planning committeeplanning committee agenda meeting to be held virtually through microsoft teams...

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Meeting to be held virtually through Microsoft Teams software

on Wednesday 22nd July 2020 at 6.30 pm

(This virtual meeting will be livestreamed to YouTube and recorded. The video archive can be accessed on the

Council’s website via the Planning pages)

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

In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, audio/visual recording and photography during Council meetings is permitted

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

PLANNING COMMITTEE Membership 2019/21 Councillors H Brand, D Challinor, M Charlesworth, S J Fielding (Vice-Chair), G

Freeman, G A N Oxby, D G Pidwell (Chair), M W Quigley MBE, M Richardson, N Sanders, L Schuller, B Tomlinson.

Substitute Members: None Quorum: 3 Members Lead Officer for this Meeting John Krawczyk Administrator for this Meeting Cara Hopkinson MS Teams Facilitator for this Meeting James Lavender NOTE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (a) See separate documents on the Council’s Planning webpage to understand how to

engage in the process of Planning Committee. (b) Letters attached to Committee reports reflect the views of the authors and not

necessarily the views of the District Council as Local Planning Authority. 2

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Wednesday 22nd July 2020

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

(a) Members(b) Officers

3. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 24th JUNE 2020 * (pages 5 - 11)

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 15th

JUNE – 29th JUNE 2020* (pages 13 - 21)

5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST * (page 23)

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

Other Decisions

6. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION *

(a) Public Interest Test:(Ms B Alderton-Sambrook, Head of Regeneration, has deemed that all Items on the Agenda are not confidential)

(b) Appeal Decision (pages 25 – 28)(c) Planning Applications and Associated ltems (pages 29 - 54)

Exempt Information Items

The press and public are likely to be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

SECTION B - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

Other Decisions

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

* Report attached NOTES:

1. The papers enclosed with this Agenda are available in large print if required.2. Copies can be requested by contacting us on 01909 533252 or by e-mail:

james.lavender@bassetlaw.gov.uk

Agenda Item No. 3

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the virtual meeting held on Wednesday 24th June 2020 via Microsoft Teams

Present: D Pidwell (Chair) H Brand, D Challinor, S Fielding, G Freeman, G Oxby, M Quigley MBE, M Richardson, N Sanders, L Schuller and B Tomlinson. Officers in attendance: B Alderton-Sambrook, E Hinsley, D Jones, J Krawczyk, J Lavender and S Wormald. (Meeting commenced at 6.30pm). The Chair welcomed all to the virtual Planning Committee and explained that councils have been enabled to hold virtual meetings in order to allow business to be conducted while maintaining social distancing due to the outbreak of Covid-19. He then introduced Members and Officers by doing a roll call. The Chair outlined that in the event of the livestream failing or Members losing connection the meeting would be adjourned to allow the connection to be re-established. He also reminded participants to take appropriate safety precautions from their place of livestreaming. 85. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M Charlesworth. 86. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (a) Members A pecuniary declaration of interest was made by Councillor Pidwell for P.A.19/01360/OUT. He advised that he would leave the meeting prior to discussion of this item and Vice-Chair, Councillor Fielding would step into the role of Chair. A non-pecuniary declaration was also made by Councillor Schuller for P.A.19/01360/OUT. She remained in the meeting. (b) Officers There were no declarations of interest by officers. 87. MINUTES OF THE MEETING RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 1st June 2020 be approved. 88. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 18TH MAY 2020 AND 2ND JUNE 2020. RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 18th May 2020 and 2nd June 2020 be noted. 89. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes List be noted.

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC Key Decisions None. Other Decisions None. 90. REPORT(S) OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS (a) Public Interest Test The Head of Regeneration had deemed that all Items on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature. (b) Planning Applications Application No

Applicant Location and Proposal

19/01360/OUT Muller Property Group

Land North Of Bigsby Road Retford DN22 6SE Outline Planning Application with Some Matters Reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for Residential Development of up to 170 Dwellings (Resubmission of P.A. 18/01625/OUT).

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning application with some matters reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for a residential development of up to 170 dwellings (Resubmission of P.A. 18/01625/OUT) on land north of Bigsby Road, Retford. The site is located outside of, but adjacent to the urban form of Retford, with two access points proposed off the end of Bigsby Road and Palmer Road. The indicative layout links the two access roads with cul-de-sacs further into the site. The site in question consists of 7.4 hectares of agricultural land, with a drainage ditch and a public footpath crossing the middle of the site and another public footpath running along the southern boundary. It is bound to the north and west by open fields, to the east Longholme Farm and to the south by existing housing. The site slopes gently downwards in a north easterly direction and is currently undeveloped. Site plans and photographs were shown. The Planning Development Manager presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees were given. No objections had been raised from statutory consultees. 70 letters of objection had been received along with one letter of support from members of the public and other interested parties. Retford Civic Society and the owner of nearby farmland have also raised objections.

The previous application was refused on the grounds that the development would result in an unacceptable impact on the surrounding landscape. However an independent landscape architect has assessed the applicant’s visual impact assessment and concluded that the impact on the surrounding landscape character would not be significant. It is therefore considered that the applicant has shown that the landscape and visual impacts identified will be limited and the development will not cause any demonstrable harm to the landscape character. One of the main objections from residents has been the exacerbation of existing highways safety concerns. The Highways Authority have assessed the transport statement and proposed access arrangements and are satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact upon highways safety provided additional works to upgrade and signalise the Tiln Lane and Moorgate junction are implemented. School crossing patrols and road safety measures are also proposed in the vicinity of this junction. Members of the public have also raised drainage and flooding concerns as there are surface water drainage issues in the area which would be worsened by this development. The Lead Local Flood Authority, Nottinghamshire County Council have not raised any objections to the proposal subject to conditions requiring a surface water drainage scheme. The Planning Development Manager gave an overview of questions submitted by Members in advance of the meeting and his responses in relation to the weight of the Draft Local Plan, pedestrian cycle links throughout the site, maintenance of open spaces, offsite highway impacts, conditions on the improvement of hedgerows, whether there were any plans for the Council to dispose of land at the Tiln Lane / Moorgate junction and the notification of neighbouring occupiers. Mr Middleton spoke in objection to the development on the following grounds:

• The loss of the only safe, green walking area in this part of Retford; • Too few days’ notice in the current pandemic when many residents do not have IT

facilities. This is contrary to the Council’s policy of listening to the voice of the community;

• This area becomes dangerously congested at the start and end of the school day. Driving down the road at these times is already difficult as cars are double parked and HGVs are regularly passing through while parents and children try to cross the road. There have already been two child fatalities within the last decade.

• Approvals for housing developments in safer locations already exist, including developments at the north end of Tiln Lane at Treswell Gardens.

Mr Steve Bourne, the Applicant, spoke in support of the application:

• Worked proactively with officers since the original application was refused to remove any issues;

• An external landscape consultant appraisal has confirmed that the visual impact would be extremely limited and the development would not result in any demonstrable harm to the landscape character;

• The Highways Authority has confirmed that there would be not be an unacceptable impact on highways safety with proposed contributions to junction capacity improvements and a school crossing patrol. The minor concerns on internal layout can be resolved at reserved matters stage;

• There will be contributions towards bus stops and services, an onsite locally equipped play area and to Retford Library to increasing stock levels;

• The education response is that there is existing capacity within the area;

• The provision of 25% affordable housing which equates to 43 dwellings; • There have been no objections from any consultees; • The overall benefits of the development will significantly outweigh any harm; • The site will provide construction jobs and bring new households to the area providing

financial support for local services and future growth opportunities; • The development will increase the amounts the Council receives in council tax receipts

and new homes bonuses.

Councillor Susan Shaw, Counsellor for Retford East spoke in opposition on behalf of the residents on the following grounds:

• There have been 70 objections to this proposed development and over 200 on the last occasion from people living in and around the area;

• Concerns regarding traffic around the school. HGV lorries often get stuck on Tiln Lane due to cars parked on either side of the road with children and parents arriving and leaving. This would be compounded by a development site under construction on Tiln Lane which will also impact on traffic when properties are completed;

• Another site has already been granted planning permission nearby at Longholme Road;

• The two proposed access points on Bigsby Road and Palmer Road are residential streets with cars parking along the road at all hours;

• Highways Authority states that there is a danger of over-capacity in the area and the transport assessment identifies the space around Tiln Lane and Moorgate junction as small and would be constrained;

• A traffic light system is proposed but residents feel that this will only compound the situation as HGV lorries will block access and egress points at that junction and will also create problems on traffic flow from Moorgate and off Tiln Lane;

• Inappropriate extension to countryside.

Members raised questions and concerns regarding:

• What the recommendation was last time the application came to committee; • The environmental impact on air quality and the possible effects on children by

exposure to additional fumes caused by adding traffic lights outside the school; • Whether the Highways Authority consider that the effect on highways has been

mitigated by the modifications proposed to the junction; • Clarification on the potential contamination of the site and the grade of the agricultural

land; • The amount of traffic using the access points at Tiln Lane, Palmer Road and Bigsby

Road and the proposed traffic mitigation measures; • The development would be encroaching into the countryside, towards Clarborough

and Welham and the loss of views; • The storage and collection of bins; • Clarification on whether the junction will be operating at capacity even after the

signalisation and how the contribution would be allocated; • Whether the development at North Road be a consideration to take into account; • The limited car parking in Retford; • Clarification on the mitigation measures for the school.

In response to the questions raised, members were advised that:

• Officers recommended the refusal of the application in May 2019 as it was felt that the development would be a discordant feature within its surroundings and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character. The applicant has since commissioned

a landscape visual impact assessment which concluded that there would be no demonstrable harm caused by the development. This was also independently verified by a chartered landscape architect;

• There has not been an air quality assessment and there are no air quality issues have been identified in that area. The signalisation of the junction has already been approved and will increase its capacity;

• The Highways Authority consider that the impact is acceptable and can be mitigated, with several conditions and contributions being recommended;

• Environmental Health recommended that an investigation be conducted to ensure any contamination found is mitigated and remediated correctly. The land is classified as moderate quality with 96% classed as agricultural land, grade 3B, and 4% classed as non- agricultural;

• The Highways Authority uses systems to model and calculate trip generation and has concluded that the effect is acceptable;

• Bin storage and collection will be considered at reserved matters stage, the Council will ensure that there is enough room to store the necessary number of bins and that the highways enable access for refuse crews;

• The junction has been modelled at within 10% of its capacity and contributions would be used to make further improvements with the Highways Authority deciding how best to allocate the contribution;

• If there was any identifiable harm to the North Road development this could be a material consideration, however none have been identified;

• Not aware of any plans to expand car parks although this is for the Council to review; • The impact is to be mitigated by a school crossing patrol in addition to the works at the

junction.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant subject to conditions and the execution of a S106 agreement/unilateral undertaking.

Voting for taking this course of action:

FOR: Councillors S Fielding and D Pidwell.

AGAINST: Councillors H Brand, D Challinor, G Freeman, G Oxby, M W Quigley, M Richardson, N Sanders, L Schuller and B Tomlinson.

ABSTAIN: None

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

• The access road is unsuitable for the amount of traffic that would be generated by this site;

• The harm to the landscape and encroachment into the countryside; • The environmental impact as no air quality control assessment has been done; • Highways safety, particularly with regards to the children at the nearby school; • The site would be out of character with the existing settlement; • The site would extend Retford further towards the villages of Clarborough and

Welham; • The severe impact on the junction at Tiln Lane and Moorgate and over capacity of

road junctions.

RESOLVED that the final wording of the reasons for refusal be approved at the Planning Consultation Group.

Councillor Pidwell advised that he would now step aside as Chair with Councillor Fielding, the Vice-Chair stepping into the role.

(Councillor Pidwell left the meeting)

Application No

Applicant Location and Proposal

19/01280/FUL

Bersahill

Land At Common Lane Harworth DN11 8LW Demolition of Two Dwellings and Erection of Twenty Six New Dwellings with Construction of New Road off Common Lane.

Members were advised that full planning permission was being sought for the demolition of two dwellings and erection of 26 new dwellings with construction of a new road off Common Lane in Harworth. The land is currently an open and overgrown parcel of land following the demolition of the majority of the former late 20th century local authority Airey style houses. Two houses remain on site (with one still occupied) as does the hard surfaced access road into the site from Common Lane. It is proposed to demolish the two existing houses and redevelop the whole site with 26 new dwellings. The mixture of the dwellings as proposed is as follows:

• 9 x 3 bed detached bungalows; • 4 x 2 bed semi-detached bungalows; • 8 x 4 bed detached house; • 5 x 3 bed detached house.

Site plans, photographs and dwelling designs were shown. The Major Projects Officer advised that there were no objections from any consultees. He also clarified that NCC Highways Authority have not objected to the site on highways safety grounds or its impact on the highway network but advised that the scheme does not make the best use of the site as regards to access and linkages to the surrounding area. There were no letters of objection and Harworth and Bircotes Town Council is supportive of the scheme, commenting that the bungalows had been requested by residents. The site is adjacent to a Grade 2 listed barn but it is not considered that the development will be harmful to its setting and the Council’s Conservation Officer is also supportive of the scheme. There is existing access to the site from Common Lane which will be used for 25 of the dwellings with plot 24 being accessed by a private drive off Styrrup Road. The Applicant has provided information on electric charging points on site and arrangements for residents with mobility issues. A bat survey of the existing houses and a newt survey of the surrounding area have been completed and the Wildlife Trust are satisfied with the mitigation measures included in the report. A contribution has also been requested to improve the nearest play area. The Major Projects Officer gave a summary of questions submitted by Members prior to the meeting and his responses which related to the highways safety of the access point for plot 24 and the wildlife enhancements. Councillor June Evans spoke in support, on behalf of Harworth and Bircotes Town Council on the following grounds:

• An ideal use of a brownfield site; • Within settlement boundaries; • The addition of 26 dwellings will have a minimal impact on infrastructure; • A great improvement to the site and will remove the current eyesore; • The mix of housing, including affordable homes, which reflects the needs of the

community; • The provision of electric vehicle charging points, including for mobility scooters; • 10% gain in biodiversity.

Members raised questions and concerns regarding:

• Whether the site is owned by the local authority; • The offer to the occupants still living on site; • Whether the public consultation was a consideration in the proposal to grant the

application; • Whether any work had been undertaken with the Highways Agency in response to their

concerns over vehicle manoeuvrability; • The location of the nearest recreation park.

In response to questions raised, Members were advised that the Council does own the land and is working in partnership with a company to deliver housing. The residents still living on site will be offered one of the new properties with that property being built first to allow the occupant to be rehoused prior to development of the rest of the site. The public consultation did not have an impact of the proposal to grant the application as no letters of support or objection had been made other than from the town council. There were discussions with the Highways Authority however the alterations they requested would have made the development undeliverable. The closest recreation ground is currently the Tommy Simpson recreation ground but there are plans to create another in the vicinity of the site which this contribution would go towards funding. Members commented that it was good to see developers working with the community and looking at the local needs. The provision of specialist care affordable housing was also praised. RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant permission subject to S106 agreement. COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to S106 agreement. 91. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting. (Meeting ended at 8:35pm).

Agenda Item No. 4

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 15th June 2020 via Video and Audio Conference Call

Present: Councillors D G Pidwell, S Fielding, H Brand, M Quigley MBE and M Richardson.

Officers in attendance: J Krawczyk and J Lavender.

(Meeting opened at 4.03pm).

193. APOLOGIES

194. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

195. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No. Proposal

20/00448/OUT Outline Planning Application with Some Reserved Matters (Approval Being Sought for Access) and erection of Two Detached Dwellings. Land South Of Briar Lea, Main Street, Ragnall.

Members were advised that outline planning permission was being sought for the erection of 2 detached dwellings, including the matter of access.

Outline planning permission for two dwellings has already been granted to the north of the current site. Located further north is a bungalow called Briarlea and a row of 1930s semi-detached houses. South of the site features traditional Ragnall buildings and directly to the south is a barn conversion and St Oswald’s Church, which is a listed building.

Site maps were circulated to members prior to the meeting.

5 letters of objection were received on the following grounds:

• The development conflicts with Policy CS9, which states that new dwellings in other settlements will not be supported;

• The development also conflicts with Policy DM2, which states that in traditional rural villages, conversion of existing rural buildings should be encouraged instead of new builds;

• Some weight must be given to emerging Bassetlaw Local Plan; • This development does not meet local need, as they are already empty homes in

Ragnall, which already take too long to sell; • Ragnall suffers from surface water drainage problems; • Bassetlaw District Council (BDC) already has a 5-year land supply; • The development is not a sustainable site; • The site may be contaminated; • The development is out of character for the area.

3 letters from support were received, which noted that:

• The development site is sustainable;• Adds to the existing housing stock for Ragnall;• It will support local services, such as the buses, the mobile library and mobile post

office;• The site is located close to the primary school in Dunham, which allows for easy

access;• The development benefits the local economy by putting more residents in the village,

which could cause the local village shop to reopen again;• The development plots are viable;• It is a well-considered proposal.

The Parish Council raised objections on the following grounds:

• Visibility of the road from the access point;• The development would block access points to the fields from the rear, which would

cause the field to be ‘landlocked’, and become overgrown and untidy;• Proposed designs will significant change to the character of the village;• The development would be contrary to Policy CS9;

There were no objections raised by the statutory consultees. The Nottinghamshire County Highways Authority were content with the access being safe and visibility to the road was acceptable. Environmental Health noted that a historic filter bed was located to the south of the site. They stated that a condition should be included to mitigate the discovery of contaminated materials found on the site. The Conservation Team noted that the development would fail to preserve the open countryside setting of the listed buildings.

Both Policies CS9 and DM2 possess limited weight in determining this application. Likewise, the draft Bassetlaw Local Plan identifies limited growth potential for Ragnall anyway.

The development would support local mobile services, such as the buses, the mobile library and the mobile Post Office.

The site in question was considered to be greenfield in that these particular plots once contained field drainage.

The Planning Team consider the development to be sustainable.

The listed buildings are some distance away from the site, with St Oswald’s Church being located 130 metres away and Ragnall House located 110 metres away. The land does fall away towards the listed buildings, with trees and hedgerows located along the roadside. Based on those observations, it was believed that there would be no detriment to the heritage status of these buildings.

According to the National Planning Policy Framework, when considering an application in which there is less than significant harm identified to heritage, weighting must be given to the benefits of the application, such as sustainability, the delivering of housing and growth of the economy of the area.

Members raised questions and comments on the following;

• The details of the previous application to the north of the proposed site;• Access to the field at the rear of the development;• Concerns of creeping development to the south.

Planning permission was granted to the other two dwellings in March 2019.

There are access points to the fields to the south of the site.

Planning share Members’ concerns of creeping development, but as the lands falls steeply to the south, there is the hope to keep that field open and restrict building in those fields.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant planning permission – refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.

(Meeting closed at 4:20pm).

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 29th June 2020 via Video and Audio Conference Call

Present: Councillors D G Pidwell, S Fielding, H Brand, M Quigley MBE and N Sanders.

Officers in attendance: J Krawczyk and J Lavender.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm).

196. APOLOGIES

197. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

198. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

20/00109/RES Reserved Matters Application for the Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale for 276 Dwellings on Phase 5, 6 and 7 - Gateford Park – Following the Granting of Outline Application 14/00431/OUT. Lot 3, Gateford Park, Worksop.

Members were advised that outline planning permission was being sought for reserved matters application for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 276 dwellings on Phase 5, 6 and 7 located on Lot 3, Gateford Park, Worksop.

Site locations and dwelling designs were circulated prior to the meeting.

There were no objections from statutory consultees. The Parks Team queried whether the recreation area should contain dedicated parking, but Planning believed that the recreation area was designed to serve the residents of this development and not the wider area. It was also believed that adding a car park could be a focal point for anti-social behaviour.

One resident of Marlborough Close commented on the timeframe for the delivery of public open space for children, to which the Planning Development Manager confirmed that this was part of this phase of development.

The play area will be separate from the school being built there.

The car parking spaces conform to residential parking and planning standards. Bins will be stored at the rear of each property.

The development does contain three-storey dwellings.

19/01360/OUT Outline Planning Application with Some Matters Reserved (Approval Being Sought for Access) for Residential Development of up to 170 Dwellings (Resubmission of P.A. 18/01625/OUT). Land North Of Bigsby Road, Retford.

Members were asked to approve the reasons for refusal of the Bigsby Road Application as follows:

1. Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of no detriment to highway safety. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 109 of Part 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. The submitted Transport Statement demonstrates that the traffic generated by the development of 170 dwellings in combination with other planned major development in Retford would cumulatively have a significant impact upon the surrounding road network especially at the Tiln Lane / Moorgate junction that would operate over capacity should this development be approved. Tiln Lane serves Carr Hill Primary School and provides an alternative route to Gainsborough avoiding a low bridge. The impact of the development on the Tiln Lane / Moorgate junction and the increased volume of traffic using Tiln Lane would result in an unacceptable detriment to highway safety of both motorists and pedestrians. The vehicular access to the development would be from Bigsby Road and Palmer Road. It is considered that Bigsby Road would not provide a safe and suitable means of access to the site by reason of the carriageway width and unrestricted parking for existing residential properties would result in conflict between vehicles travelling in opposite directions. Accordingly, such development would have an adverse impact on highway safety and conflict with the provisions and aims of Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework and Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the NPPF. 2. The scale of the development is a substantial extension into the countryside and is seen as an inappropriate extension due to the topography and visibility from the geological edge to the north east. It is not considered that the site relates well to the existing settlement, due to the topography and open character of the area and would appear discordant in terms of landscape character. The proposed residential development would not comply with the requirements of paragraph 170 of the NPPF which states decisions should contribute and enhance the natural environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The visual harm resulting from the development is considered to outweigh the benefits it would bring 3. An Air Quality Assessment has not been submitted with the application so the Local Planning Authority has been unable to assess the likely effects of pollution on health and living conditions. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to paragraph 180 of the NPPF. Members raised questions around whether to include the figures around the extra car journeys due to the development, to which the Planning Development Manager agreed.

Outcome following PCG – Approved. Application No. Proposal

20/00114/COU Change of Use from (C3) Dwelling to (C2) Residential Care Home (7

Residents) and Demolition of Existing Garage / Carport. Salisbury House, York Street, East Markham.

Members were advised that permission was being sought to for a change of use of Salisbury House from a C3 dwelling to a C2 Residential Care Home and to demolish the existing garage/carport. A similar application in Treswell was presented to PCG in May.

The floorplans and site plans were circulated to members prior to the meeting.

There were no objections from statutory consultees.

The Planning Officer for Conservation noted that the demolition of the garage would be beneficial to the conservation of the area as it would improve the view of the property.

East Markham Parish Council raised the following objections;

• Insufficient parking for staff, visitors and emergency vehicles; • Overspill parking into streets around East Markham which would be a detriment to

highway safety; • There is an existing Residential Care Home in East Markham and they are similar

parking issues; • Limited public transport for staff.

The applicant, Kisimul Group Ltd, have stated that they expect 7 staff in attendance during the day shift and 5 for the evening shift. The driveway would offer several more parking spaces, plus the existing staff spaces. Planning had no objection to the application on parking grounds, but stated that as a condition for the application, a parking layout plan must be submitted by the applicant.

One letter of objection was received by the public on the following grounds;

• A home for people with learning difficulties would be better suited in a town or city; • Increase in staff; • Increase in traffic; • Potential for on-street parking; • It would be better located in Worksop, Retford or Newark where there are more

facilities available.

Many of the people that live in homes like these are local to the area and have family in the area, so it is better suited to locations like East Markham.

The East Markham Neighbourhood Plan did not provide any guidance regarding this application. No comments from the local ward member.

A lift inside the house was not required as part of the architectural plans.

Visitor numbers can managed by different time slots.

20/00319/FUL Conversion and Extension of Former Public House (Class A4) into new Convenience Store (Class A1) and Three No. Apartments. Flying Scotsman Public House, Hallcroft Road, Retford.

Members were advised that permission was being sought to convert a former public house into a new Co-op Convenience Store (Class A1) and three apartments.

Site plans and designs were circulated to members prior to the meeting.

Four objections from nearby occupiers on the following grounds;

• Highway safety due to access onto Hallcroft Road; • Increased car parking; • Increased noise and disturbance from additional cars and delivery lorries; • There is already an adequate number of convenience stores in the area (North

Road); • Overshadowing and loss of light to ground floor of the property next door (1

Merchants Fold); • Viability to local shops; • Located to a nearby school which means there will be an increase of noise and

unhealthy eating from pupils.

Nottinghamshire County Highways raised no concerns around this application. There is a safe access point to the road after discussions between the applicant and Highways.

Planning believed there would not be a significant loss of amenity for neighbouring properties due to noise because the property had previously been a public house, which generates far more noise during the day and in the evening than a convenience store. The opening hours can be restricted so it closes at 10pm.

1 Merchants Fold was visited by Planning Officers and they concluded that the convenience store would not cause more overshadowing as the windows in question are already overshadowed by a large wooden fence. This fence will remain in place.

Convenience stores like this have a policy of managing a number of pupils being allowed in at once.

There is an existing Co-op convenience store located on North Road.

20/00473/TPO Horse Chestnut (T1) - Crown Reduction of up to 2 metres. The Laurels, 6 High Street, Beckingham.

Members were advised that permission was being sought for work on a crown reduction of 2 metres to a House Chestnut tree located in the rear garden of The Laurels, 6 High Street, Beckingham.

The applicant originally proposed 4 metres, but the local ward member, Cllr J M Sanger, raised objections that this would be an excessive reduction and would prejudice the health

and of the tree. The Tree Officer and the Parish Council agreed with these statements. The applicant amended the application to reduce the crown by 2 metres, as recommended by the Tree Officer.

The tree is 100 years old and in good condition. It adds to the character of the area.

Cllr Sanger supported the Tree Officer’s recommendations.

(Meeting closed at 4:48pm).

Agenda Item No. 5

PLANNING COMMITTEE 22nd JULY 2020 OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST Members please note that the updated positions are shown in bold type following each item. (DTM = Development Team Manager) Min. No.

Subject

Decision

Officer Responsible

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

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

Report to be presented to a future meeting 62(e) 05.02.20 Development

Management Scheme of Delegation for Determining Planning Applications.

The Scheme of Delegation is monitored with a report presented to Planning Committee in 18 months’ time.

Report to be presented to a future meeting

Agenda Item No. 6b PLANNING COMMITTEE INFORMATION REPORT APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED 19/01247/FUL Mr and Mrs

J Foster Appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a bungalow on land adjacent to 33, Clinton Street, Worksop.

DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED The Inspector considered the main issue to be the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of the proposed bungalow and neighbouring properties with regards to outlook, privacy, light and amenity area. The Inspector considered that the proposal would result in overlooking of adjoining properties and garden areas, resulting in a loss of privacy to those residents. INSPECTORS DECISION: Dismiss the appeal OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

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

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 June 2020

by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 16 June 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/20/3244208

Land Adjacent to 33 Clinton Street, Worksop S80 2RY

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs J Foster against the decision of Bassetlaw DistrictCouncil.

• The application Ref 19/01247/FUL, dated 5 December 2018, was refused by noticedated 14 November 2019.

• The development proposed is described as “Proposed resubmission for the erection of abungalow.”

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matter

2. At the time of my site the proposed building was under construction. I have

dealt with the appeal accordingly.

Main Issue

3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of existing

and future occupiers of the proposed bungalow and neighbouring properties

with regards to outlook, privacy, light and amenity area.

Reasons

4. The proposed property sits within a predominantly residential area and is within

close proximity to the neighbouring properties of Kenilworth Close (KC). The

proposal has first floor windows that look directly into the rear windows and

gardens of the properties on KC. Due to the position of the property, location ofthe first floor windows and the proximity of neighbouring dwellings at KC,

future occupiers of the proposed property would have uninterrupted views over

the gardens and into the rear windows of the properties of KC. This wouldresult in an adverse loss of privacy to the occupiers of the properties on KC.

5. The proposal is not overly large and given the siting of the proposed building

and the orientation of surrounding properties, overbearing or overshadowing

effects would not be created that would adversely affect the outlook from

neighbouring properties.

6. The proposal is for a small two bedroom property with associated garden

amenity area. Whilst the proposed amenity area would be small, there wouldbe sufficient to accommodate the needs of the future occupants of a two

bedroom property.

Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/20/3244208

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

7. Whilst I have found that the proposal would have sufficient garden amenity

space and would not compromise outlook and light, this would not outweigh

the harm I have identified above with regards to privacy.

8. The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the living conditions of

the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to privacy. The proposal would be contrary to Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw District Core Strategy and

Development Management Policies DPD 2011, the National Planning Policy

Framework and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, 'Successful Places' 2013 which seeks new development not to have a detrimental effect on

the residential amenity of nearby residents.

9. I have had regard to the appellants statement of case, including previous

highway concerns, the planning permission1 for a two bedroom bungalow and

the various meetings and correspondence from Council Officers. These matters however do not alter my findings above.

Conclusion

10. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised the

appeal should be dismissed.

Chris Baxter

INSPECTOR

1 Local Planning Authority Reference: 18/01259/FUL

Agenda Item No. 6c BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL INDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 22.07.2020

Sheet No. Ref No. Applicant Location and Proposal Recom. Decision

A1 (pages 31 – 54)

20/00512/FUL Gleeson Regeneration Ltd

Land West Of Queen Elizabeth Crescent Rhodesia (Access from Mary Street, S80 3JF and Cecil Close, S80 3HU).

Residential Development of 127 Two, Three and Four Bedroom Dwellings, Ancillary Works and Construct New Access (Re-submission of 19/00852/FUL)

ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISIT Item No: A1

Application Ref. 20/00512/FUL

Application Type Full Planning Permission

Site Address Land West Of Queen Elizabeth Crescent Rhodesia Nottinghamshire (Access from Mary Street, S80 3JF and Cecil Close, S80 3HU).

Proposal Residential Development of 127 Two, Three and Four Bedroom Dwellings, Ancillary Works and Construct New Access (Re-submission of 19/00852/FUL)

Case Officer Jamie Elliott

Recommendation GRANT

Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

_________________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICATION SITE CONTEXT The site currently consists of unmanaged grassland and scrub, located on the southern fringe of Rhodesia. The site in question is located outside the Worksop development boundary as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework. Rhodesia Bridleway 2 runs adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Lady Lee Quarry Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is located directly to the south. High Grounds Wood local wildlife site is located to the east. Haggonfields School and Haggonfield Farmhouse located to the north are non-designated heritage assets. PROPOSAL The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 127 dwellings, consisting of 32 two bed dwellings, 81 three bed dwellings and 14 four bed dwellings. 19 two and three bed dwellings would be affordable housing offered to first time buyers at a minimum of 20% below its open market value. The application is a resubmission of an earlier application ref: 19/00852/FUL that was refused at Planning Committee on 1 April 2020 and is now the subject of a forthcoming appeal. The reasons for refusal are outlined within the Planning History section of this report.

The application is almost identical to that which was previously refused permission, save for creation of a turning head in the south east corner of the site and the provision of a footpath link to Rhodesia Bridleway 2. The applicant's agents have submitted a number of supporting documents which Include: Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Materials Schedule Affordable Housing Statement Heritage Statement Noise Impact Assessment Transport Assessment Travel Plan Flood Risk Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Report Ecological Impact Assessment Ground Investigation Report Economic Benefits Paper S106 Planning Obligations All these documents are available for inspection on-line. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Having regard to Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the main policy considerations are as follows: NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s approach for the planning system and how these are expected to be applied. Paragraph 8 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. Paragraph 11 explains that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision-taking this means approving development proposals that accord with an up to date development plan without delay; and where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission shall be granted unless: i. The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed6; or ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The following paragraphs of the framework are applicable to this development: Para 7 – Achieving sustainable development Para 8 – Three strands to sustainable development

Para 10 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development Para 11 – Decision making Para 12 – Development plan as the starting point for decision making Para 33 – Strategic policies in development plans should be reviewed every 5 years. Para 38 – Decision making should be done in a positive way. Para 55 – Planning conditions to be kept to a minimum and to meet the tests. Para 56 – Planning obligations Para 59 – Councils to boost housing supply Para 61 – Meeting housing need Para 73 & 74 – All Councils to have a minimum 5 year supply of housing to meet demand. Para 91 – Planning to achieve healthy, safe and inclusive communities. Para 94 – Provision of sufficient school places Para 96 – provision of high quality open space and opportunities for sport and physical activity. Para 108 – 110 – Highway safety Para 117 – Making effective use of land Para 124 – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Para 127 – Development should reflect local characteristics. Para 130 – Poor design should be refused permission. Para 163 – New development must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Para 170 - Decisions should contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural and local environment. Para 190 – Assessing the significance of a heritage asset BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011):

• CS1 - Settlement hierarchy • CS2 - Worksop • DM4 - Design & character • DM5 – Housing Mix and Density • DM8 – The Historic Environment • DM9 - Delivering open space and sports facilities • DM11 - Developer contributions and infrastructure provision • DM12 - Flood risk, sewage and drainage • DM13 - Sustainable transport

RHODESIA NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN The Rhodesia Neighbourhood Plan area was designated in December 2015. The chart below shows the weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan set against the stage of the plan-making process. The Rhodesia Neighbourhood plan is at stage 1 and therefore it cannot be afforded any weight in decision making.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 19/00852/FUL This application for the erection of 127 dwellings was the subject of a report to the Planning Committee on 1 April 2020. Members of the Planning Committee, resolved to overturn the officer recommendation and refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of no detriment to highway safety. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 109 of Part 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that development should be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

The Bassetlaw Local Plan Transport Study Update demonstrates that the traffic generated by the development of 128 dwellings in combination with other planned major development in Worksop would cumulatively have a significant impact upon the surrounding road network especially at junctions along the A57 Worksop bypass.

Accordingly, such development would have an adverse impact on highway safety and conflict with the provisions and aims of Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.

2. Policy DM11 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that all applications will be expected to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure (social, physical and green) will be in place in advance of, or can be provided in tandem with, new development. In addition, paragraph 94 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that it is important that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities.

As the local primary school catchment area currently has insufficient capacity to accommodate the pupils generated by the development, the erection of a further 128 dwellings would lead to a shortfall in primary school places to the detriment of the occupiers of the new dwellings and social cohesion in general. If permitted, such development would conflict with the provisions and aims of Policy DM11 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework and paragraph 94 of the NPPF.

The above application is the subject of a forthcoming appeal.

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES Nottinghamshire County Council (Policy) Minerals Overall, considering the proposal is an extension of Rhodesia, the County Council would not consider the development to be inappropriate in this location, however it should be demonstrated there is a sound argument that identifies a clear and demonstrable need for the non-mineral development and that the practicality of prior extraction has been fully considered. Waste It is unlikely this development would present a significantly additional sterilisation risk to the recycling centre in terms of Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Core Strategy Policy WCS10. Strategic Highways In strategic transport planning terms, the traffic generated from this application site is not likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the operating conditions of the local and strategic highway network, however in combination with other planned development in Worksop the traffic impact is expected to be significant. The necessary road infrastructure improvements would be secured through CIL payments. Planning Obligations Transport and Travel Services The County Council will not be seeking any developer contributions towards bus service support or infrastructure. Education In terms of Primary school places, based on current data there is a projected surplus of places in the Primary planning area and the impact of the development would not lead to a deficit in position. In terms of Secondary school places, this development falls within the Outwood Academy Portland catchment area which also has insufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated secondary pupils generated from this development. Therefore, the County Council would seek a contribution of £477,500 (20 places x £23,875) to provide additional secondary provision. This would be secured through CIL payments. Libraries A developer contribution for additional library stock would be required to meet the needs of the increase in population. 292 (population) x 1.532 (Items) x £10.00 (cost per item) = £4,473.00. Rights of Way (VIA). Concern is expressed about the intensification of usage of the adjacent footpaths and whether the surface of these routes need to be improved by the applicant to withstand the additional impact.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways) No objections subject to provision being made in the S106 legal agreement for a commuted sum towards the completion of the link between Cecil Close and Mary Street and conditions securing following: 1. Submission and agreement of travel plan; 2. Driveways to be provided in the a bound material (not Gravel); 3. Management and maintenance of streets; 4. Completion of roadways; 5. Details of wheel washing facilities; 6. Details of wheelie bin collection points; 7. Provision of turning head. Nottinghamshire County Council (Flood Risk Management) No objection The District Environmental Health Officer A Construction Environmental Management Plan should be secured by conditions to secure; i.) Hours of construction; ii.) Limitation on noise, dust and light pollution; iii.) No burning on site. In addition a further condition should be imposed requiring investigations/mitigation into site contamination. The District Parks Development Officer The following contributions are normally required to provide play equipment:

• Play equipped area of 400sqm would result in a contribution of £50,000 (based on providing 5 pieces of equipment).

• As the proposed development should provide 383.54qm (based on 127 houses), an off-site contribution of £47,944.25 will be required.

Therefore, a contribution of £47,944.25 towards the provision of new play equipment/improvements to local amenities should be secured. Due to the timescales involved and the level of provision already on the existing play area, the Council would be seeking this contribution for the replacement or to add to this provision within the vicinity and would want 10 years to spend the money upon receipt. The District Strategic Housing Officer We would expect to achieve 15% delivery of affordable housing of all units on site to be affordable, at least 10% of this should be available for affordable market homes, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The greatest demand is for 2 and 3 bed family accommodation and 2 bed older persons bungalow.

Natural England No comment. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust No objections subject to the following: 1. A Construction Environmental Management plan to provide a methodology to avoid harm during site clearance and construction activities; 2. Ecological mitigation and protection measures to reduce impact of light pollution and pollution of the adjacent water body; 3. Ecological enhancements in the form of shrub and tree planting, the provision of bird and bat boxes and hedgehog friendly fencing. Environment Agency No objections subject to conditions restrict the use of pilings within the construction and mitigation of any identified contamination. Rhodesia Parish Council No comments had been received at the time of writing this report. A District Councillor Objection to the development on the following grounds: 1. Cecil Close is too narrow to serve as the access to the development; 2. Construction traffic would create noise and disturbance for local residents; 3. Increase in traffic result in congestion and highway danger to children; 4. Construction vehicles passing the school would cause disruption; 5. The village has a lack of services and infrastructure to accommodate the increase in population; 6. As Bassetlaw can demonstrate a 10.1 year housing land supply, no further residential development is required; 7. Increase in vehicular movements would increase the levels of pollution experienced by the village’s children. SUMMARY OF PUBLICITY This application was advertised by neighbour letter, site notice and press notice and 11 letters of objection have been received raising the following points: 1. The increase in traffic would be detrimental to highways safety; 2. There is no material change to the scheme that was refused previously; 3. The approach roads to the village are restricted; 4. Additional housing is not required as the district has 10.1 years of housing supply; 5. Submitted photographs demonstrate the unsuitable nature of the surrounding roads; 6. Such development would require the expansion of existing schools; 7. The local bus service is limited with no guarantee that it will continue; 8. The site suffers from contamination;

9. The proximity of the development to the limestone face and the deep water of the quarry would be dangerous for children; 10. No right of way should be stopped up or affected by the development; 11. Monies should not be directed to open space outside of the village as this would be of no benefit to the village; 12. The development requires the selling of publically owned land to facilitate the link road; 13. Cecil Close a cul-de-sac in not very wide; 14. The village has limited amenities or services; 15. Increase in traffic would be detrimental to the safety of children; 16. Would increase noise, disturbance and pollution; 17. Would result in a loss of open green space; 18. When vehicles are parked on the Cecil Close, there is barely room for cars to pass; 19. The village already suffers from the noise and disturbance from the adjacent railway line and the A57 by-pass; 20. Construction traffic would drive past the school and pensioners bungalows; 21. There would be no social or economic benefits from the development; 22. The village has already had its fair share of residential and industrial developments; 23. The construction works would generate significant levels of dust; 24. Adverse impact on local wildlife; 25. There is no justification for building on green belt; 26. Hedgerows should be protected; 27. There would be restricted access for emergency vehicles. A Petition containing 80 signatures has been received objecting to the development. However, the petition does not specify the reasons for objection. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT Paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the development plan is the starting point for decision making. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy states that until the adoption of the site allocations DPD, development in the settlements identified in the hierarchy will be restricted to the area inside defined settlement boundaries. However, additional permission may be granted where the development proposal would address a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply or its employment land supply. Policy CS2 of the council’s Core Strategy identifies Worksop and its associated settlements (Shireoaks and Rhodesia) as a Sub-regional centre, the focus for major housing, employment and town centre retail growth. The application site lies adjacent of the designated development limits for Worksop. Paragraph 33 of the NPPF states that policies in development plans should be reviewed and where necessary updated every 5 years. The Bassetlaw Core Strategy dates from 2011 and its policies have not been reviewed in the last 5 years as the Council is working on a new local plan to replace it. In this situation, paragraph 213 of the NPPF states that policies in an adopted development plan do not become automatically out of date because they were published before the framework; policies must be considered having regards to their consistency with the framework. The Core Strategy was prepared using a settlement hierarchy which included development limits to control development and does not contain any allocations to meet future

growth and it is considered that this approach is now out of step with that identified in the NPPF and the weight given to policy CS1 has to be reduced. Whilst this scheme is contrary to the requirements of policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, part d) of paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged as policy CS1 is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process and this scheme must be considered under the planning balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole. In relation to the supply of housing, the NPPF requires Councils to identify and update, on an annual basis, a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide for five years’ worth of housing provision against identified requirements (paragraphs 73 & 74). For sites to be considered deliverable: they have to be available; suitable; achievable and viable. Under the requirements of the new NPPF, the Council can demonstrate 10.1 years’ worth of housing and as such, a deliverable 5 years supply of housing can be achieved. The fact that the Council has a 5 year supply will be given weight and considered as part of all of the relevant material considerations in the tilted balance test assessment to this scheme. It must be clarified that recent case law and appeal decisions have made it clear that schemes cannot be refused solely on the grounds that a Council has a 5 year supply as the Government sees this as a minimum requirement that each Council should achieve and not a ceiling target where schemes are refused after the target has been achieved. Having regards to the overall policy position as outlined above and the fact that the planning balance test in paragraph 11 of the NPPF applies, consideration of whether this proposal constitutes sustainable development will be assessed in relation to the matters outlined below and a balanced decision will be reached in the conclusion to the report. SUSTAINABILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT Paragraph 8 of the NPPF sets out three dimensions for sustainable development, economic, social and environmental:

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

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

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

In reaching a decision on this case, the NPPF at paragraph 9 makes it clear that the objectives referred to above should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable

solutions and are not criteria against which every planning application should be judged against. Whilst Rhodesia is a distinct settlement in its own right, the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework identifies that, in planning policy terms, the village forms part settlement of Worksop is defined as a Sub-Regional Centre in the Core Strategy where the settlement is expected to be a focus for major housing, employment and town centre retail growth which is commensurate with its status as the primary town in the district. The erection of 127 new dwellings on this site will make a significant and positive contribution to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy through the creation of temporary construction related jobs on site and the on-going contribution to the local economy both in terms of employment, spending and service usage from the creation of 127 additional households in the area. This scheme will also generate contributions towards local service infrastructure improvements, Council Tax and also New Homes Bonus money for Bassetlaw District Council which can potentially be reinvested into the local economy. In assessing the impact of a scheme in terms of the social objective as outlined in the NPPF, it must be remembered that this development meets this requirement as it will provide 127 new houses to meet the existing and future housing needs of the residents within the district. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that development should respect its wider surroundings in relation to historic development patterns and landscape character. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 127 of the NPPF which states that development should be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. In addition policy DM9 states that that new development proposals in and adjoining the countryside will be expected to be designed so as to be sensitive to their landscape setting and expected to enhance the distinctive qualities of the landscape character policy zone in which they would be situated. The site in question is identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment as Magnesium Limestone Ridge, Policy Zone 11: Worksop, which requires that the rural character of the area is conserved and reinforced by concentrating new development around the existing settlements of Worksop and Shireoaks. It also recommends enhancing the visual unity of the area by softening built development through further tree and woodland planting Being sited immediately adjacent to the settlement edge of Rhodesia, the development would be viewed in the context of the existing built form of the village and would appear as a natural extension to Rhodesia. Additional tree planting and landscaping would help assimilate the development into the landscape and would ensure that it would not appear unduly discordant in the landscape. For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the proposal would comply with the policies and guidance outlined above. DESIGN AND LAYOUT Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework also states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of a high quality design, respects the character of the area. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 127 of the NPPF which states that development should be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment.

The District Council’s ‘Successful Places’ Supplementary Planning Document also provides guidance on improving the quality of design and attractiveness of residential development. It is considered that the mix and design of the dwellings together with the layout, would provide a scheme that is generally compatible with the existing village and one which would therefore comply with the provisions of the guidance and policies outlined above. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM4, which states that permission will only be granted for residential development that is of a high quality design that does not have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby residents. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 127 of the NPPF which states that development should provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. It is considered that that the siting and orientation of the new dwellings would ensure that the development would have no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, domination or overshadowing. The District Council’s 'Successful Places’ Supplementary Planning Document' requires a minimum separation distance between habitable room windows of properties of 21m. In particular, the separation distances between the new dwellings and the existing houses on Queen Elizabeth Crescent is well in excess of this minimum requirement. The District Council’s 'Successful Places’ SPD also states that new dwellings should be normally have a minimum single are of private amenity space of; 50m2 for 2 bed dwellings, 70m2 for 3 bed dwellings and 90m2 for 4 bed dwellings. The new dwellings would be provided with rear gardens that comply with the minimum sizes prescribed above. A number of objectors have raised concerns over the impact of the development on residential amenity. These are discussed below: Objection Assessment The development and construction works would result in noise and disturbance.

Hours and method of construction works would be controlled by condition, thereby safeguarding amenities of existing residents.

Construction works would generate dust and pollution.

The construction works would be carried out in accordance with a previously agreed Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Accordingly it is considered that the development as proposed would comply with the policies and guidance outlined above. HIGHWAYS MATTERS Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that schemes can be supported where they provide safe and suitable access for all. This requirement is also contained in policy DM4 of the Council’s Core Strategy. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF makes it clear that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. The submitted drawings show the use of gravel drives serving each individual properties. It is considered however that this form of surfacing would be unacceptable as it can appear somewhat unsightly and lead to the loose gravel and materials being deposited on the public

highway. It is therefore recommended that a condition be applied requiring the prior approval of the surfacing materials for the driveways. Paragraph 110e of the NPPF requires schemes to be designed to enable charging of plug-in electric vehicles (EV) and other ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV) in safe, accessible and convenient locations. As with mobility vehicles, there are currently no County standards on what provision developers must provide as part of their schemes, but this is to change soon as the County is working on such a policy and has considered it to be appropriate to request provision here in line with the requirements of paragraph 110e of the NPPF. It is recommended therefore that a condition be applied to any subsequent permission to require the provision of electrical charging points. A number of objectors have raised concerns over the impact of the development on highway safety. These are discussed below: Objection Assessment The erection of 127 new houses will have a negative impact on highway safety and accident rates.

The County Highway Authority have assessed the scheme and has not raised any concerns in relation to highway safety in connection with this scheme.

Cecil Close is too narrow to be used as point of access into the site.

Access to emergency vehicles would be restricted.

The County Highway Authority have assessed the scheme and has not raised any concerns in relation to access arrangements.

The surrounding road network is unsuitable to accommodate the increase in vehicular movements.

As previously outlined, planning application 19/00852/FUL was refused on the grounds that cumulatively the off-site impact upon the highway network would be severe. The applicant’s submitted Transport Statement demonstrates that there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development will give rise to a severe traffic impact, even taking into account all other committed developments. The Strategic Highways Team at the County Council have commented that the traffic impact would be significant when considered in combination with other planned developments. The Strategic Highways have not raised an objection to the development and have stated that the necessary road infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the cumulative traffic impact would be funded by CIL. All developments that are likely to generate traffic will add to traffic growth in a given area cumulatively no matter how minor but the CIL receipts generated by developments will mitigate this combined impact. The Highways authority have indicated that subject to conditions securing the provision, management and maintenance of the agreed road layout and a S106 Legal Agreement to secure a future link through to Mary Street and the submission of a Travel Plan, the proposal would have no adverse impact on highway safety. Accordingly, it is considered that the development would comply with the provisions of the policies and guidance outlined above. OPEN SPACE The Bassetlaw Local Development Framework contains policy DM9, which states that new development proposals will be expected to provide functional on-site open space and/or sports facilities, or to provide contributions towards new or improved facilities elsewhere locally, as well as contributions for on-going maintenance, to meet any deficiencies in local provision that

will be caused by the development. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 91 of the NPPF which states that planning decisions should enable and support healthy lifestyles, through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure and sports facilities. The application proposes the creation of an informal area of Public Open Space within the south western corner of the site that would provide a buffer between the development and the Local Wildlife Site. In addition, monies to upgrade existing play infrastructure within the village would be secured by S106 agreement. It is considered therefore that subject to securing open space provision and enhancements, the development would comply with the policies outlined above. FLOODING/DRAINAGE Policy DM12 of the Core Strategy Bassetlaw Development Framework states that proposals for new development will only be supported where it is demonstrated to the council’s satisfaction that the proposed development will not exacerbate existing land drainage problems. Paragraph 163 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk not increased elsewhere. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding. The Lead Local Flood Authority have confirmed that the subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Drainage Strategy, the proposed development would have no adverse impact on flood risk. The management and maintenance of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDs) would be secured through conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would comply with the provisions of the policies outlined above. ECOLOGY Policy DM9 of the Local Development Framework which states that new development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that they will not adversely affect or result in the loss of features of recognised importance such as protected species. Similar advice is contained in paragraph 174 of the NPPF which states that permission should be refused for development that would harm biodiversity. The application site lies immediately adjacent to Lady Lee Quarry a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) an old magnesium limestone quarry designated for its botanical interest. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust (NWT) have indicated that the waterbody within the reserve suffers from fluctuating water levels and has been known to dry out, impacting on the wildlife that uses the pond. They have indicated therefore that the development could therefore benefit the adjacent LWS by diverting surface water run-off into the water into the pond. The NWT have indicated that this would however be conditional on run-off being intercepted by an appropriate Sustainable Drainage System, so that the water is of a satisfactory quality when it enters the reserve. The discharge into the LWS would also have to be managed to minimise the risk of flooding within the reserve.

The proximity of the development to the LWS also has the potential to impact on during construction works. It is recommended therefore that a condition be applied, requiring the submission of a ‘Construction Environmental Management Plan’, to prevent damage to trees and hedgerows and to safeguard against pollution of the adjacent waterbody. In addition, it is considered that ecological enhancements in the form shrub and tree planting and the provision of bird and bat boxes and hedgehog friendly fencing, be secured by conditions. The applicant’s Ecological Impact Assessment indicates that further mitigation would also be provided in the form of a year’s subscription to the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust for new householders together with an Ecological Information Pack. In addition, a commuted sum of £40,692 would be given to Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, in order to carry out ecological enhancements within Lady Lee Quarry Local Wildlife Site. A number of objectors have raised concerns over the impact of the development on the local ecology. These are discussed below: Objection Assessment The development would have an adverse impact on wildlife.

The site currently has limited potential for wildlife. Ecological enhancements in the form of bird and bat boxes would mitigate any potential loss. In addition, monies would be provided to mitigate the impact of the development and enhance the adjacent LWS

Hedgerows should be protected Condition would require the protection of trees and hedgerows during construction works.

It is considered that subject to securing the ecological mitigation and enhancement measures outlined above the development would accord with the policies and guidance outlined above. ARCHAEOLOGY Para 197 of the NPPF advises that Councils should consider the impact of a proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset when making a decision. Paragraph 199 of the NPPF is also particularly applicable where archaeology has been identified as a potential issue on site. This paragraph requires that applicants record to provide documentary evidence to advance the understanding of the significance of the heritage asset. Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy states that there will be a presumption against development that detrimentally affects the significance of a heritage asset. It is considered that subject to a condition securing a programme of archaeological work being undertaken prior development commencing, the scheme would provide a sufficient level of mitigation and would therefore comply with the aims of the policies outlined above. RIGHTS OF WAY As indicated above Rhodesia Bridleway 2 runs adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Nottinghamshire County Council (Via) have indicated that the further information is required in respect of boundary treatments adjacent of the right of way, the responsibility for maintaining the boundary and pedestrian links to the footpath. The existing boundary to the bridleway is formed by a hedgerow and it is proposed to retain this as part of the development. The bridleway will continue to be maintained by Nottinghamshire County Council, along with the portion of the hedgerow adjacent to the

bridleway. The maintenance of the portion of the hedgerow and the footpath links that lie within the site will be secured through a Section 106 Agreement that will require the developer to provide appropriate maintenance in perpetuity. CONTAMINATED LAND Paragraph 178 of the NPPF requires that in making decisions on schemes consideration is taken account of the ground conditions and any risks arising from contamination. The submitted Geo-environmental Report identifies that parts of the site are contaminated through landfill. Subject to a conditions requiring further investigation into site contamination and appropriate mitigation measures the development would comply with the guidance outlined above. LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRIBUTIONS The NPPF also makes it clear that the planning system must contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development and that it has three objectives: economic, social and environmental. In terms of infrastructure, the economic and social objectives of planning in the decision making are considered to apply. The economic objective requires councils when considering planning applications to consider the impact of the scheme on infrastructure and identifying and coordinating the provision of it. The social role requires schemes to support the needs of the community in terms of health, social and cultural well-being. Paragraph 34 of the NPPF is also applicable as it relates to developer contributions and states that the following should be identified in development plans: the level and type of affordable housing, the need for education, health transport, flood and water management and the green and digital infrastructure requirements. Policy DM11 of the Core Strategy Bassetlaw Development Framework also states that all applications will be expected to demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure (social, physical and green) will be in place in advance of, or can be provided in tandem with, new development and, where appropriate, that arrangements are in place for its subsequent maintenance. Arrangements for the provision or improvement of infrastructure required by the proposed development and/or to mitigate the impact of that development will, in line with national guidance and legislation, be secured by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge, planning obligation or, where appropriate, via conditions attached to a planning permission. The development would require the following contributions:

• 15% of the houses on site to be delivered as affordable; • £47,944.25 Contribution towards new play equipment/improvements; • £75,000 for provision of a vehicular link to Mary Street; • £7,500 Travel Plan review; • Open space/play area provision and footpath link management and maintenance; • SuDs management and maintenance • £40,692 Off-site ecological enhancements (NWT) • Library contribution of £4,473

As outlined previously, application 19/00852/FUL was refused on the grounds that local primary schools do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the children who would live within the development proposed. Nottinghamshire County Council as the Education Authority are responsible for ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to ensure school age children are able to access appropriate education provision. Nottinghamshire County Council have assessed the current capacity within local schools and have confirmed that based on current data there is a projected surplus of places within the Primary Planning Area and the impact of

the development alone would not lead to a deficit in provision. The County Council have confirmed that a contribution toward primary education improvements is not required in this instance. Therefore it would not be justified to request a contribution. Nottinghamshire County Council have stated that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated secondary pupils generated from this development. Therefore, the County Council have requested a contribution of £477,500 (20 places x £23,875) to provide additional secondary education improvements. This would be secured through CIL receipts in accordance with the strategy agreed with the County Council. OTHER ISSUES Members of Planning Committee had previously expressed concern regarding the potential impact of construction traffic upon the safety of pedestrians and motorists in the vicinity of the nearby school. These concerns are acknowledged but developing new homes in a sustainable location will result in construction traffic passing homes and schools for a limited period of time. It is considered that this impact can be made acceptable by imposing a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan which requires details of the routing of construction traffic and times of deliveries having regard to the school’s opening hours. The site is located in the Mineral Safeguarding Area for limestone. Policy SP7 of the emerging Minerals Local Plan concerns the safeguarding of these mineral assets. Policy SP7 therefore requires developments within the minerals safeguarding area to demonstrate it will not needlessly sterilise minerals and where this cannot be demonstrated, and there is a clear need for non-mineral development, prior extraction will be sought where practical. In this instance it is considered that being in such close proximity to existing residential properties, the extraction of limestone would be likely to generate significant adverse, environmental impacts for local residents in terms of noise, disturbance, dust and traffic movements. Accordingly it is not considered appropriate to require the developers to investigate the potential for mineral extraction prior to development commencing. CONCLUSION Whilst the Council can now demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, case law has determined that strategic policies such as that contained in the Council’s Core Strategies that have not been reviewed within 5 years of their adoption are now out of date, so therefore the weight to be apportioned to the Core Strategy policies is considered to be limited in decision making. As the Core Strategy is deemed to be out of date having regards to the contents of paragraph 33 of the NPPF, paragraph 11 of the NPPF makes it clear that the scheme should be considered under the planning balance test where planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF when taken as a whole. An assessment of the benefits and negatives provided by the scheme is given below with the weight apportioned to this in making a recommendation on this scheme:

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

127 new houses The Council has 10.1 years’ worth of housing supply and therefore the houses are not

needed for the Council to meet its 5 year housing supply requirements. The benefit of delivering an additional 127 dwellings is considered to carry reduced weight in the decision making for this scheme

15% of the 127 dwellings to be affordable There is a requirement for affordable housing in the district and the applicant has agreed to a policy compliant amount. This therefore carries significant weight in the determination of this case.

New residents into the area who will use and help to sustain existing local services

and facilitate potential future growth opportunities due to their spending power

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

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

Infrastructure contributions (public transport/education/local play space)

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

CIL/Council Tax/New Homes bonus payments

The scheme brings with it payments to Bassetlaw Council that can be reinvested back into the local economy. This is considered to carry significant weight in the determination of this case.

Contrary to adopted policies CS1 and CS2 of the Council’s Core Strategy.

This is considered to carry limited weight in the decision making process for this case due to the fact that the Bassetlaw Core Strategy Strategic policies are now considered to be out of date.

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

Having regards to benefits outlined above, and the scale and form of the development, it is considered that these when considered cumulatively outweigh any identified harm and as such, the proposal would constitute sustainable development as defined in paragraph 11 of the NPPF and accordingly the scheme must be granted planning permission. RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the applicant entering in to a S106 agreement. CONDITIONS: 1 The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning

with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with details and

specifications included on the submitted application form and shown on the following approved plans:

• Location plan drawing No.19/2184/LP (B) received on 1 May 2020; • Site Layout drawing No. 19/2184/01 Rev. L received on 24 June 2020; • Drawing No. 201/1G Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 202/1F Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 212/1 Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 301/1H Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 304/1E Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 307/1B Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 309/1E Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 310/1D Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 313/1 Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 314/1 Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 401/1G Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 403/1J Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 405/1E Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. SD100 Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 103B Received on 1 May 2020 • Drawing No. SD700 Rev B Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. SD701 Rev C Received on 1 May 2020; • Drawing No. 3104/CMP/01 Received on 1 May 2020;

Reason: To ensure the development takes the agreed form envisaged by the Local Planning Authority when determining the application and for the avoidance of doubt.

3 Notwithstanding the submitted details no development shall commence above damp

proof course (DPC) level, until details of the facing and roofing materials to be used in the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the agreed facing and roofing materials.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development.

4 No development shall take place until such time as a travel plan, including a scheme

for the implementation, delivery, monitoring and promotion of sustainable transport initiatives has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved travel plan.

Reason: In the interest of sustainable travel.

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

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

Reason: To ensure appropriate access and parking arrangements are available. 6. No one phase of development shall be commenced until details of the proposed

arrangements and plan for future management and maintenance of the proposed

streets including associated drainage contained within that phase of development have been submitted to and approved by the District Council. The streets and drainage shall for the lifetime of the development be maintained in accordance with the approved private management and maintenance details unless an agreement has been entered into under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. At which point those streets covered by the agreement will not be subject to the approved management and maintenance details.

Reason: To ensure that the road infrastructure is maintained to an appropriate standard

7. No dwellings within each phase of the development shall be occupied until the roads

and footways affording access to those dwellings have been completed up to binder course level and the visibility splays detailed on plan reference 19/2184/01 Rev L have been incorporated into the footway.

Reasons: To ensure that the roads serving the development are sufficiently completed and are available for use by the occupants and other users of the development in the interest of highway safety

8. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted details of wheel washing

facilities and street cleansing (including full details of its specification and siting) that maybe varied from time to time with the approval of the District Council and as made necessary by the works or ground conditions shall be submitted to and be approved by the District Council.

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

9. No development shall take place until such time as satisfactory details of bin store

locations adjacent shared private drives have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The respective bin stores shall be in place in a hard-bound material prior to the dwellings benefitting from the associated bin store are occupied.

Reason: To ensure multiple bins do not block accesses and footways in the interest of road safety.

10. Prior to occupation of the dwellings between plot numbers 75 to 108 the vehicular

turning head detailed on plan reference 19/2184/01 Rev L shall be provided and the road shall be completed up to binder course level up to the site’s eastern boundary unless the link road between Mary Street and Cecil Close including associated footways has been completed up to binder course level and is open to all traffic. In which case the turning head shall be omitted in favour of a continuous footway.

Reason: To ensure that the link road is available at the earliest opportunity or that suitable turning provision has been provided in the interest of sustainable travel and highway safety.

11 Before development commences above damp proof course level (DPC), details of the

Electric Vehicle (EV) and Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) charging points within each dwelling shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The EV and ULEV charge points shall be provided prior to the occupation of each of the dwellings and shall be maintained and retained as such for the lifetime of the properties.

Reason - To comply with the requirements of paragraph 110(e) of the NPPF which relates to the provision of infrastructure for EV and ULEV charging.

12 Notwithstanding the submitted drawing No. 19/2184/01 Rev. L, the screen fences/walls

on plots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 36, 39, 44, 50, 51, 53, 59 ,60, 64, 71, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81,82,83,84,85,110,114 and 124 shall be constructed, in accordance with details of form and design previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before occupation of the house to which each relates.

Reason: To ensure both the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and an adequate level of amenity for the houses in question.

13. The existing hedge on the western boundary of the site adjacent to Rhodesia Bridleway

2 shall be retained. No part of the hedge shall be removed unless that removal is authorised as part of this grant of planning permission or is the subject of written agreement by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development and to help assimilated the development into its surroundings.

14. No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management

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

i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) Storage and usage of plant and storage of materials used in constructing the development; iv) Measures to control the emission of dust, dirt and other debris during demolition and construction; v) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; vi) Delivery and construction working hours; vii) Construction traffic routing; viii) Protection measures for cyclists and pedestrians ix) Mitigation for bats, birds, reptiles amphibians and hedgehogs; x) The implementation of suitable stand-offs with appropriate protection measures for all retained hedgerows and trees; xi) Measures to prevent pollution of the adjacent water body from fuel oil spills and other contaminants.

Reason: development is carried out in a way which safeguards local residents, protected species, hedgerows, trees and the adjacent Local Wildlife Site.

15. All site clearance work shall be undertaken outside the bird-breeding season (March -

September inclusive). If clearance works are to be carried out during this time, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be on site to survey for nesting birds in such manner and to such specification as may have been previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that birds’ nests are protected from disturbance and destruction.

16. No development shall commence until a scheme and timetable for the implementation

of biodiversity enhancements has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.. The biodiversity enhancements shall include:

i.) The provision of bird and bat boxes; ii.) The installation of hedgehog friendly boundary treatments; iii.) The provision of a species rich wildflower meadow.

The agreed biodiversity enhancements shall be completed and available in accordance with the agreed scheme and timetable.

Reason: To ensure that the optimal benefits of biodiversity are achieved.

17. A scheme for tree planting on and landscape treatment of the site shall be submitted

to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The agreed scheme shall be fully implemented within nine months of the date when the last dwelling on the site is first occupied. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a size and species similar to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory overall appearance of the completed development and to help assimilate the new development into its surroundings.

18. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Planning Practice Guidance and section H of the Building Regulations 2010 detail surface water disposal hierarchy. The disposal of surface water by means of soakaways should be considered as the primary method. If this is not practical and there is no watercourse is available as an alternative other sustainable methods should also be explored. If these are found unsuitable, satisfactory evidence will need to be submitted before a discharge to the public sewerage system is considered.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

19. Piling using penetrative methods shall not be carried out other than with the written consent of the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed piling does not harm groundwater resources in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

20. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present

at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution from previously unidentified contamination sources at the development site. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

21. No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water to the ground are permitted

other than with the written consent of the local planning authority. Any proposals for such systems must be supported by an assessment of the risks to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development does not contribute to, and is not put at unacceptable risk from or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution caused by mobilised contaminants. This is in line with paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

22. Development shall not commence on site, until an investigation into the history and

current condition of the site to determine the likelihood of the existence of contamination arising from previous uses has been carried out and all of the following steps have been complied with to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (LPA). In order to comply with the above condition, the proposal should comply with the Land Contamination: risk management guidance found at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-contamination-how-to-manage-the-risks” and “BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 Investigation of potentially Contaminated sites – Code of practice”.

A) A written report should be submitted to and approved by the LPA which shall include details of the previous uses of the site, surrounding contaminative land uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and a description of the current condition of the site with regard to any activities that may have caused contamination. The report shall confirm whether or not it is likely that contamination may be present on the site.

B) If the above report indicates that contamination may be present on or under the site, or if evidence of contamination is found, a more detailed site investigation and risk assessment shall be carried out in accordance with authoritative guidance. The report should fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land contamination and /or pollution of controlled waters and should be submitted and agreed by the LPA.

C) Where the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risk or risks, a detailed remediation strategy to deal with land contamination and /or pollution of controlled waters affecting the site shall be submitted and approved by the LPA. No works, other than investigative works, shall be carried out on the site prior to receipt of written approval of the remediation strategy by the LPA.

D) A validation report for the site remediation shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by the LPA before completion of the development or occupation of the premises (whichever comes first).

Reason: To ensure that land contamination can be dealt with adequately prior to the use of the site hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority.

23. No construction works shall take place outside 8:00am - 6:00pm Monday to Friday,

9:00am - 1:00pm on Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

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

24. Development shall not commence within the application site until the developer has

secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any features of archaeological interest are protected or recorded.

25. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015 (or and order revoking or re-enacting that order), no external lighting shall be erected on the dwellings or gardens on plots 57, 58, 59, 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83 and 84 without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The installation of lighting as “permitted development" may have adverse impacts on the adjacent Local Wildlife Site by reason of light pollution.

planning committeeplanning committee agenda meeting to be held virtually through microsoft teams...

Documents

taag - spring...16th u6th parent/staff meeting 6.30 - 8.00...

ГОСТ Р 6.30-2003

6.30..... brunch

4.01 0 6.30 sunrise ... · 4.01 0 6.30 sunrise o...

investor presentation 6.30

gost r 6.30-2003

breakfast (6.30 hrs 11.00 hrs)

berita · conference organizing committee meeting pp kh...

mexico cdcs 6.30 - usaid

injustice, inequality and the cuts danny dorling, public...

public session agenda - halton district school board agendas...

halton district school board meeting will be livestreamed...

ofmdubrava.hr€¦ · franjo saleški sub 25. 1. obraéenje...

wednesday, march 20, 2019 public session … agendas and...

newsplex special report 6.30 (english)

committee of the whole livestreamed …

rth 6.30 sh - gt lifting · the data in this brochure are...

wednesday, march 7, 2018 public session agenda agendas and...

rotary club of pudu 2017 18 page 1 · speaker’s cv & text...

kp 6.30 anatomi repro wanita