Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Planning (Development Management) APPLICATION NUMBER: R/2013/0651/FFM LOCATION: LAND AT STOKESLEY ROAD GUISBOROUGH PROPOSAL: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (188

DWELLINGS) WITH ASSOCIATED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSES INCLUDING LANDSCAPING

APPLICATION SITE AND DESCRIPTION Permission is sought for planning permission for a development comprising up to 188 dwellings, public open space and ecological enhancement area on land at Pine Hills that lies to the west of the built up area of Guisborough adjacent to the Pine Hills residential estate. The development will deliver a mix of dwelling types to include 2, 3 and 4 bedroom 2 storey dwellings. Of this 15%, 28 will be affordable units The application site covers 7.1 Ha (approximately 17.5 acres). The density would be 26.5 dph (10.7 dpa) .The plans indicate incidental open space throughout the development. Play areas in the form of two small areas to accommodate 2/3 pieces of equipment for the under 5’s is also proposed. Access to the site would be from Stokesley Road some 143m (approximately 469’) west of the junction with Farndale Drive. The site is currently farmland located to the south of Stokesley Road. It is currently in use for grazing and as pasture for horses. The site is split in the centre by an existing track edged by hedgerow, which runs from the east towards a covered NWL reservoir at the western boundary. 170m (557’) to the south west of the site lies the northern boundary of the North York Moors National Park. There is an established tree and hedgerow buffer between the site and the National Park. The landscaping proposed would comprise the existing perimeter planting including the two hedges that border the access track that leads to the reservoir, together with an existing area of broadleafed woodland in the northwest corner with additional planting and areas of public open space. To the east and south of the site is the existing residential estate with access from Stokesley Road, via Farndale Drive. Agricultural land lies to the west and north of Stokesley Road (where there is an extant outline planning permission for up to 350 dwellings under reference R/2012/0617/OOM). The site is variously enclosed by fences, mature hedges and trees. The application has been accompanied by the following documents;

• Environmental Impact Assessment,

• Planning Statement, • Statement of Community Involvement, • Design and Access Statement, • Transport Assessment and • Public utilities Statement

In addition, the applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into a S106 Agreement with Heads of Terms to include:

• The provision of affordable housing, • A contribution of £50,000 towards leisure facilities at King George VI

Park and/or the swimming pool, • A contribution as necessary towards the shortfall in existing school

capacity • Local labour agreement and • The maintenance and management of the open space and play areas.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) REDCAR AND CLEVELAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY DPD CS1Securing a Better Quality of Life CS2 Locational Strategy CS7 Spatial Strategy for Guisborough CS13 Meeting the Housing Requirements CS14 Phasing of Housing Development CS15 Delivering Mixed and Balanced Communities CS17 Housing Density CS20 Promoting Good Design CS22 Protecting and Enhancing the Borough’s Landscape CS24 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation CS25 Built and Historic Environment CS26 Managing Travel Demand DEVELOPMENT POLICIES DPD DP1 Development Limits DP2 Location of Development DP3 Sustainable Design DP4 Developer Contributions

DP5 Art and Development DP6 Pollution Control DP7 Potentially Contaminated and Unstable Land DP11 Archaeological Sites and Monuments

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

In September 2013 the Council published its new draft local plan for consultation. This plan is at the very earliest stage of the plan making process and so the policies in it are afforded less weight in deciding planning applications. Planning policy in the draft plan will carry more weight at successive stages of the plan making process and reports will reflect this approach.

OTHER POLICY DOCUMENTS • Urban Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document • Design of Residential Areas Supplementary Planning Document • Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document • Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document PLANNING HISTORY A Tree Preservation (02/2013) was served to cover the Grove Hill Plantation (to the west of the application site in October 2013) RESULTS OF CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY This application has been the subject of local consultation and has been advertised by means of press and site notices. As a result 168 letters / e-mails have been received objecting to the application for the following reasons:

• Contrary to relevant council planning policy, Human Rights Act (HRA), the responsibilities of R&CBC, in particular Protocol 1, Article 1. This states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes home and other land.

• Article 8 of the HRA states that a person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life. In Briton v SoS the courts re appraises the purpose of the law and concluded that the protection of the countryside falls within the interests of Article 8. Private and family life therefore encompasses not only the home but also the surroundings.

• This is a beautiful green area on the outskirts of Guisborough. It has been used for many years to grow crops. The area is part of the green break between town and Pinchinthorpe Forest Centre. The development would have a negative impact upon the landscape, the Forest Centre and Walkway and associated wildlife.

• It would be visible from the Walkway. • One of the reasons that Guisborough is attractive is because of the

feeling of space

• The area is rural in character without intrusive development. The site is particularly attractive entrance to the town, which is already to be blighted by the Galley Hill Development.

• Would ruin the character of the town and dissuade tourists. • This is urban sprawl • Guisborough would soon be joined to Nunthorpe • Turning into Ingleby Barwick • The fields provide a natural barrier between the houses and the

countryside. • Development is skewed to the west of the town rather than the east

and brownfield land closer to the centre • Would be seen by visitors entering the town. • PPS3 states that inappropriate designed housing should not be

accepted. the developer has opted for cheap materials for what they say is a high quality development – does not make a positive contribution.

• Large part of hedge will be removed on Stokesley Road. • Greenfield site – Bellway have not demonstrated they have undertaken

an assessment of other potentially more suitable sites and to show they have considered other possible brownfield sites in the area. Bellway prefer the greater profits through developing greenfield sites. Bellway say due to the current economic climate the remediation costs associated with brownfield sites have a detrimental impact on viability.

• The view of future residents will be of 350 houses granted on the other side of Stokeskey Road.

• The development is not planned it is ad hoc. • Will impact on Conservation Areas • Site not identified for development – outside limits. • Will result in housing development ‘creep’ which is that planning

controls are supposed to prevent. • Site appears over developed. • The parking ratio is 2.1 per dwelling. Appears to be insufficient parking • Bellway not interested in the neighbours only avoiding their own homes

for sale. • Plots 30 and 66 previous planning applications – will comment when

data is received from RCBC. • Emergency Access – only one road entrance must be risk to be

resolved. • The tree plantation (Grove Hill Plantation) seems too close to the

planned area – should there be a fire barrier? Will impact on wildlife. Concern regarding the impact building works would have on these trees. Have correct assessments been done?

• Houses near Grove Hill Plantation are they at risk from falling braches. • Will they receive enough natural light? • The site is next to SNCI and it will be affected. Statement says that

Grove Hill is not an SNCI – requested of RCBC the status of Grove Hill. • Through the seasons it is full of wildlife. • Deer use the field in winter.

• Pheasants overwinter and nest in Spring. For the first time this Spring it was used by curlew and lapwing. The rooks from The Avenue rookery use the area for foraging.

• Contrary to paragraph 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) regarding pursuing sustainable development that involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life including moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieve net gains for nature an improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure.

• There is bound to be impact upon flora and fauna. There are many species that could be affected by the development. Galley Hill development would already impact upon them. Why add to the burden? There are deer, bats, newts and various other amphibians, owls, jays, woodpeckers, kingfishers, weasels, stoats, foxes, badgers, butterflies and other insects to name but a few of the possible affected species not to mention the destruction of ancient hedgerows.

• Do not mention bat colony roost in an abandoned building within feet of the border of the development. The numbers of bats recorded do not correlate with the amount seen.

• The Borough does not need development of this type. Is there a need for an additional 188 homes in Guisborough? There is land with permission where developers are not building.

• There are already 300 houses for sale in Guisborough 500 more proposed. This will impact on the services in town. It would be wise to wait and see the impact of the 500 homes before given permission for 188 on more.

• The planning development document identifies a major need for one bedroom properties and independent living properties. Both of these types of housing would be better served nearer the centre e.g. Guisborough. There are a number of brownfield sites needing development in the centre of town before greenfield areas. These are better suited for affordable housing rather than areas outside town with limited transport links and access to services.

• The reported number of vehicle movement from this site and the Wimpey site seems low considering 90% of households own 2 cars

• Stokesley Road is in essence a country lane. • No observations have been made on the Farndale Road and The

Avenue junctions with Stokesley Road to determine impact. • The report states that it is expected that 50% of the pupils will walk to

Laurence Jackson School (plus 60% walk to Nunthorpe) – a distance of two mile – cannot see any pupil walking this distance. Guisborough pupils do not use Nunthorpe School and there is no footpath

• Bus stops are not close enough to encourage bus use. • The location of the entrance is not satisfactory. Stokesley Road cannot

support the additional traffic, particularly with the Galley Hill development being approved. The layout means a chicane will be developed in the horizontal alignment which could be very dangerous.

• There is no increased capacity in the road network anywhere in the area.

• The road is already the scene of many accidents, particularly in the winter months as it is very exposed and is often icy and dangerous.

• Traffic problems already exist at rush hour – traffic on Stokesley Road is already overloaded more housing would exacerbate the problem.

• The town centre will be congested. Will be pressure on town centre parking.

• The planning document identifies the need for larger more exclusive housing to attract higher earning people into the Borough. There are houses of this type in Guisborough but people are more likely to want to live in this area if facilities are improved. Building on this site would take away the ‘plus’ higher earners are looking for.

• The document item 6.6 states there is a notable shortfall of 4 bedroom and detached houses a web search on 26 October 2013 shows Guisborough 81 units, within 3 mile radius 370 units. The statement does not stand up.

• The proposal will be very visible from A171 thus Bellways statement (item 7.8) is wrong.

• Visible from many viewpoints • Documents do not show where the proposed development will

incorporate roosting opportunities for bats and nesting opportunities for birds.

• Trees at Grove Hill not shown – thus not true representation. • Trees in plot 127 will cast shadows over 85 Farndale Drive rear

garden. The schedule does not specify these trees. • Plot 127 is too close to 85 Farndale Drive rear fence. • Plot 127 has been rotated since the plans wee viewed at Sunnyfield

House – why? Now position of windows more directly into that area. • There is no schedule of what house type is on which plot. Thus the

application is low on details. • Will spoil enjoyment of garden • The development would prevent further development of neighbouring

property due to proximity of buildings. • Advise that in 1986 acquired part of the triangular corner of this field

and have correspondence regarding the request for a curtilage and it as made very clear that no development was possible as it was outside the development envelope of Guisborough. It was eventually granted but subject to detailed plans regarding paths, trees etc.

• Are we so desperate for houses that the land can now be developed due to the not so well considered change in government policy?

• The development plan should remain in place for 15 years. • Neighbours would like to purchase the land to extend their gardens • The empty shops on Guisborough High Street are more of a deterrent

to new people moving in than the supposed lack of suitable housing. A vibrant theatre would attract new residents; a Weatherspoons Pub would put people off.

• Have watched Guisborough decline from the characterful country market town it was in 1974 to the dying place it is now – another

‘Middlesbrough’. There have been other residential developments within Guisborough in recent years none of which have rejuvenated the main street. This one would be no better.

• There will no benefits for Guisborough businesses and shops. Occupiers will travel to Teesside Park, Stokesley etc. – all areas which offer high quality shopping.

• Most of affordable housing is proposed on the boundary with Farndale/Bransdale – they should be internal or on land with no existing houses

• Bellway claim there will be housing for the elderly but all the houses are two storey

• Access via Bransdale will alter nature of the culs de sac. This should be blocked up.

• Paragraph 94 states that LAs should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk. Understand from one of the owners that the gardens of several properties on Bransdale adjacent to the site already suffer flooding on a regular basis. The development site above these is likely to exacerbate the problem. Building on a sloping field will increase the likelihood of flood water wash off.

• Understand drainage and sewage was at capacity • Excessive road flooding occurs at the lower end of Stokesley Road. • Surely we still need to grow our own food and not import them? • Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states LPAs should give great weight to the

need to create, expand and alter schools. This development together with others being built or planned will put huge pressure on school places. Is there capacity to accommodate this and the Galley Hill development?

• The original long term plans for Guisborough (the John Prescott initiative) recognised the superior nature of the area and specifically precluded 2 and 3 bedroom houses. The Prescott initiative proposed 4 and 5 bedroom houses for this side of Stokesley Road.

• The development would affect the view and privacy of Pine Hills residents (including the 24 families who live next to the development) and feel aggrieved that local residents have paid a premium to live on Pine Hills, yet the developer is going to include affordable housing on the doorstep.

• The land slopes towards the existing houses and is to the west of most of them and will cast shadows on their gardens, plants, seating areas.

• Will be overbearing • Will result in overlooking and loss of privacy • Noise, dust, disturbance and inconvenience for local residents if this

goes ahead along with Galley Hill development. The Spring Lodge has caused a major inconvenience and the Galley Hill development will also do so.

• Feels that the Borough Council adequately informs local residents of such plans

• Additional trees should be retained at the boundary with Farndale Drive.

• Paragraph 17 of the NPPF states planning should empower local people to shape their surroundings. Recently Guisborough Town Council distributed questionnaires to local residents as part of a consultation exercise to influence the Local Development Plan. 89% of those who responded considered there were already sufficient houses in Guisborough and that no further development should take place. If development should be sanctioned in future they should be small (59%) and be confined to brown field sites (81%). Only 1% favoured using good agricultural land. Paragraph 17 also states that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area – this would not enhance the overall quality of the area.

• Paragraph 69 states that LPAs should create a shared vision with communities and involve all sections of communities in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions – as evidence by the questionnaire the people of Guisborough do not want yet another large housing development on greenfield land.

• Note that the draft Local Plan states that development at this site is not planned until 2024/25 and proposes 100 houses with larger gardens

• If approved should have fewer dwellings and more perimeter planting to reduce impact and retain green margin to Stokesley Road.

• Development should enhance the natural environment. • Contravenes PPS1 protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural

historic environment • Would undermine Policy CS2 by not concentrating housing in the

conurbation • Few areas of open space • New houses will soon lose their appeal. • Redcar and Cleveland has a declining population indicative that fewer

houses are needed. • No corresponding investment in infrastructure • Layout relies on residents using their garages leaving little space for

additional parking • Lack of local shops and other amenities – currently a pub and one

shop. • Lack of space for children to play on • Development turned down in Coatham as Council deemed it was not

needed. If that was not needed why this here? • Redcar gets regeneration, Guisborough wall to wall housing • Redcar gets seaside amenities in Guisborough plans to damage the

forest/moorland access • The application should be put on hold until the new plan is published -

for the sake of less than a year would mean not doing any works that might conflict with the future plan. New buildings last 50/100 years.

• Masterplan does not show Grove Hill Plantation. This is a misrepresentation.

• Pre-application public consultation inadequate – the statement is a misrepresentation. Was held in August during the holidays. Insulted

regarding the comment that the objections come from the over 50’s and that they do not understand the issue of younger house buyers

• Inadequate infrastructure - it will impact on schools, doctor’s appointments, parking on the high street and the visual impact.

• When will we be able to stop a developer? • Many parents do not want Galley Hill School changed • Secondary school is the eats of the town • Additional school required in the west. • Please don’t think in such a monetary way. • The result will be likely to be another credit crunch • Only benefits builder and Council through Council Tax • Smaller developers elsewhere such as at Peacocks Yard seem very

good. Others not, recent development in Stokesley Road created a dangerous junction.

• Over 1000 houses proposed at Marske – there is no local enthusiasm for this.

• Not many people will cycle to work, shops etc despite the report suggesting the new residents are likely to follow averages. Most are recreational cyclists.

• There should be a continuous path the Pinchinthorpe Walkway • Assumptions regarding eastwards travel on Stokesley Road are

incorrect as it is a route to Redcar, Wilton and East Cleveland. • One report mentions the maternity hospital but this closed down many

years ago, the fire station is not manned. • There would be a strain on health centres and thee is no survey on the

available capacity on the schools. • Even the lower cost affordable houses are likely to be too expensive for

most first time buyers. • Will put additional pressure on Council services. • Had a two storey extension refused and only a single storey extension

granted due to objections – unbelievable a large development is being considered metres from the property.

• Policy will result in developers land banking as only a few houses will be built each year – is demand be over provided?

• High density – cheap materials should decrease density • Not in keeping with or matching well maintained and improved

adjoining houses • Loss of light and light pollution • Planning decisions should be based on what local people want. Those

who make decisions have no interest in the town • Tree in garden used by migratory birds worry that new neighbours will

vie it as a nuisance and damage it. • Will increase use of footpath at Lyndale that is the only remaining

access of the original three to the Walkway – people park in Lyndale to avoid the parking charge at the Walkway. Essential additional access is created.

• Moving from centre flies in the face of sustainability – cannot see any link to localism.

• Where will all the employment be found for those moving into the houses?

• Have experienced hell for 18 months whilst Spring Lodge was being developed (noise, dust and loss of privacy) – how many years will people have to put up with a building site when 538 houses are built.

• Have not listened to the community when other sites have been approved and have denied the community a community theatre.

• Should have received notice years ago that the land was going to be used for housing.

Environment Agency Raise no objections to the proposal as submitted. Consider the proposed development will be acceptable providing the following condition is imposed on any grant of planning permission: Condition The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 5590064v1 and the following mitigation measures detailed within section I9.4 of the FRA: 1. Limiting the surface water run-off generated from the site so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. Discharge should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield run-off rate and should be calculated and agreed prior to the granting of planning permission. 2. Provision of compensatory flood attenuation to accommodate the 1 in 100 year event plus 30% for climate change. Storage volumes should be calculated and agreed prior to the granting of planning permission. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing and phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason 1. To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. 2. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided. 3. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. They also advise that their records show that there could be great crested newt in the area and that these are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Further, they advise that surface water run-off should be controlled as near to its source as possible through a sustainable drainage approach to surface water management (SUDS).

They note the application form states foul sewage will be discharged to the public sewer which would be an acceptable method and that the Sewerage Undertaker should be consulted. Natural England Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Their statutory purpose being to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Natural England advises that based upon the information provided the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal regarding landscape. The development relates to the North York Moors National Park and they advise the Authority to seek the advice of the National Park Authority. They note that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken in support of this proposal. Natural England does not object to the proposed development. On the basis of the information available to them, their advice is that the proposed development would be unlikely to affect bats and great crested newts. They advise that they have not assessed the survey for badgers, barn owls and breeding birds, water voles, white-clawed crayfish or widespread reptiles. These are all species protected by domestic legislation and protected species and standing advice should be used to assess the adequacy of any surveys, the impacts that may result and the appropriateness of any mitigation measures. The proposed development is within an area that Natural England considers could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure (GI) provision and they would encourage the incorporation of GI into this development. They advise that if the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, e.g. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife site, and the importance of this in relation to development plan policies, before it determines the application. This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. Measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site should be considered. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in

exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’. This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. North York Moors National Park Planning Authority Raise no objections to the proposal. Town Council Concern expressed over lack of play area, money needs to be ring fenced for education needs in Guisborough. Northumbrian Water Ltd The Environmental Statement which forms part of the planning application acknowledges the pre-development enquiry response and requirements for the foul and surface water drainage of the site in paragraphs 13.10 and 13.11. NWL are happy with these details and would request that the Environmental Statement forms part of the approved documents for the application. NWL note that as part of the public utilities statement which forms part of the planning application the developer has stated that they are aware of the presence of NWLs water mains which pass through the site and their service reservoir adjacent to the site and the need for access to this site. They advise they will work with the developer directly to ensure our assets are protected outside of the planning process. Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Archaeology Consultant) Notes that in addition to sub-surface archaeology the ES notes that sections of hedgerow with potentially 17th or 18th origins will be affected and these bisect the site east west and form the western boundary and the documentation notes that these will be retained and supplemented through additional planting. The alteration to the setting of the hedgerow is also noted: Para L5.6 “The two sections of the surviving 17th/18 century enclosure field boundaries will be retained and incorporated into the layout of the residential development and reinforced through hedgerow planting. The scheme will therefore have the beneficial effect of preserving and enhancing

these locally significant historic landscape features but will result in changes to their setting and landscape context during and after construction. Physical adverse effects from construction works should be minimal and will mainly be related to removal of sub-surface remains of ploughed out boundaries and landscape treatment of surviving elements. The latter should seek to minimise any ground disturbance and retain and enhance their existing historic character as far as possible. The significance of the effects of construction is considered negligible.” The archaeology consultant agrees with this assessment. It is noted that there are no designated or non-designated heritage assets known at the site. The risk of potential remains being present is low. Due to the low risk of remains being present or where any are found these are likely to be locally important assets only. The archaeologist advises that the contents of the report are agreed and it will not be necessary to impose a condition with regard to further archaeology work and unless covered by the application being required to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans a condition regarding the two historic section of the hedge is recommended. Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Highways Engineers) “I refer to the above application and would advise you, I have no objections to the proposal from a highway point of view. I do have the following conditional comments to make: 1. Before the development commences details shall be submitted and approved in writing of a traffic management plan for the construction phase of the works. 2. Before the development commences details shall be submitted and approved in writing of proposals to provide contractor car parking and a materials storage compound with in the site boundary for the duration of the works. 3. Parking spaces must be brought into use before the development is completed, in the interests of highway safety. 4. The private drive should be a minimum of 3.7m wide for its entire length and should serve no more than 5 properties. It should be noted that the Council operates kerbside refuse collection. 5. The development sites junction with the existing highway to be 4.5m x 90m. The area enclosed by this splay should either be under the applicants control or adopted highway. There should be no obstructions greater than 600mm within this area and any vegetation should be maintained at this height. 6. Surface water discharges from this site should be flow regulated so as not to exacerbate flooding problems elsewhere in the catchment, and should reflect existing green field run off and how this will be achieved. Therefore an appropriate surface water regulation system should be submitted to and approved by the LPA before development commences, and implemented prior to the development being brought into use. The discharge should be

regulated to the existing run off from a 1 in 1 year storm, with sufficient storage within the system to accommodate at least a 1 in 30 year storm. The design should also ensure that storm water resulting from a 1 in 100 year event [including climate change] and surcharging the drainage system can be stored on the site without risk to people or property and without overflowing into drains or watercourses. (The principles set out in the current FRA with respect to attenuation and proposed connections to the existing network need to be formally agreed) It is recommended that consultation with both EA and NWLtd is carried out to confirm connection points and discharge rates where this has not been already carried out. 7. Full highway construction and layout details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, to ensure the development is built in accordance with R&C Design Guide and Specification and hence to adoptable standards. 8. Road safety audits will be required throughout the design and construction of any highway works. This initial submission has been accompanied by a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, (Feasibility Stage), and Stages 2 and 3 are to be submitted as the design progresses.” Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Arborist) “The site has a small amount of individual trees that are likely to be affected by the development, including Sycamore and Ash, however these trees are not worthy of additional protection. If permission is given, the only trees worthy of protection on site (during the development phase) are two groups of trees the first Grove Hill Plantation (South Western corner), the second a small group of trees (North Western corner, adjacent Stokesley Road) both of which are on the boundary the proposed development. I would recommend that the protection measures highlighted in BS5837:2012 are adopted, and that a 2m high fence is installed to the outside edge of the drip line to both groups of trees, to protect the trees and root plates during the development phase.” Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Environmental Protection-Contamination) “Further to your consultation, my comments are as follows: A Geoenvironmental Appraisal has been submitted at Chapter M of the Environmental Statement The assessment does not highlight any past contaminative historic use, pollution episodes or that it is affected by contamination from adjoining land. As a precaution I would therefore recommend the following condition to cover unexpected contamination that may be encountered during the development

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority Following completion of the development a report must be submitted confirming that unexpected contamination was not encountered during the development” Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council (Environmental Protection-Nuisance) “Further to your consultation, my comments are as follows: Noise Construction Noise “I would recommend that:-

• the working hours for all construction activities on this site be limited to between 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays and not at all on a Sunday or Bank Holidays.

• No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting existing occupants adjacent to the proposed development from noise, and vibration has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The approved scheme shall be in accordance but not exclusive with mitigation measures stated in Chapter J (paras J6.2-J6.5) of the environmental statement and be retained until the development is complete. Measured pre construction ambient noise levels suggest daytime noise levels of circa 56dBLAeq, therefore according to Table E.1 BS5228-1:2009 Construction noise shall not exceed 65dBLAeq at any noise sensitive receptor around the site. Monitoring to ensure compliance with this standard shall be carried out by the applicant in accordance with a scheme to be agreed and approved with the Local Authority and be retained until the development is complete. Residential development

• All buildings shall be constructed to the standards in accordance with Chapter J (paras J6.6-J6.18) of the environmental statement and shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained.

• No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting the occupants of the proposed development from noise from the road network has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason To ensure that acceptable noise levels within the development and its curtilage are not exceeded. Air Quality Construction The existing and proposed residential receptors are at high to low risk of experiencing dust effects due to construction activities at the proposed site, the risk decreasing with distance of separation. I would therefore recommend:-

• No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting the existing and proposed occupants from dust has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be in accordance but not exclusive with mitigation measures stated in Chapter K para K5.6 of the environmental statement and be retained until the development is complete.”

CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES Permission is sought for planning permission for a development comprising up to 188 dwellings, public open space and ecological enhancement area on land at Pine Hills that lies to the west of the built up area of Guisborough adjacent to the Pine Hills residential estate. The site is currently farmland located to the south of Stokesley Road. It is currently in use for grazing and as pasture for horses. The site is split in the centre by an existing dirt track edged by hedgerow, which runs from the east towards a covered NWL reservoir at the western boundary. 170 metres to the south west of the site lies the northern boundary of the North York Moors National Park. There is an established tree and hedgerow buffer between the site and the National Park. The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are:

• The principle of the development and the National Planning Policy Framework

• The impact on landscape • The impact upon the character and appearance of the area • The impact on highway safety

• The impact on residential amenity • The impact on flooding • The impact on ecology

National Planning Policy (NPPF) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that planning applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Planning permission should be granted where the development plan is absent, silent or outdated unless there are likely to be significant adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits of development when assessed against the policies in the NPPF. The NPPF also maintains the plan-led principle of determining planning applications in accordance with the development plan. Para 14 of the NPPF states; For decision-taking this means: ● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and ● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: – any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or – specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. Where the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites the NPPF states that the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up-to-date. The Council does not currently have a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the LDF policies for the supply of housing (including the housing aspects of Policies DP1 and CS2) should not be considered up-to-date in the determination of this planning application in accordance with the NPPF. The application should therefore be granted permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF as a whole or if specific policies within NPPF indicate development should be restricted. All other adopted LDF policies (except those that deal with housing) will continue to be given due weight in the decision making process, based on their consistency with the NPPF. Departure The application site is located outside of development limits as defined on the LDF Proposals Map. LDF Policy DP1 sets out the criteria for appropriate forms of development outside the development limits, which is generally restricted to rural needs. The proposed development would not meet any of the criteria set out in Policy DP1 and the proposal is therefore required to be

dealt with as a departure from the development plan. In order to be considered acceptable the Council is required to consider whether there material planning considerations that justify a departure from the development plan policy. Principle of Development The site is located on the edge of Guisborough, which is a higher order settlement within the settlement hierarchy with a good range of shops and services, including a district centre, employment opportunities, educational institutions and leisure facilities. The site is also located on a major bus route. It is therefore considered that the site is sustainable and should be supported in accordance with the NPPF unless other material considerations significantly outweigh the benefits of the proposal. The development is acceptable as a departure from policy because of the lack of a 5 year supply and the provisions of para 14 of the NPPF Character and Appearance The mix of dwellings comprises mainly detached dwellings with a ‘pepper potting’ of semi-detached and terraced dwellings through the development. All are two storeys in height. They would have pitched roofs and be of brick and tile construction with complementary features. The roof line will however, be varied, due to the sloping nature of the site. The dwellings would be arranged off a series of cul-de-sacs accessed from a main spine road. The application site has been included within the draft Local Plan as a proposed housing allocation for the development of executive-style dwellings developed at lower density in order to help meet the identified need to increase the stock of detached properties in the Borough, as evidenced through the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). The SHMA also indicates that there is an unmet demand for 4+ bedroom detached properties in Guisborough. This site provides an opportunity to deliver higher-end aspirational housing. As a consequence of this aspiration the applicant was requested to review the housing mix and density (up to 20 dwellings per hectare). The applicant has declined to do so advising that they consider that the proposed density and mix is entirely appropriate for the site as demonstrated through the application submission. The applicant has taken into account, and in line with the market housing requirements, provides predominantly detached units with a high proportion of them being 4 bed properties. On that basis they consider the proposal to be broadly consistent with the identified local need that will go some way to meeting the identified market shortfalls. Further, the proposed scheme at a density of 26.5 dph (gross) is entirely in keeping with the general urban grain of the area and is consistent with the adjacent Pine Hills Estate. They also state that it is also broadly comparable to that of the recently approved Taylor Wimpey Galley Hill scheme to the south. They also note that the Landscape and Visual Assessment demonstrates that the proposed scheme will not have a

detrimental impact on the National Park or the landscape character of the surrounding area. Noting the early stages of the Local Plan, proximity to the Pine Hills estate and the similarities in the layout it is considered that a development comprising a mix of two storey dwellings enclosed by both mature and additional planting would provide a satisfactory form of development. It is considered that the proposal accords with the aims of policies CS20, CS22, DP2 and DP3 of the LDF Landscape and Trees The site comprises a large field in a prominent location on the western edge of Guisborough. The site is an area of agricultural land of approximately 7.1 hectares. The site is part rolling, part flat in nature. The periphery of the site has existing hedgerows, hedgerow trees, and an area of broadleafed trees within the north west corner together with fencing including domestic fencing adjoining the residential area. An access track bisects the site east to west that gives access to the NWL reservoir and this is enclosed on either side by hedgerow. Careful consideration needs to be given to the impact of the proposals upon the landscape and the nearby North York Moors National Park in accordance with Policy CS22 and the adopted Landscape Character SPD. A Landscape and Visual Assessment has been submitted as part of the ES. The site forms part of the Redcar and Cleveland Broad Inland Valley Character Tract G1 and the character of the landscape is described as Restoration Landscape as identified in the Landscape Character SPD. Restoration Landscapes relates to areas that require enhancement rather than protection and are areas that are more capable of accommodating development than other more sensitive landscape areas within the Borough. The proposals retain and supplement many of the existing landscape features. Loss of natural features would largely be due to the creation of access to and through the site. The site is assessed in the submitted report as having a Low to High Landscape / Visual Sensitivity, taking into account the National Character Areas Assessment, the Redcar and Cleveland Character Assessment findings and site visits and survey. The report notes that the site has some features worthy of conservation in the form of existing vegetation notably existing hedgerows and perimeter trees. Due to the generally rolling nature of the site and the open field aspect, any development of this area would be visible to a number of receptors including residents of the adjacent Pine Hills estate and users of the Pinchinthorpe Walkway and footpaths to the north/northeast. Without mitigation, the development is predicted to result in landscape and

visual effects ranging from minor and adverse to moderate and adverse depending on the sensitivity and proximity of receptors to the site. The surrounding landform and existing hedgerows, trees and woodlands limit the visibility of the development from many locations. There would be changes to the landscape from some key views but these changes would not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of the landscape for the majority of receptors. The retention, where possible, of trees and hedgerows on the site and the establishment of tree planting around the edges and throughout the site would assist in the assimilation of this site into the landscape.

Where an existing site is open in nature, it is inevitable that visual effects will be greater from locations relatively close to the site and therefore landscape and visual effects will remain as moderate and adverse post mitigation. However, with careful planning, sensitive handling of detailed levels and siting of proposed new buildings and landscape elements, the residual effects should be reduced or neutralized from the majority of viewpoints. For wider views the site would appear as a more natural extension to existing residential areas at the western edge of Guisborough. It is considered the development can be accommodated on this site and that with both the retention of existing mature planting, together with supplementary planting, particularly at the perimeter of the site and the public open space proposed throughout the development, the site could be satisfactorily assimilated into the landscape without detriment to the wider area. The development does not result in a material loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land of a scale sufficient to refuse planning permission. Trees The development of the site can be undertaken without any significant loss or damage being caused to any of the retained tree cover on the site or on adjacent land (particularly Grove Hill Plantation). Hedgerow removal will be limited to access roads and all retained trees and hedges can be adequately protected throughout the construction phase in accordance with BS5837 (Trees in relation to construction). The tree planting and landscaping plan will be expected to compensate for the minor loss of vegetation and enhance tree cover in the short to long-term across the site. The Council’s arborist has advised that the development is generally acceptable. That the site has a small amount of individual trees that are likely to be affected by the development, including Sycamore and Ash, however these trees are not worthy of additional protection. The only trees worthy of protection on site (during the development phase) are two groups of trees the first Grove Hill Plantation (South Western corner), the second a small group of trees (North Western corner, adjacent Stokesley Road) both of which are on the boundary the proposed development.

The arborist recommends that the protection measures highlighted in BS5837:2012 are adopted, and that a 2m high fence is installed to the outside edge of the drip line to both groups of trees, to protect the trees and root plates during the development phase. To ensure protection of existing trees and hedges it is recommended that a protective condition be imposed if planning permission is granted. Agricultural Land Classification The site is not considered to be best and most versatile agricultural land, with the vast majority being classified as grade 3b under the agricultural land classification, with only small pockets of grade 3a. The Authority has been advised that the loss of this land to agriculture would not effect the current operation of the agricultural unit. In view of the above it is considered that the development would accord with policies CS22, DP2 and DP3 of the LDF.

Public Open Space The Council’s Green Space Strategy identifies a shortfall of public open space in parts of west Guisborough. In order to help address this undersupply, the development should provide an appropriate level of usable space in accordance with the Council’s minimum open space standards. The minimum standards seek the provision of 1.2 hectares of open space per 1000 population, comprising 0.3 hectares for children’s play; 0.5 hectares for teenage provision; and 0.4 hectares for amenity space. To meet the minimum requirements at least 0.5 hectares of usable open space should be provided on-site as part of the proposals. The proposed development would provide at least approximately 0.5 ha of open space throughout the development. This exceeds the minimum requirement. With regard to on-site play two small areas of public open space are proposed which would each accommodate 2/3 pieces of play equipment for the under 5’s. In terms of formal playing pitches, standards are set out separately from play and general amenity open space. The Redcar & Cleveland Playing Pitch Strategy, which was revised in 2011, recommends a minimum standard of 1ha. per 1,000 population. As a major application this development would impact on the demand for sports pitches and so an off-site financial contribution towards improving existing facilities which are heavily used is proposed. The developer has indicated that they are willing to contribute £50,000 towards off site provision and this would contribute to facilities at King George VI Park and / or Guisborough swimming pool.

In the light of the above it is considered that the proposal meets the aims of policy CS19 and DP3 of the LDF.

Transport and Highways The application proposes a primary vehicular site access to the site from Stokesley Road with a ghost island provided to facilitate right turning traffic.

Stokesley Road is a 30 mph zone until approximately 25 metres beyond the western edge of the end of the urban area when it becomes a 40 mph limit. The proposed access would have a visibility splay of 4.5m x 90m. There are no public rights of way crossing the site. In addition to the roads and footpaths associated with the development, pedestrian access to the site would be available from a footpath that runs west from the junction with Farndale Drive. Additional footpath links would be provided via the existing gated access road serving the reservoir to Bransdale. The extension of this link to The Walkway is also being explored. The documentation notes that there are good access routes to a number of local facilities including two primary schools to the south of the site (St Paulinus and Galley Hill Primary). It is proposed that alternative travel modes be encouraged through the implementation of a residential travel plan. The final travel plan may be secured by planning condition. The closest bus stops are adjacent to the junction with Falcon Way for eastbound buses and adjacent to Farndale Road for westbound services. During the daytime there is an average of six services per hour that operate past the development site. Nunthorpe Railway Station is 3.5 miles west of the development site along the A171 Middlesbrough Road. This station can be accessed by bus services. Nunthorpe Station is served by Northern Rail trains and is on both the Nunthorpe to Newcastle line and the Esk Valley Railway. The closest cycle route to the development is Regional Route 54 which has a mixture of on- and off-road sections. From Stokesley Road the cycle route links northwards to Winchat Tail and onwards towards the town centre. To the south the route passes to the east of Galley Hill Primary School along Hawthorn Drive and then Campion Drive where it links to The Avenue. The cycle route proceeds south to Hutton Lane, where it follows the route of a dismantled railway around the southern edge of the Guisborough urban area. In addition to this route, there is an off-road recreational cycle route to the south of the development site along the disused railway line leading eastwards from Hutton Gate along the Guisborough Branch Walkway. The Redcar and Cleveland Cycle Guide indicates that there are additional signed cycle routes along Farndale Drive and that Stokesley Road, The Avenue, the northern section of Farndale Drive and Middlesbrough Road are all advisory cycle routes. The submitted Transport Assessment assessed four junctions: Stokesley Road / site entrance junction; the A173 / Stokesley Road priority junction; the A171 / A173 roundabout and Middlesbrough Road/Stokesley Road and Park Lane/West End signalised junction for future year assessments at 2023. The Assessment has also taken account of the proposed Galley Hill development.

Local highway accident data shows that for the most recent three year period there have been a total of 21 accidents. A review of the location of the accidents within the area that 11 incidents occurred at the A171/A173 junction; one at the A173/Stokesley Road junction; two at the Middlesbrough Road/Stokesley Road and Park Lane lighted junctions and 7 at Stokesley Road between the A173 and Middlesbrough Road. None of the collisions were considered to be due the highway layout. Junction modelling of the four junctions indicated that the proposed development traffic will have a limited impact upon the local highway network. The effect of decreasing the number of cars by encouraging sustainable travel options would help to reduce the impact of the development traffic at the junction. The residual impact of the development with regard to all aspects of the impact upon the local highway network has been found to be between minor and negligible. The Council’s highways engineer has raised no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds subject to a number of technical requirements. Consideration has been given to incorporating a pedestrian link through the retained track to Bransdale, thereby improving the accessibility of the proposed development to the local schools, convenience store and pub and generally promoting a scheme which is more strongly related to the existing community. A future link to the Pinchinthorpe is also being explored. In the light of the above comments and noting that no objections have been raised by the Council’s highways engineers, it is considered that the development can be delivered without detriment to highway safety and the application therefore accords with policies CS20, CS26, DP2 and DP3 of the LDF. Residential Amenity The residential layout proposed has sought to reflect the requirements of the Council’s Design of Residential Areas SPD. The proposed layout achieves satisfactory separation distances within the development that with the existing and proposed planting would achieve a satisfactory residential environment. With regard to the existing residential environment it is noted that the site is not flat and that the layout has achieved at least the minimum separation distances in order to achieve a form of development that would not create conditions prejudicial to the living conditions of existing residential occupiers. It will, however, be necessary to impose a condition on any planning approval requiring the approval of levels to ensure the impacts of this levels difference is not exacerbated by any material increase in ground levels.

The application plans show that a development that can be delivered on this site that achieves an acceptable layout and that would protect the living conditions of existing nearby residents whilst providing a satisfactory

residential environment for future residents. Taking into account the location of the proposed road junction it is considered that use of the access would not create conditions prejudicial to the existing residential environment. Future residents would be likely to use the existing network of footpaths and the access track to Bransdale will be available to all residents but the use of these footpaths is unlikely to be detrimental and impact unacceptably upon the living conditions of existing residents such that planning permission ought to be withheld. Due to the site’s proximity to Stokesley Road it would be necessary to provide satisfactory sound attenuation measures against road traffic noise. There may also be a need for additional screening of garden areas at the northern boundary of the site. The provision of suitable glazing would also mean that internal noise environments would also meet acceptable standards. This may be achieved by planning condition. It is noted that with regard to potential flooding the developer will be preparing surface water management scheme and that this will also include mitigation with regard to surface water run-off to the existing dwellings (and to the Stokesley Road to the north) The application notes that the hours of work, the maximum permitted noise level and use of best available techniques, will implemented to reduce the impact on existing residential occupiers during construction. Conditions are recommended with regard to construction hours and noise. It is noted that the Environmental Protection Team have not advised against the grant of planning permission but have suggested the imposition of a number of conditions to protect nearby residential occupiers. These include conditions with regard to working hours during construction; temporary and permanent lighting and the management of dust emissions during construction.

Subject to the achieving satisfactory levels, noise attenuation measures, a restriction on working hours and the management of dust emissions during construction together with satisfactory control of lighting, it is considered that the development would provide an acceptable environment for both existing and proposed residents. It is considered therefore that the proposal broadly accords with policies CS20, DP2, DP3, DP6 and DP7 of the LDF and is consistent in design terms with the Design of Residential Areas SPD Affordable Housing and Dwelling Mix The development proposes more than 15 dwellings and as such the proposals is required to provide at least 15% of the dwellings as affordable units on site in accordance with the adopted Affordable Housing SPD. The proposals include the intention to deliver 28 affordable units and this would meet the policy requirement. The SHMA indicates that the most pressing need for affordable housing within the Guisborough sub-area is for smaller (1-2 bedroom) dwellings. The proposal seeks to deliver 16 of the affordable units

as two bedroomed dwellings, with the remaining 12 to be delivered as 3 bed dwellings and this is broadly consistent with identified local needs. The applicant has advised that registered social landlords have shown limited interest in one bedroom dwellings.

The delivery of these affordable dwellings may be achieved through a s106 agreement. It is considered the proposal accords with the aims of the Affordable Housing SPD and policies CS7 and CS15 of the LDF. Ecology The site comprises an arable field to the south and poor semi-improved grassland field to the north. These are bound by hedgerows, which range from good to gappy condition. There is a small area of plantation broadleaf woodland to the north of the site and a block of plantation woodland adjacent to the western site boundary. To the east of the site are two mature oak trees. The majority of the site is considered to be of low ecological value, being dominated by arable and poor semi-improved grassland habitats. The North York Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) are located approximately 2.15km to the south. In addition there are four Local Wildlife Sites located within 2km of the proposed development; Chapel Beck LWS to the north east, Lowcross Farm Grassland (LWS) to the south west, Hutton Hall Grassland LWS and Hutton Village Grassland LWS to the south east. These local wildlife sites will not be affected by the proposed development. The extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey notes that the majority of the site is arable and pasture land with low nature conservation value. The development area does not contain any statutory or non-statutory designated sites. Survey Results Ecological fieldwork indicated that the habitats on site are of predominantly local to low ecological value, with the exception of a length of hedgerow that is considered to be of parish value. Great Crested Newts An initial daytime assessment was undertaken of the 12 ponds highlighted within 500m of the development boundary. Ponds were assessed using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment matrix and a single torchlight survey and egg search was undertaken. The ponds are all on land outside of the control of the applicant. No great crested newts or evidence of their presence was recorded during the 2010 survey work and they were therefore considered most likely to be absent. Natural England’s ‘Survey Guidance Table’ with their licence

application indicates that for habitat loss of this nature the survey data remains relevant for three breeding seasons. The updating checking survey that was undertaken in 2013 found that the ponds are in a similar condition as in 2010 and recorded no evidence of great crested newt, therefore reinforcing the conclusions of the 2010 survey work. The HSI assessment of the 12 ponds within 500m of the development boundary undertaken in 2013 indicated that two are considered to be of excellent suitability, seven are good, one is poor, one is average and one is below average. Bats To assess the use of the site by bats four dusk transect surveys were completed of land covered by the development. There are no built structures with a risk of supporting roosting bats within the site boundary and the mature trees within the site appear well sealed. Transect surveys of the site recorded low to moderate levels of activity on each occasion, with only common pipistrelle recorded on both surveys undertaken in June; predominantly common pipistrelle, with a single Whiskered/Brandts pass in August and common pipistrelle, Whiskered/Brandts and a single possible Daubenton’s bat pass in September. Activity was generally associated with the western site boundary and the parallel hedgerows running through the centre, although some foraging activity was recorded within the gardens along the eastern site boundary. Remote monitoring recorded higher levels of activity in June than August. Passes were predominantly of common pipistrelle, with small numbers of soprano pipistrelle, whiskered/Brandts and probable Myotis and a single Natterer’s bat recorded The site is considered to be of no more than local value for bats, having a low risk of supporting roosts within the mature trees and lacking good quality foraging habitat. However, the neighbouring woodland and network of habitats within the wider area are considered to be of at least parish value. Birds The Territory Mapping Method was used to survey the development area for breeding birds. The survey was completed in May 2013. A single visit was made to the survey area. A risk assessment of potential bird use of the site was also undertaken. The single breeding bird assessment undertaken in May 2013 recorded 22 species occupying 39 territories, of these, 10 were listed as species of conservation concern (Ref G2) including lapwing (red listed), stock dove (amber), willow warbler (amber), whitethroat (amber), starling (red), dunnock (amber), house sparrow (red), tree sparrow (red), linnet (red) and bullfinch (amber). No scarce species or large numbers of any particular species were recorded and for most species the breeding bird assemblage is considered to be of local value. However, the site is considered to be of parish value for

lapwing, tree sparrow and stock dove, supporting at least 1% of their respective breeding populations in the parish. Based upon the results of the ornithological risk assessment, the site is assessed to be of low value for its wintering bird assemblage. Badger Badger are present within the wider area, but no setts or evidence was recorded during the 2013 survey or previous surveys. The woodland to the north of the site may provide some habitat suitable for sett creation; however the close proximity to the road is likely to deter their use. It is likely that badger will forage over the site at times, with the semi-improved grassland providing a foraging resource. The development boundary is considered to be of no greater than local value for the species. Otter and Water Vole There are no watercourses present within the site, although Sandsworth Beck runs approximately 140m to the north of the site. The closest otter record to the site provided by ERIC was approximately 1.6km distant. However, past survey has indicated that habitats along the Beck appear suitable and there is considered a very low risk that otter may commute occasionally across the site. As a result, this species was not been considered further in the assessment. There is considered to be a low risk that water vole may be present along Sandsworth Beck, although there are no records from within close proximity to the site and the beck is severed from the site by a road. Given the lack of a watercourse within the survey area and the presence of a road between the beck and the site, water vole are considered most likely to be absent. As a result this species was not been considered further in the assessment. Reptiles The site lacks the mosaic of foraging commuting and basking habitats required by reptiles and the nearest record of provided by ERIC is of slow worm, 800m distant. The site is considered to be of low value to reptiles and the risk of them being present within the site is considered to be low and as a result has not been considered further. Other species No other protected or notable species were encountered during the field survey. Some evidence of common mammal species such as roe deer and rabbit was encountered. Note the issue of deer using the site has been raised. Deer have protection with regard to when and how they may be culled and their current use of the site would not prejudice development. However, common toad, a UK BAP species, may be present on the site at times throughout the year.

Impacts Arable land and semi-improved grassland are considered to be of low ecological value, and therefore of low sensitivity. Although the total area of these habitats within the site are to be lost, they are abundant and widespread within the wider area, and given the relatively small area the magnitude of the effect is considered to be minor, as this loss will not significantly alter the availability of such habitat in the locality. The magnitude of the potential effects on each of these habitats was concluded to be minor. A small section of the two central hedgerows will be lost to allow the construction of an access road. The feature is of low sensitivity and such habitats are common in the wider area. The magnitude of the impact on the conservation of species and protected species which may be using the hedgerow is considered minor. The significance of the loss of this hedgerow was considered to be minor. No evidence of badger sett making activity or species presence has been recorded on site. The site is therefore considered to be of low value to the species and the local population to be of moderate sensitivity to the proposed development, with impacts through habitat loss likely to be of negligible magnitude due to the abundance of suitable habitat in the wider area. The overall predicted significance of effects without mitigation was predicted to be neutral. The development will result in the loss of around 6.4 ha of sub-optimal foraging habitats for bats, arable land and poor semi-improved grassland. The areas of greatest value to bats, the woodland to the north and hedgerows will be retained as part of the development, with the exception of a small section of the two central hedgerows, which will be lost. Gardens will have some value for foraging bats, particularly pipistrelles. However, street lighting following development of the site may result in increased light spill on the adjacent woodland and hedgerow habitats, which are used as a commuting and foraging resource by bat species. No trees with the potential to support roosting bats will be lost to the development. In the context of the proposed development wider local bat populations are considered to be a receptor of moderate sensitivity, there being a good range of species and habitats in the local area and the impact of the development in terms of bat roosting, foraging and commuting is considered to be moderate. The significance of the development effects on bats was considered to be moderate adverse. The breeding bird assemblage of the site is typical of the habitats present within the site and the immediate locality. The habitats available for use by birds within the development area are considered to be of low sensitivity, being readily replicated in the wider area. The woodland within and adjacent

to the site boundary will be retained as will the majority of the hedgerows, with the exception of a small gap to facilitate an access track. Therefore the magnitude of impact is considered to be minor for the overall breeding bird assemblage. The overall significance of the habitat loss was considered to be minor adverse. Three bird species that are considered to be of parish ecological value were recorded within the site, these are lapwing, stock dove and tree sparrow. As the majority of the hedgerow habitats and all trees within the site will be retained, the magnitude of the impacts on stock dove and tree sparrow are considered to be minor and the sensitivity of these species to the development was considered to be low, resulting in an impact of minor adverse significance. The single lapwing territory within the site will be lost to the development, with no suitable habitats proposed on site post development. The magnitude of impacts on lapwing was therefore considered to be moderate; however, the sensitivity of this species is considered to be low, resulting in an impact on this species of minor adverse significance. Some winter foraging may be provided by the arable field to the south. All suitable habitats will be lost post development, however this habitat type is readily replicated in the wider area and over wintering birds will cover a much larger area than the development site. The magnitude of effect is therefore considered to be minor and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low resulting in a minor adverse predicted effect. The site is considered to be of low value to great crested newt, supporting suboptimal habitats for the species. The development will result in the loss of approximately 0.9ha of habitats within 250m of the ponds and approximately 3.5ha of habitats within 500m. No evidence for the presence of breeding great crested newts was found during survey work in 2010 and 2013. Given this it was considered that the magnitude of effect on great crested newt is negligible and the sensitivity of the species to the development is low, the impact of development on great crested newt is neutral. Mitigation The application proposes the following: A maximum of two months prior to the commencement of construction activities a badger checking survey will be undertaken of the blocks of woodland within and adjacent to the site. Any trenches left open overnight will have a means of escape for mammals (including badger) in the form of a ramp a minimum of 300mm in width and at no greater than 45 degrees or will be fenced off over night.

No vegetation clearance will be undertaken during the nesting bird season (March to August inclusive), unless a checking survey by a suitably qualified ornithologist confirms the absence of breeding birds. Appropriate stand-offs will be followed to protected the root zone of retained trees and hedges to promote their long term health and survival. 15 bat bricks will be incorporated into new build properties close to areas of woodland on the north and west boundaries. 15 bat boxes and15 bird boxes, with a 10 year design life, will be erected in retained trees prior to the start of construction. A number of the bat species recorded from this site are particularly sensitive to increased light levels from development and the woodland edges are a preferred feeding area. To avoid this effect light spill from street lighting onto the area of woodland to the north of the site and Grove Hill Plantation will be kept to a maximum level of 0.5 lux. This can be readily achieved through the installation of low column height, LED type street lighting such as the Urbis Axia on 4.5m columns. A buffer strip of vegetation 3m to 5m wide will be planted along the boundary with Grove Hill Plantation comprising predominantly shade tolerant species such as holly and hazel with some hawthorn and elder to help protect the woodland edge. Any estate fencing adjacent to woodland areas will incorporate access routes for mammals such as badger by having gaps at the base 150mm high. Hedgerows within the centre of the site and along site boundaries will be gapped up with a range of locally native tree and shrub species. The eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the existing housing and the north-western boundary by the new path will be planted with a species rich hedgerow to provide additional nesting and foraging opportunities for bird species. Native trees and fruit trees will be planted in some of the gardens as part of the landscape mitigation and these will also benefit wildlife. Outcome Following the completion of the development there will remain a net loss in arable and semi-improved grassland habitats, which will not be replicated within the site post development and a small net loss of birds of open farmland. There is likely to be a net increase in bat roosting sites within the development site post development as well as additional nesting sites for breeding birds. Food resources for wintering birds may also increase as residents of the new development may provide bird feed throughout the winter period.

From the assessments undertaken for the National Park an increase in visitor numbers supports the objectives of the National Park and is not anticipated to result in significant harm to the National Park, SSSI, SPA and SAC in ecological terms. Cumulative Impacts There are two other developments proposed within West Guisborough area. These are the Galley Hill development to the north will comprise up to 350 dwellings and the Spring Lodge development, which is currently under construction and comprises 40 dwellings. No significant cumulative construction impacts are anticipated beyond the impacts identified for each development in isolation. These additional developments would result in an increase in the number of dwellings within the West Guisborough area of around 579 households. There will therefore be increased numbers of visitors to the NYMNP, SSSI, SPA and SAC. However, given that the NYMNPA aim to increase the numbers of visitors to the National Park, and that regular use of the park will most likely be restricted to shorter walks and dog walks, which will not access the SSSI, SAC and SPA, it is not considered that the cumulative effects of the developments will be sufficient to generate a material change in any of the receptors and the assessment of the cumulative impact remains neutral. Discussion On the basis of the information submitted Natural England have advised they are satisfied that the proposals would not adversely impact on the local population of bats and Great Crested Newts.

Natural England advise that the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act requires Local Authorities to have regard to nature conservation and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive stresses the importance of natural networks of linked corridors to allow movement of species between suitable habitats, and promote the expansion of biodiversity. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF also states that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. The development proposes the retention and enhancement of a number of ecological features on the site and it is considered that the development of the site and through the provision of ecological enhancements, the biodiversity and ecological value of the site will significantly increase. It is also necessary to establish whether the proposed development is likely to offend against Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive. In this case, and in the light of the supporting information available, the development is unlikely to offend Article 12 and the issue of whether a licence would be granted by Natural England does not arise.

The site abuts Grove Hill Plantation that had been identified as an SNCI but is not now a designated site. It is, however, covered by a Tree Preservation Order and it has significant biodiversity value. It is outside the application site and as such the development should have a neutral impact upon its biodiversity value or its value as a group of protected trees. In the light of the above it is considered that the proposed development would not compromise protected species and the proposal is therefore in general accordance with policy CS24, DP2 and DP3. Ground Conditions / Contamination

The site has remained historically undeveloped comprising agricultural land. From a review of available information no potential sources of contamination have been identified on the site or within the immediate vicinity of the site. On the basis of the information available it is recommended that a condition be attached to any approval with regard to the reporting of any unexpected contamination and the approval of any subsequent remediation proposals.

The Contaminated Land Officer, in the light of the submitted documentation, does not advise against granting outline planning permission but advises that a full contaminated land condition should be imposed on any planning permission. In view of the above it is considered the development accords with policies DP2, DP3, DP6 and DP7 of the LDF. Archaeology An archaeological assessment has been submitted and its findings are outlined below: There are no designated assets within the development site and no Registered Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields within the wider vicinity. The closest Scheduled Monuments are located at Pinchinthorpe Hall, approximately 1.6km to the south-west, and comprise a medieval moated site and post-medieval gardens (NHL 1013215) and medieval settlement remains, post mill and field system (NHL1017317). There is one Conservation Area and a small number of Listed Buildings within 1km of the proposed development. The northern edge of the Hutton Lowcross Conservation Area lies c. 280m to the south of the proposed development. It is centred on Hutton Hall and Home Farm and extends from the former North Eastern Railway (NER) Middlesbrough & Guisborough branch line south to the woodland blocks (Bousdale Wood etc) north of Hutton village. A total of five Grade II Listed Buildings lie within a 1km radius of the centre

of the proposed development. Two further building complexes lie just outside of the radius of the study area and include a number of listed structures: a complex of buildings at Home Farm and a further complex of listed buildings at Hutton Hall. The site does not contain any World Heritage Sites (WHS), Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs), Registered Historic Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields. There are no listed buildings / structures within the site and some distance to the southeast of the site is the Hutton Low Cross Conservation Area.

Based on the research undertaken the report states that there is currently no evidence of pre-historic activity within the site or its immediate vicinity.

The Council’s consultant archaeologist agrees with the conclusions of the submitted report and as such there is no requirement for further archaeological information or archaeological conditions in relation to this application. In view of the above it is considered that the development would accord with policies CS25, DP2, DP3 and DP11 of the LDF. Flood Risk The site falls within Flood Zone 1 with a low risk of flooding. The NPPF states that appropriate additional allowances should be made for climate change with respect to rainfall intensities. The existing site falls towards the northern and eastern boundaries. Land to the south also falls towards the site. During rainfall events, overland flow will also run from the south into the site and will also be generated within the site and flow towards the northern and eastern boundaries. Existing properties at 85-115 Farndale Drive, and 3-9 Bransdale, are located at the eastern boundary of the site. The topography shows a significant gradient towards the existing properties. This topography has potential to direct overland flow paths towards the eastern boundary and pose a flood risk to the properties. Stokesley Road is located to the north of the boundary of the site. The topography indicates a significant gradient towards Stokesley Road. This has potential to direct overland flow paths towards Stokesley Road and pose a flood risk to carriageway. Sandswath Beck is located to the north and west of the site beyond Stokesley Road. The development site falls within the catchment for Sandswath Beck and currently discharges unrestricted Greenfield flow to the watercourse. Sandswath Beck is not identified by the Environment Agency as having an existing flood risk – being located in Flood Zone 1.Chapel Beck receives flow from Sandswath Beck. Chapel Beck is shown to be located within Flood Zones 2 & 3.

The existing foul drainage network conveys flow from adjacent development to the Guisborough sewage treatment works (STW). NWL have confirmed that the sewers have capacity to accept sewage from this site. It is noted that NWL operate a covered reservoir which is located at the western boundary of the site. Two trunk water mains cross the development site between Bransdale and the reservoir. NWL have not advised of any flood risk from the reservoir. Mitigation In order to manage any potential flooding the applicant proposes that: The top soil strip is to be carried out in a phased manner, in accordance with build programme. Stripped areas of the site are to use bunding at the lower sections in order to manage surface water runoff and that this will require temporary drainage systems. The developer will be required to repair or divert any land drainage which is encountered during construction. The developer will also be required to provide a suitable fuel storage area, complete with bunding and wash down facilities. The construction of surface water sewers will result in a direct route to the existing watercourses. Mitigation against this will involve the provision of filters at each road gully prior to the connection of the surface water outfall. The development will include a surface water management regime that as been the subject of approval from the Local Planning Authority. The surface water management will; (a) Restrict discharge to mimic the pre development greenfield rates. (b) Provide attenuation to accommodate the 1 in 100 year event including 30% climate change. Storm events in excess of the design criteria will also be modelled to establish the location of any flood paths. Should flood paths pose a risk to any existing properties, then bunding and buffer zones will be used to direct flows away from dwellings. The surface water management regime as a result will not increase discharge to the watercourses and will provide adequate protection against flooding. A surface water management scheme is required to be submitted for approval. It is noted that neither the Environment Agency nor Northumbrian Water have raised objections to the principle of the development proposed by this application. The issue with regard to the protection of NWL’s apparatus is a matter for the developer and NWL. In view of the above comments the development would comply with policies CS20, DP2 and DP3 of the LDF.

Education It is understood that local primary schools are near capacity and as such the Council’s Capital Projects officers have advised that a contribution towards the improvement of facilities at Galley Hill School should be secured. This would be sought by of a Section 106 Agreement.

Energy As the proposals would constitute a major development, at least 10% of the predicted energy demands should be met through onsite renewables in accordance with policies CS20 and DP3 of the LDF. The documentation advises that the developer would employ the fabric first approach to energy use. It is noted that for other residential schemes that a fabric first approach that would decrease the energy needs of the dwellings by 10% or more is acceptable as an alternative to renewable technologies. More detail would be required and this may be achieved by planning condition. The layout shows that many of the buildings would also be able to utilise renewable technologies. It is considered that the development would be in accordance with policy DP3 of the LDF Art In line with LDF policy DP5 it would be expected that an artistic element integrated into the scheme would be incorporated into the development. This may be achieved by planning condition. Crime Prevention

It is noted that the development is located adjoining the western urban fringe. The development layout offers opportunities for both passive and active surveillance in order to reduce opportunities for crime and as such would accord with the aims of policies CS20 and DP3 of the LDF Socio Economic Benefits The proposal will make an important positive contribution to meeting the Council’s defined housing requirements. This will incorporate a range and choice of housing types, including up to 15% affordable housing. Further, the applicant will also enter into a legal agreement to ensure that appropriate contributions are provided. The likely benefits resulting from the proposal are outlined below:

• £18.6m total capital investment;

• £1m GVA per annum; • 30 construction jobs per year of construction; • 46 indirect/induced jobs per year of construction; • £1.5m net additional expenditure per annum in the local economy; • Around 21 new FTE jobs in retail/leisure etc; and • £265,000 additional Council Tax payments per annum • £1.6m in New Homes Bonus.

S106 Legal Agreement

The applicant is willing to provide a range of affordable housing delivery options for consideration in line with affordable housing policy and identified needs. This will amount 15% (up to 28 dwellings) on site with the house types and tenure to accord with identified affordable housing needs for the area identified in the Tees Valley SHMA 2012.

In addition to the public open space provided on the proposed development the applicant is also willing to contribute £50,000 towards leisure facilities in Guisborough to be available for improvements to both the facilities at King George VI Park and / or the swimming pool. Management and maintenance of the open space would be agreed with the Council and be transferred to a third party management company or the Council on completion of the development. The developer will also provide a financial contribution to address the shortfall in existing school capacity to accommodate the increased population within the catchment as a result of the development. A sum of £1.3m would be secured for these purposes in the event the Galley Hill development did not go ahead. If the Galley Hill development does go ahead the developer is willing to provide any temporary ‘gap’ funding, interest free, should it be necessary to bring forward the schools programme as a result of this development. The S106 would also incorporate a Local Labour Agreement where the developers would use their reasonable endeavours to employ or secure employment of local people and local businesses in the construction of the Development. Other issues The question of Human Rights have been raised Pill LJ (Southwark 09/06/2003) in reaching his decision advised that Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol are part of the law of England and Wales and that Article 8 should normally be considered as an integral part of the decision maker’s approach to material considerations. He stated that the degree of seriousness required to trigger lack of respect for the home depended on the circumstances but it had to be substantial as the competing interests of the

individual, other individuals and the community as a whole had to be considered including the right of a landowner to make beneficial use of land; CONCLUSION The proposal would be located outside of development limits and would therefore be contrary to policy DP1 of the LDF. The proposals would also increase the number of commitments in the rural area and make it more difficult to deliver the Council’s locational strategy set out within policy CS2. The site is also somewhat remote from facilities in central Guisborough. The above considerations need to be weighed against the following considerations;

• The recently reviewed SHLAA has indicated that the Borough does not

have a deliverable 5 year housing supply as required by the NPPF.

• The NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to this application; the development would contribute to meeting the housing requirements in Guisborough and the Borough and support the NPPF objective to increase the rate of housing supply.

• Guisborough has experienced a low level of housing development over the

plan period and increasing the level of development would begin to promote a more sustainable development pattern within the rural area, as set out in the Core Strategy, as well as ensuring housing needs and aspirations in the town can be met over the plan period.

• The potential for significant development is much more restricted on other

sites on the eastern edge of the town due to the historic environment. • The proposed development would deliver additional benefits in terms of

meeting affordable housing needs and providing community open space, of which there is a marked shortage in the west of Guisborough together with a wider economic boost to the town and the Borough.

This development is capable of delivering a development that, notwithstanding its greenfield location, is designed in a manner that would sensitively assimilate it into the landscape as an urban extension. The development could be delivered such that the western perimeter is secured through existing and supplementary planting. The development could be accommodated without material detriment to residential amenity, highway safety or crime prevention. It is further considered that on the evidence available that this development is acceptable from an ecology perspective and would not offend Article 12 of the Habitats Directive. On this basis it is considered that planning permission ought to be granted. This application has been advertised as a ‘departure’ from the development plan but does not fall within a category of development that is required to be

referred to the Secretary of State. The Council is therefore free to determine the application as it sees fit and for the reasons set out in the report, not least the lack of a deliverable 5 year housing land supply, permission is recommended to be granted.

RECOMMENDATION (1) THAT THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION BE AUTHORISED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT UNDER S106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING: (i) THE PROVISION OF 15% AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE SITE AND MEASURES TO SECURE THE OCCUPATION OF THE UNITS ON AN AFFORDABLE BASIS IN PERPETUITY (ii) A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE TOWN (iii) A FINANCIALCONTRIBUTION TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LEISURE FACILITIES IN GUISBOROUGH (iv) A STRATEGY FORT THE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND PLAY AREAS. (v) LOCAL LABOUR AGREEMENT AND (2) THAT UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE AGREEMENT THE DIRECTOR BE AUTHORISED TO GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND REASONS: CONDITIONS 1. The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE

YEARS from the date of this permission. REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with the following approved plans: Pod Drawing SD-00.01 Location Plan • Pod Drawing SD-00.02 Existing Site Plan • Pod Drawing SD-10.01 Rev B Masterplan As Proposed • Pod Drawing SD-10.02 Rev A Masterplan As Proposed Colour Layout • Pod Drawing SD-10.03 Rev A Masterplan As Proposed Spatial Syntax • Pod Drawing SD-10.04 Rev A Boundary Treatment Plan • Pod Drawing SD-10.05 Rev A Adoption Diagram • Pod Drawing SD-30.01 Rev A Street Scenes

• Pod Drawing SD-40.01 Rev A Site Sections • Pod Drawing SD-50.01 Ash Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.02 Birch Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.03 Chestnut Housetype Elevations and Floor

Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.04 Hazel Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.05 Hawthorne Housetype Elevations and Floor

Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.06 Willow Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.07 Juniper Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.08 Maple Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.09 Rowan Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.10 Acacia Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.11 Alder Housetype Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.12 Alder Housetype Elevations • Pod Drawing SD-50.13 T2 Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.14 T3 Housetype Elevations and Floor Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.15 Willow Corner Housetype Elevations and Floor

Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.16 Chestnut Semi-Detached Elevations and Floor

Plans • Pod Drawing SD-50.17 Birch Detached Housetype Elevations and

Floor Plans • WYG Drawing C001 Rev C Proposed Site Access Junction • Southern Green Drawing 811/001 Rev C Landscape Strategy REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application. 3. Prior to the commencement of development a construction traffic

management plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme approved shall then be implemented in accordance with the construction traffic management plan.

REASON: In the interest of highways safety. 4. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved

a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved travel plan shall be implemented for the lifetime of the development.

REASON: In the interest of highways safety. 5. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for preventing the

deposition of mud/debris on the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in its entirety and adhered to for the lifetime of the construction period.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

6. Prior to the commencement of development, details shall be submitted to

and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, of proposals to provide contractors car parking and material storage within the site. The details approved shall be implemented and retained for use until completion of the development.

REASON: In the interest of highway safety. 7. Notwithstanding the landscape strategy submitted a landscaping scheme

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The details shall include size, type and species of plant and indicate the proposed layout and surfacing of all open areas. A programme of work shall also be submitted and implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To reserve the rights of the Local Planning Authority with

regard to these matters. 8. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of

landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of ten years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

REASON: To ensure the satisfactory implementation of the approved

scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. 9. The proposed junction with the existing highway (Stokesley Road) shall

be provided in accordance with the details set out on Plan C001 Rev C and have a visibility splay of 4.5 x 90m. The area enclosed by this splay shall be maintained to ensure there are no obstructions or any vegetation greater than 600mm in height. These junction and visibility works shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the first dwelling on the site.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety 10. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance

with all ecological mitigation measures advice and recommendations contained within the E3 Ecology Extended Phase 1 and Protected Species Survey (July 2010) and E3 Ecology Bat Survey (September, 2013).

REASON: In the interests of the protection of protected species and

habitats

11. No development shall take place until a Scheme of Lighting for the site has been approved and in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter be maintained.

REASON: In the interests of amenity. 12. Prior to the first occupation of the development boundary walls and

fences shall have been erected in accordance with a scheme that has first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained.

REASON: In the interests of visual and residential amenity. 13. The working hours for all construction activities on this site are limited to

between 08:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturdays and not at all on a Sunday or Bank Holidays.

REASON: In the interest of neighbour amenity. 14. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out

the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority Following completion of the development a report must be submitted confirming that unexpected contamination was not encountered during the

development. REASON: In the interests of public protection. 15. Details of the external materials to be used in the carrying out of this

permission (including samples) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development and the development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure the use of satisfactory materials. 16. Details of materials to be used for all hard surfaces shall be submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the development and the development shall not be carried out except in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure the use of satisfactory materials.

17. A minimum of 10% of the sites energy requirements shall be provided by embedded renewable energy, unless otherwise first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of sustainability 18. Any vegetation clearance on site should avoid the bird breeding season

(March to August inclusive), unless a checking survey by an appropriately qualified ecologist has confirmed that no active nests are present immediately prior to works.

REASON: In the interests of the protection of breeding birds 19. No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting existing

occupants adjacent to the proposed development from noise, and vibration has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be in accordance but not exclusive with mitigation measures stated in Chapter J (paras

J6.2-J6.5) of the environmental statement and be retained until the development is complete. Measured pre construction ambient noise levels suggest daytime noise levels of circa 56dBLAeq, therefore according to Table E.1 BS5228-1:2009. Construction noise shall not exceed 65dBLAeq at any noise sensitive receptor around the site. Monitoring to ensure compliance with this standard shall be carried out by the applicant in accordance with a scheme to be agreed and approved with the Local Authority and be retained until the development is complete.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity. 20. No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting the

occupants of the proposed development from noise from the road network has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of residential amenity 21. No development shall take place until a scheme for protecting the

existing and proposed occupants from dust has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be in accordance but not exclusive with mitigation measures stated in Chapter K para K5.6 of the environmental statement

and be retained until the development is complete. REASON: In the interests of residential amenity. 22. Prior to the commencement of development a Drainage Strategy shall be

submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The strategy shall include the following mitigation measures:

1. Limiting the surface water run-off generated from the site so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. Discharge should be restricted to the pre development Greenfield run-off rate. 2. Provision of compensatory flood attenuation to accommodate the 1 in 100 year event plus 30% for climate change. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy. REASON: In the interests of achieving a satisfactory drainage

23. An art feature or features shall be incorporated into the development in

accordance with a scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be provided in accordance with the agreed phasing plan and thereafter be maintained.

REASON: To incorporate art into the development in accordance with

LDF Policy DP5. 24. Details of the two play areas to be provided at this site shall be submitted

to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved play areas shall be provided in accordance with the agreed phasing plan.

REASON: To ensure the provision of play facilities at this site. 25. No trees or hedges shall be lopped topped or removed unless expressly

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interest of amenity and ecology. 26. Details of existing, proposed and finished floor levels together with any

bunding or other engineering works proposed to be undertaken shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to the commencement of construction. The approved details shall be implemented in their entirety.

REASON: In the interests of visual and residential amenity. 27. Any temporary drainage scheme to be installed/constructed at this site

shall have been the subject of the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity and ecology. 28. Tree protection measures highlighted in BS5837:2012 shall be adopted

and a 2m high fence installed to the outside edge of the drip line of the following groups of trees for the duration of construction:Grove Hill

Plantation (South Western corner of site) and the small group of trees within the North Western corner of the site adjacent to Stokesley Road.

REASON: To ensure the continued health of these trees. STATEMENT OF COOPERATIVE WORKING The Local Planning Authority considers that the application as originally submitted required clarification and amendment. Following correspondence the agent a satisfactory scheme has been negotiated. .