DR-A-03001-S2-P2 House Type 3B Elevations received on 27 April 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4B01-ZZ-DR-A-02001-S2-P3 House Type 4B01 GA Plans received on 27 April 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4B01-ZZ-DR-A-02002-S2-P2 House Type 4B01 Elevations received on 27 April 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4B02-ZZ-DR-A-02001-S2-P3 House Type 4B02 GA Plans received on 27 April 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4B02-ZZ-DR-A-02002-S2-P2 House Type 4B02 Elevations received on 27 April 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4A01-ZZ-DR-A-02001-S2-P4 House Type 4A01 GA Plans received on 15 September 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4A01-ZZ-DR-A-03001-S2-P3 House Type 4A01 Elevations received on 15 September 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4A02-ZZ-DR-A-02001-S2-P4 House Type 4A02 GA Plans received on 15 September 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-4A02-ZZ-DR-A-03001-S2-P3 House Type 4A02 Elevations received on 15 September 2020.

- Drawing No. 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01060-S2-P1 Tenure Plan received on 27 August 2020.

Reason: To ensure that the development takes the agreed form envisaged by the Local Planning Authority when determining the application.

2. No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as the access and parking area to that

dwelling has been provided in a bound material (not loose gravel) and which shall be drained to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water onto adjacent roads and footways and shall be maintained in that condition for the life time of the development.

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

3. No dwellings shall be occupied until the roads and footways affording access to those

dwellings have been completed up to binder course level and the adjacent bin stores and visitor parking spaces detailed on plan reference 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01010-S2 Rev P8 and 3FE2-MHA-FS-XX-DR-A-01030-S2 Rev P3 respectively are in place. The visitor parking spaces shall be provided in a bound material (not loose gravel) and shall be drained to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water onto adjacent roads and footways and shall be maintained in that condition for the life time of the development.

Reasons: To ensure that the roads serving the development are sufficiently completed, are available for use by the occupants and other users of the development, and that there is adequate visitor parking and provision for bin collection in the interest of highway safety.

4. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted wheel washing facilities

shall be provided and each vehicle leaving the site whilst works are ongoing that display any signs of mud and/or debris on its wheels shall have its wheels washed. Should mud or debris be transported onto the public highway, this shall be removed by mechanical road sweeper immediately after each event.

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

5. Before any construction occurs above damp proof course (DPC) level, samples or detailed specifications of all external materials to be used on the development hereby permitted 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 appearance of the completed development.

6. No works relating to site preparation or construction shall take place outside 08:00

hours to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday; 09:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturday and not at all on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.

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

7 No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been

submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide for:

i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage and usage of plant and storage of materials used in constructing the development; iv) measures to control the emission of dust, dirt and other debris during demolition and construction; v) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

The approved Construction Method Statement shall be strictly adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

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

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 December 2017

by D Guiver LLB (Hons) Solicitor

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 27 March 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/17/3182489 48 Town Street, Sutton cum Lound DN22 8PT

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 Proland Limited, The Dunn Family, Mr and Mrs N Kealey against

the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.

The application Ref 17/00300/OUT, dated 27 February 2017, was refused by notice

dated 3 August 2017.

The development proposed is use for land for residential development.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the use of land for residential development at 48 Town Street, Sutton cum Lound DN22 8PT in

accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00300/OUT, dated 27 February 2017, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Proland Limited, The Dunn Family, Mr and Mrs Kealey against Bassetlaw District Council. This application is the subject of

a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. The application is made in outline with only access to be determined at this

stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration. Drawings showing the proposed site access were submitted with the application and I

have had regard to these in determining this appeal.

4. Since the date of the decision after following submission of the appeal the Sutton Neighbourhood Plan (the Neighbourhood Plan) has been made and now

forms part of the local development plan.

5. The parties have entered into a planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of

the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Section 106 Agreement), which would secure contributions towards affordable housing, on-site public open space, library provision, sustainable drainage provision and education

provision. I will address this issue below.

Main Issue

6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of Sutton Cum Lound and the surrounding area.


Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3182489

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Reasons

Character and Appearance

7. Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework Core

Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD 2011 (the Local Plan) seeks to ensure that major developments complement and enhance the character of the area where they will be located. Policies 1, 6 and 7 of the

Neighbourhood Plan similarly seek to ensure that developments are in keeping with and appropriate to the character of the village. The Sutton Parish Council

describes the village as a ribbon development and from my site visit it appeared that Sutton cum Lound was originally built along one main road that runs through the village from the north-east to the south-west. Town Street

comprises a significant portion of this road within the village itself. There are a few other streets that branch off from Town Street with some dwellings but in

the southern part of the village is Portland Place which is a large housing area that is more urban in character joining Town Street to the west of the appeal site and swinging south and east around the primary school, terminating close

to the appeal site’s south-eastern corner.

8. The housing in Portland Place is relatively densely packed and coupled with the

buildings on Town Street has created a large horseshoe shape in the built form of the village with the open end facing roughly east. The appeal site is between the arms of the horseshoe and while there is an open field to the east,

the site boundary is to the west of some dwellings both in Portland Place and on Town Street. Housing in the village is an eclectic mix with no predominant

style, though red brick and roof pantiles are common materials. Portland Place, which is a relatively modern addition to the village, is a mixture of houses, bungalows and dormer bungalows or varying size and both detached

and semi-detached. There are also a few small terraces of three or four houses or bungalows. By contrast, Town Street has many older houses, mostly

detached or terraced, but predominantly with larger spaces between buildings.

9. The Council’s decision notice states that the form, size and scale of the proposal would be at odds with, and detract from the rural character of the

village. Rural character is not defined in the Local Plan but given its ordinary meaning would in my view describe either the countryside itself or a small

village that is part of the countryside, such as a farming community. Although taken as a whole the Council’s administrative district could be described as rural, Sutton cum Lound is relatively large and is distinct from its surroundings.

Given its comparative size and the relatively densely packed housing in Portland Place, I consider that character of the village to be suburban rather

that rural. The village is surrounded by countryside, whereas the appeal site is surrounded on three sides by housing and consequently relates more closely

with the built form within than with the open land beyond the settlement.

10. Sutton cum Lound is identified in Policy CS1 of the Local Plan as a rural service centre suitable for growth as opposed to those other villages defined as rural

settlements with limited facilities and not suitable for growth. Policy CS1 also states that development will be restricted to areas within defined development

boundaries. The appeal site comprises roughly 1.4 hectares of previously undeveloped land outside the existing village development boundary. However, the Policy makes an exception for sites that meet affordable housing

or community infrastructure exceptions criteria or where it can be




demonstrated that the proposal would address a shortfall in the Council’s five-

year housing land supply or deliver the Council’s strategy for a specific settlement. The Council provided an indicative target of a 20 per cent increase

in housing in the village to the Parish Council as part of the evidence base for the Neighbourhood Planwhich equates to approximately 70 new dwellings.

11. While the proposed development would be outside the settlement boundary a

lack of suitable land within the village meant development beyond the boundary was inevitable if the Council’s indicative target was to be met. The

Council has accepted that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at the present time. The Neighbourhood Plan allocates three sites on the edge of the settlement for housing but does not specify the number of

houses that should be built on each site.

12. Each of the sites allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan is open to the countryside

on at least two sides and is adjacent to existing linear development with which any new housing would have to integrate. The three sites are each of a roughly similar length, although there is variation in depth. Policy 5 of the

Neighbourhood Plan refers to site 3, which is land west of Sutton Lane. The Policy has a specific reference to any development reflecting the linear

character of the ten or so dwellings opposite. Given the similarity in length of the sites, if each of the allocated sites was developed to integrate with the existing settlement pattern I consider it likely that there would still be a

significant shortfall in the target for a 20 per cent housing increase.

13. Policies 6 and 7 of the Neighbourhood Plan provide that development proposals

should meet an evidenced local need and not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Other criteria dealing with building lines and boundary treatments would be matters for

determination at detailed approval stage.

14. While the proposed development is in outline with only the matter of access to

be determined at this stage, the site is clearly large enough to accommodate a significant housing development that would make a substantial contribution to both the shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply and in the delivery of

affordable housing. Therefore, I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy DM4 of the Local

Plan and given the close proximity of Portland Place to the appeal site it would also comply with Policies 1, 6 and 7 of the Neighbourhood Plan. The contribution of the proposal to meeting the identified need for housing in the

village and in the wider Council area would also be in accordance with Policy 7. A housing development on the site would not cause unacceptable harm to the

suburban character of the village. The development would also accord with Policy CS1 of the Local Plan with regard to housing supply, affordable housing

and the Council’s indicative target for housing in Sutton cum Lound.

Section 106 Planning Obligation

15. Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet the tests in

paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Policy CS8 of the Local Plan requires developers of new housing to contribute towards affordable

housing, which in Sutton cum Lound the Policy sets at a 25 percent contribution. The Policy also requires that developers provide adequate community infrastructure proportionate to the development proposed. Policy

DM4 identifies the requirement to ensure that housing developments provide a




qualitative improvement to the existing range of houses, services, facilities and

functional public open space.

16. Given the Council’s acknowledged inability to demonstrate a five-year housing

land supply affordable housing developer contributions are likely to play a significant role in the delivery of affordable housing. The contribution to affordable housing provided for in the Section 106 Agreement complies with

Policy CS8 of the Local Plan and is directly related to the development. I consider that the affordable housing contribution requirement is fairly and

reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and is necessary to make the development acceptable because of the significant unmet need and the Council’s reliance on development to meet that need.

17. The Section 106 Agreement provides for 1460 square metres of open space, which is approximately ten percent of the site, layout and location to be

determined. The provision of public open space is justified by Policy DM4 of the Local Plan and given the scale of the proposal is directly related to the development and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the

development. To ensure the amenity of future occupiers of the site, I consider that the provision of public open space is necessary to make the development

acceptable.

18. Nottinghamshire County Council has requested a library contribution if £2,298 for Retford Library. The sum is calculated on the basis of the site delivering 50

or more dwellings and providing for an increase in library stock of 120 items determined by reference to the County Council’s Planning Obligations Strategy.

It is reasonable to assume that future residents of the additional housing would wish to use such facilities and therefore the provision is directly related to the development. The sum is calculated on a per capita basis but is only payable if

at outline stage approval is sought for 50 or more dwellings. I therefore consider the contribution towards library facilities to be fairly and reasonably

related in scale and kind to the development and to ensure adequate facilities for future occupiers. I consider that the contribution towards library facilities is necessary to make the development acceptable.

19. The County Council’s Planning Obligations Strategy also identifies the need for additional school places likely to arise from developments based on scale and

sets the contribution at £2,407 per dwelling. It is reasonable to assume that the proposed development would yield additional requirements for school places for the children of future occupiers and the contribution towards

education facilities at the village primary school is therefore directly related to the development. As the sum is calculated on a per capita basis. I consider the

contribution to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and to ensure adequate educational provision for future

occupiers. I consider that the contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable.

20. The County Council is also the Local Lead Flood Authority. As a rural district

there is significant reliance on sustainable drainage and the County Council has confirmed that the location of the appeal requires a sustainable urban drainage

system (SUDS) to protect water resources in the locality and manage flood risk. Following development the SUDS would require maintenance to be funded by the beneficiaries of the scheme. The development will benefit from

the protection of the SUDS which is therefore directly related to the




development. I therefore consider the requirement to install and fund

maintenance of the SUDS to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and is necessary to make the development acceptable.

21. The Council is likely to incur additional costs in monitoring and ensuring delivery of the elements provided for in the Section 106 Agreement and therefore an appropriate management fee would also be directly related to the

development. The fee is set at the rate of five percent of the total contribution to facilities but is capped at £5,000, which I consider to be fairly and

reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The Section 106 Agreement overall is necessary and therefore I consider that the management fee is similarly necessary to make the development acceptable.

Other Matters

22. A number of interested parties have provided comments and the parties have

had the opportunity to make representations on those comments. I have taken these comments and representations into account in determining this appeal. The majority off the objections were made in support of the Council’s

position on the Neighbourhood Plan but concerns were also raised in relation to drainage and character and appearance, which have been dealt with above.

Objections were also made about the loss of privacy from the proximity of development on the site to existing dwellings but layout is a reserved matter and issues of privacy and overlooking will be addressed as part of the process

of approving details. Finally, objectors raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on wildlife on the site, the heritage assets in the village and highway

safety.

23. The Council raised the issue of a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order that had been removed and would potentially be subject to enforcement action. I

understand that this matter has been resolved and that a replacement tree has been planted and will be protected.

24. There are a number of non-designated heritage assets in the locality of the development site. However, I consider that the setting of these assets would not be detrimentally affected by the proposed development. I note that the

Council’s Conservation Officer has come to a similar conclusion. The site was assessed for the potential impact on biodiversity and was found to provide a

limited habitat. Mitigation measures were identified to protect any species that were identified as potentially on being site. Finally, there is anecdotal evidence of traffic problems in the village but no substantive assessment that shows the

proposal would impact negatively on highway safety or traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site access. I note that in relation to heritage, biodiversity and

highway safety the Council and highways authority were content that the scheme would not have any detrimental impact, and on the evidence I find no

reason to reach a different conclusion.

Conditions

25. The conditions set out in the accompanying schedule are based on those

suggested by the Council. Where necessary I have amended the wording of these in the interests of precision and clarity in order to comply with the advice

in the Planning Practice Guidance.




26. In the interests of proper planning I have imposed the standard conditions in

respect of time limits. For certainty I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the plans.

27. The County Council proposed a condition relating to the improvement of existing bus stops in the town, but these are improvements that benefit all residents. It is not clear from the evidence before me why the alterations to

existing facilities are required and therefore I do not consider such a condition to be reasonable or necessary.

28. The Council has identified the potential for archaeological remains on the site and I have therefore imposed a condition requiring a scheme of investigation. The Council’s Conservation Officer also suggested a condition in relation to site

layout and the retention of features on site, but I have not imposed a condition as layout and landscaping are reserved matters. Suggestions from the

drainage authority are dealt with within the Section 106 Agreement and it is therefore unnecessary to impose conditions.

Planning Balance and Overall Conclusion

29. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the evidence suggests that it has historically under-delivered on housing

targets. In the absence of a demonstrable five-year housing land supply paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that local development plan policies relating to housing supply should

not be considered up-to-date. However, I have had regard to the Written Ministerial Statement made on 12 December 2016 (WMS), which advises that a

neighbourhood plan should not be considered out of date where the local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year housing land supply and both the WMS and the neighbourhood plan are less than two years old. The WMS is

a material consideration to which I attach significant weight.

30. The appellants accept that the Council is able to demonstrate a 3.4-year

housing land supply at present. As the other criteria for the WMS are satisfied, the Neighbourhood Plan should not be considered out of date and carries significant weight notwithstanding the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five-

year housing land supply. However, while the benefit arising from the proposed development is substantial and there is nothing in the evidence

before me that would lead me to conclude that any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh that benefit, I have concluded that the proposal is in accord with the Policies in the Local Plan and in the

Neighbourhood Plan and despite the proposed site being outside the settlement boundary it would comply with the exception criteria of Policy CS1. Given my

conclusions on those matters it is not necessary to consider the impact of paragraph 14 of the Framework and the WMS.

31. Consequently for the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

D Guiver

INSPECTOR




Schedule

1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the

local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

4) The access arrangements for the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 15/1706-8A.

5) No development shall take place until a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of

significance and research questions - and:

i) the programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;

ii) the programme for post investigation assessment;

iii) the provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording;

iv) the provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

v) the provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation;

vi) the nomination of a competent person or persons/organization to

undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

6) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation approved under condition 5.


ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT Item No: a2

Application Ref. 20/00696/COU

Application Type Change of Use

Site Address Bridge Court, Bridge Place, Worksop.

Proposal Change of use from Class A (Comprising A1 shops & Retail Outlets, A3 Food

and Drink, A4 Drinking Establishments, A5 Hot Food and Take Away) and Sui

Generis (Night Club) to Class D1 Non-Residential Institution

Case Officer Mandy Freeman

Recommendation GTD - Grant

Web Link: Link to Plannng Documents

_________________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICATION This application has been referred to Planning Committee as it is an application made by Bassetlaw District Council. The application proposes the change of use of Bridge Court from Use Class A (A1 shops & Retail Outlets, A3 Food and Drink, A4 Drinking Establishments, A5 Hot Food and Take Away) and Sui Generis Nightclub at the vacant former shopping centre to a use falling within Class D1 Non-Residential Institution. SITE CONTEXT Bridge Court is located at the junction of Bridge Place and Watson Road in Worksop Town Centre and within the Primary Shopping Area Boundary, defined as secondary retail frontage within the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework. The site is outside Worksop Conservation Area, but is within its setting, as the boundary runs along Watson Road at this point. Watson Road is the main thoroughfare for traffic north to south. The former use of the site included a nightclub in the basement, 2 café/restaurants at ground and first floor either side the main entrance fronting onto Bridge Place and the remainder of the building at ground and first floor level was formerly used as offices for the Jobcentre and unemployment benefit office. PROPOSAL It is proposed to change the use of the whole building to a D1 non-residential use with ancillary café. No external alterations are proposed to the building. The proposal is to use the building as an educational institution with NHS courses being provided to mature students, along with digital, business and enterprise courses. The site will be part of a university backed campus, with some elements of courses being on-line with other elements being undertaken at other campus sites.

http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QC0SAICSFG200

The course providers have advised that likely numbers attending at Bridge Court is: 6 classrooms with 20 students each, totalling 120 students; 1 support staff for each of 3 providers; 4 facilities management staff; and 2 catering staff associated with the café. 40 covers also included in café which would be ancillary to the proposed use of the building for educational purposes. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows: NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with an up to date development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission shall be granted unless: i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The following paragraphs of the framework are applicable to this development: Para 7 – Achieving sustainable development Para 8 – Three strands to sustainable development Para 10 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 11 – Decision making Para 12 – Development plan as the starting point for decision making Para 33 – Strategic policies in development plans should be reviewed every 5 years. Para 38 – Decision making should be done in a positive way. Para 55 – Planning conditions to be kept to a minimum and to meet the tests. Para 91 – Planning to achieve healthy, safe and inclusive communities. Para 108 – 110 – Highway safety Para 117 – Making effective use of land Para 124 – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Para 127 – Development should reflect local characteristics. Para 155 – Inappropriate development at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development to parcels of land at less risk of flooding. Para 163 – New development must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Para 190 – Assessing the significance of a heritage asset Para 201 – Not all part of Conservation Areas will contribute to its significance. BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):

CS1 - Settlement hierarchy

CS2 - Worksop

DM4 - Design & character

DM7 – Securing Economic Development

DM8 – The Historic Environment

DM12 - Flood risk, sewage and drainage

DM13 - Sustainable transport

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN (INCLUDING STATUS AND RELEVANT POLICIES) Worksop isn’t a Neighbourhood Plan area and as such, there isn’t an adopted Neighbourhood Plan in place for consideration as part of this scheme. OTHER LEGISLATION The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force on 1 September 2020. This amends the use classes, such that part of Class D1 (clinics, health centres, day nurseries and day centre) falls within Class E and part of Class D1 ( schools, non-residential education and training centres, museums, public libraries, public halls, exhibition halls, places of worship, law court) falls within Class F1. However, any application received prior to 1 September 2020 which referred to uses or use classes which applied in relation to England and were specified in the Schedule to the Use Classes Order on 31 August 2020, that application must be determined by reference to those uses or use classes. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 02/88/00317 Planning permission was granted for retail development including fast food, bank, building society on 1 March 1989. [A1, A2 and A3] 02/90/00349 Planning permission was granted to retain use as café/wine bar at Unit 4 Bridge Court on 31 January 1991. 02/92/00158 Planning permission was granted for the use of ground floor and first floor for combined job centre and unemployment benefit office at Units 2-7 Bridge Court on 17 July 1992. 02/06/00350 Planning permission was granted for change of use to a coffee shop at Unit 9 Bridge Court on 22 August 2006. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Nottinghamshire County Council Highways The Highway Authority initially commented that the application is for the change of use to 2,520 sqm of non-residential institution, which could include a clinic, health centre, crèche, day nursery, day centre, school, art gallery, museum, library, a hall, a place of worship, a law court, a training centre or any number thereof. On street parking is largely prohibited around the site outside of the designated disabled and loading bays opposite the site on Bridge Place. Weekday loading and unloading is banned on both sides of Watson Road between 8:15 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. in the vicinity of the site. Loading and unloading is otherwise permissible. Consequently, visitor parking is likely to take place within nearby town centre car parks, the nearest being the Priory Centre car park. However, dropping off and picking up is likely to occur on Watson Road when

permissible and on Bridge Place, particularly if the specific uses would be likely to be attended by children or the elderly. The Highway Authority requested a Transport Statement setting out the intended use of the building, the likely number of staff and visitors, their demographic, and parking requirements. The rear service yard that is accessed from Ryton Place is not included within the application area. The Transport Statement should also address how the building is to be serviced. Following discussions between the applicant and the Highway Authority, the Highway Authority has submitted further comments that it has been confirmed that the purpose of the building would be to host NHS training courses within 6 classrooms capable of accommodating 20 students each, 120 students in total. The Highway Authority’s principle concern is the potential for students to be dropped off and picked up on Watson Road near the Bridge Place traffic signal-controlled junction as this would be likely to severely compromise the operation of the junction if this occurs in numbers and could result in pavement parking. However, it is understood that courses will be attended by mature students. Older students may be less likely to cause an on-street parking issue to the same degree that can be observed outside many schools and colleges at the beginning and end of the school/college day as it is more likely that students would have the ability to drive, and therefore, utilise town centre car parks. On-street parking is widely prohibited in the town centre. However, to reduce the risk of dropping off causing a parking problem, the Highway Authority requests several conditions to spread the peak in arrivals and departures, to remove the focus from Watson Road, and to encourage sustainable travel by way of travel planning initiatives, the provision of cycle parking, and facilities for cyclists.

SUMMARY OF PUBLICITY This application was advertised by neighbour letter, site notice and 1 letters of objection has

been received on behalf of Royal Mail raising the following points:

Royal Mail’s concern relates to the Full application for the change of use from Class A (Comprising A1 shops & retail outlets, A3 Food and Drink, A4 Drinking Establishments, A5 Hot Food Take Away) and Sui Generis (Night Club) to Class D1 Non-Residential Institution. The application site is in close proximity to Royal Mail’s Worksop Delivery Office. It is considered that the application does not currently include sufficient information that will allow us to determine the potential impact of the proposed development on Royal Mails existing operations. These comments are therefore, submitted as a holding objection. It is therefore respectfully requested that Bassetlaw District Council as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) ask for further information from the applicant regarding the proposed use and the necessary accompanying technical information so that they can adequately and robustly assess the operational impacts from proposed development on the local highway and neighbouring properties. Background Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011, Royal Mail is the UK’s designated Universal Postal Service Provider, supporting customers, business and communities across the country. This means it is the only company to have a statutory duty to collect and deliver letters six days a week (and packets five days a week) at an affordable and geographically uniform price to every address in the UK. Royal Mail’s services are regulated by Ofcom.

The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and this should not be affected detrimentally by any highways or development project. The Government imposes financial penalties on Royal Mail if its Universal Service Obligation service delivery targets are not met. These penalties relate to time targets for: • Collections, • Clearance through plant, and • Delivery. Royal Mail supports new development adjacent to its sites where it does not interfere with the ability to meet the above demands. It is therefore essential that Royal Mail monitor and respond to any planning application that could detrimentally impact on their effective operation and prejudice their ability to meet their statutory duty to collect and deliver letters six days a week to every address in the UK. Holding Objection Given the lack of information publicly available in support of the application. Cushman & Wakefield on behalf of Royal Mail have not been able to assess the potential likely impact on their existing operational Worksop site. Therefore, we are writing to object to the application until additional information including the proposed D use class is provided in support of the application. Once additional information is made available we can review our position on the application. In the meantime, if Royal Mail cannot access their sites at peak times, due to highway or traffic disruptions as a result of construction vehicle movements and increase in traffic and/or off-site parking demand and consequently fails to meet its targets for delivery of post, then Royal Mail are fined by the Government and Ofcom. If regularly fined this has impacts on the profitability of the business and its ability to reinvest and deliver improvements to existing premises. Therefore, it is vitally important that Royal Mail’s assets are protected from impacts such as additional traffic from development, which could affect their ability to deliver the quality of service expected. However, should the council be minded to approve the application without additional information at this stage, Royal Mail request that Construction and Car Parking and Traffic Management Plans are conditioned. This will ensure that no obstructions from parked cars on the surrounding highway network will impact on the free movement of Royal Mail vehicles to and from their Delivery Office. Once additional information is submitted either in support of the application or as a discharge of condition, it is further requested that Royal Mail (through Cushman & Wakefield are given a chance to review and provided with the opportunity to comment further. Conclusion

This letter acts as a holding objection from Royal Mail to the above application until further information is provided. Once provided Royal Mail request additional time to review and provide further comments as necessary in order to protect their assets. Should the council be minded to approve the application without any additional information or justification, Royal Mail request that conditions are imposed for a Traffic Management Plan, Car Parking Plan and Construction Management Plan to be submitted to the Council for approval prior to any development on site and once approved the development not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with those documents. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision making. Policy CS2 of the council’s Core Strategy identifies Worksop as a Sub-Regional Centre. The application site lies within the designated development limits. Support will be given to town centre developments that enhance Worksop’s vitality and viability and reinforces its role as the District’s principle urban area, including support for continued development of new educational and research facilities. Non-retail uses in Secondary Frontages, at ground floor level, that would prejudice the vitality and viability of the town centre or be detrimental to the town centre environment, will not be supported. 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.

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

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT

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

“an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and

an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

In reaching a decision on this case, the NPPF at paragraph 9 makes it clear that the objectives referred to above should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions and are not criteria against which every planning application should be judged against. The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework identifies Worksop as a Sub-Regional Centre where the settlement is expected to be a focus for major housing, employment and town centre retail growth which is commensurate with its status as the primary town in the district. The change of use of the site is considered to make a significant and positive contribution to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy through the creation of temporary construction related jobs on site and the on-going contribution to the local economy and vitality and viability of the Town Centre both in terms of employment, spending and service usage from the creation of a learning facility and the additional visitors to the town that this will attract. In assessing the impact of a scheme in terms of the social objective as outlined in the NPPF, it must be remembered that this development meets this requirement as it will provide a new education and training facility to meet the existing and future housing needs of the residents within the district and surrounding area.

DESIGN, LAYOUT & VISUAL AMENITY

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

Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy provides general design principles which should be applied to all schemes. The policy states that all development proposals will need to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the wider area and when they are in historic locations, they should respect existing development patterns. All schemes must respect their context and not create a pastiche development which would be incorrect in their context. The application is for the change of use of the building and does not include any external alterations to the fabric of the building and it is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the visual character of the area surrounding the site. Whilst there wouldn’t be any external alterations to the building it is considered that bringing this vacant site back in to use would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the building and surrounding area. The building occupies a prominent position at the junction of Bridge Place and Watson Road and the reuse of the building would bring activity back to the building which would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity and vitality of the area.

Accordingly it is considered that the development as proposed would comply with the policies and guidance outlined above. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy requires that development does not materially or detrimentally affect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. This requirement also forms part of paragraph 127 of the NPPF. The site is part of the Town Centre, with limited residential properties nearby. The proposed use as an educational facility would not have any greater impact on the amenity of residents than the existing nightclub, café and office use.

HIGHWAYS MATTERS

Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that schemes can be supported where they provide safe and suitable access for all. This requirement is also contained in policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF makes it clear that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that all development should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which encourage social interaction, are safe and accessible and enable and support healthy lifestyles. Paragraph 108 of the NPPF requires schemes to provide safe and suitable access for all users as well as looking at appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes. A holding objection has been received on behalf of Royal Mail, concerned with the potential impact on their operations. As the obligations of the Royal Mail as a Universal Service Provider are in the public interest, this should not be affected detrimentally by any highways or development project. They consider the limited information in the submission is not sufficient for them to assess the impact on their operation. It is requested that should the Council be minded to approve the application without any additional information or justification, it is request that conditions are imposed for a Traffic Management Plan, Car Parking Plan and Construction Management Plan. The Highways Authority has also expressed concern over the impact on the highway network in the area, with the potential for students to be dropped off and picked up on Watson Road near the junction with Bridge Place signal-controlled junction This could severely compromise the operation of the junction. It has therefore requested several conditions to be included to reduce the risk of through traffic flow being interrupted, particularly at peak times and to encourage sustainable travel, including restricting the use to the educational institution with a maximum of 6 x 20 students at any one time and for no other use within Class D1 of the Use Classes Order. The concerns of Royal Mail are fully noted and it is acknowledged that inappropriate construction management may result in disruption to businesses and road users within the Town Centre to the detriment of the operations of nearby businesses and to the detriment of highway safety. Redeveloping a site within a sustainable location such as a Town Centre will result in construction traffic within the vicinity of other businesses for a limited period of time and some limited disruption may occur during the construction phase. It is considered that this impact can be made acceptable by imposing a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan which requires details of the routing of construction traffic, parking of contractor’s vehicles and arrangements for deliveries.

In terms of parking, the site is within Worksop Town Centre and, due to on-street restrictions in the vicinity, staff and students are likely to use the readily available nearby public car parks. Alternatively the site is within easy walking distance of the railway station and the bus station, and the Highway Authority has requested that the provision of cycle parking is provided on site. It is therefore considered that, subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposed development would not result in a detriment to highway safety and would comply with the guidance contained within Paragraph 108 of the NPPF. HERITAGE MATTERS

The Council has a duty under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting, character and appearance. The House of Lords in the South Lakeland DC vs the SOS case in 1992 decided that a Conservation Area would be preserved, even if it was altered by development, if the character or appearance (its significance in other words) was not harmed. Conservation’ is defined in the NPPF as the process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and where appropriate enhances its significance. Therefore case law has ascertained that both ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ are concerned with the management of change in a way that sustains the interest or values in a place – its special interest or significance. However, ‘conservation’ has the added dimension of taking opportunities to enhance significance where opportunities arise and where appropriate. Para 190 of the NPPF requires Councils to identify the significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal to ensure that harm to the asset is avoided or is minimised. Policy DM8 of the Council’s Core Strategy requires schemes that affect heritage assets to be of a scale, design, materials and siting and not have a negative effect on views towards the heritage asset. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states that in considering the impact of development on the significance of heritage assets, great weight should be given to the assets conservation. Policy DM8 of the Council’s Core Strategy requires schemes that affect heritage assets to be of a scale, design, materials and siting and not have a negative effect on views towards the heritage asset. The site is within the setting of the Grade II* listed Depository & Boundary Wall on Bridge Place and is within the setting of Worksop Conservation Area. Bridge Court is a modern building and no external alterations are proposed as part of this application and there would therefore be no additional impact upon the setting of nearby Listed Buildings or the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area. CONCLUSION/PLANNING BALANCE

The Council’s Core Strategies that have not been reviewed within 5 years of their adoption are now out of date, so therefore the weight to be apportioned to the Core Strategy policies is considered to be limited in decision making. As the Core Strategy is deemed to be out of date having regards to the contents of paragraph 33 of the NPPF, paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes it clear that the scheme should be considered under the planning balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole. NPPF paragraph 85 indicates that the role of the town centre at the heart of local communities, by taking a positive approach to growth, management and adaption. Bassetlaw Local

Development Framework Policy CS2 similarly supports town centre developments that enhance Worksop’s vitality and viability and reinforces its role as the District’s principle urban area, including support for continued development of new educational and research facilities. An assessment of the benefits and negatives provided by the scheme is given below with the weight apportioned to this in making a recommendation on this scheme:

Benefit/Negative of the scheme Weight given to the benefit/negative in decision making

Re-use of existing building, part of which has been vacant for some time.

The site is defined as secondary frontage, with previous office use. The proposal will bring students into the town centre to compliment overall uses with minimal loss of existing retailing, bringing diversification at a time when town centre retailing is experiencing many challenges which is a positive benefit.

Students coming into the area who will use and help to sustain existing local services

and facilitate potential future growth opportunities due to their spending power

This meets the requirements of the economic and social objectives outlined in paragraph 8 of the NPPF and as such it carries significant weight in the determination of this case.

Use of town centre car parks by visiting mature students.

This will bring increased revenue through the use of car parks and is a positive benefit to the economy.

Construction related jobs Whilst this may only be a transient part of this scheme, it meets the requirements of the economic objectives outlined in paragraph 8 of the NPPF and as such it carries a medium level of weight in the determination of this case.

Consultee responses to the case No objections have been received from any of the Council’s consultees to this scheme on any material planning grounds. As such, this support counts positively towards this scheme and great weight in the decision making process should be apportioned to it.

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

RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to conditions 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 approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the details and specifications included on the submitted planning application form and shown on submitted documents and drawings which include the following:

- Drawing No. 20-038 (02) SI 1:1250 Site Location Plan and 1:500 Existing Block

Plan @ A3 received on 17 June 2020. - Drawing No. 20-038 (03) SI 1:500 Proposed Site Plan @ A3 received on 17 June

2020. - Drawing No. 20-038 (02)01 1:100 Existing Basement Floor Plan @ A1 received

on 18 August 2020. - Drawing No. 20-038 (02)02 1:100 Existing Ground Floor Plan @ A1 received on

18 August 2020. - Drawing No. 20-038 (02)03 1:100 Existing First Floor Plan @ A1 received on 18

August 2020.

Reason: To ensure that the development takes the agreed form envisaged by the Local Planning Authority when determining the application.

3. The premises shall be used only for higher education with ancillary café and for no

other purpose including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, including Class F1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020.

Reason: To ensure that the Local Planning Authority can properly consider any alternative use of the premises in relation to the relevant planning considerations and to ensure that the development does not result in traffic issues associated with other development permissible within the D1 use class.

4. There shall be no more than 6 classes in attendance at any one time with a maximum

of 20 students per classroom.

Reason: To limit the potential for an on-street parking problem to develop whilst students are dropped off and picked up in the interest of highway network capacity and road safety.

5. There shall be a minimum of a 10-minute interval between the start times and or

finishes times of each class and a record of the daily time table and attendance numbers per class shall be kept for a minimum of 18 month and shall be made available to the Local Planning and Highway Authority within 7 days of a request;

Reason: To reduce the number of arrivals and departure by car at any one time and to enable the Local Planning and Highway Authority to monitor attendance should occasional on-street parking problems occur in the interest of highway network capacity and road safety.

6. No development shall take place until such time as a Travel Plan has been submitted

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include a requirement to issue each student an up to date travel information pack at the start of each course. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Travel Plan.

Reason: In the interest of sustainable travel.

7. In accordance with the approved Travel Plan monitoring periods, monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Local Planning and Highway Authority for approval that summarise the data collected over the monitoring period and which propose revised initiatives and measures where travel plan targets are not being met including implementation dates.

Reason: In the interest of sustainable travel and to ensure travel planning targets are being met.

8. Pedestrian access and egress shall be from Bridge Place and Ryton Place only

except for emergency access and egress.

Reason: To remove the focus of on-street parking associated with the development from the Watson Road frontage.

9. Prior to the development being first brought into use a minimum of 11 secure and

undercover cycle parking stands; student lockers; and shower facilities shall be provided in accordance with details first submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To encourage cycling in the interest of sustainable travel.

10. No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management

Plan ("the CEMP") for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the CEMP shall be implemented in full. The CEMP shall include:

i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) Storage and usage of plant and storage of materials used in constructing the development; iv) Measures to control the emission of dust, dirt and other debris during demolition construction; v) Delivery and construction working hours; vi) Construction traffic routing; viii) Protection measures for cyclists and pedestrians

Reason: to ensure development is carried out in a way which safeguards the amenity of nearby occupiers and in the interests of highway safety.