STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

31st August 2017

Application No:

SMD/2017/0400

Location JCB Earthmovers, Leek Road, Cheadle, Staffordshire, ST10 2JU

Proposal Proposed car parking, reorganisation of goods in and machine dispatch areas, and new machine storage and waste areas

Applicant Mr. James Ingestre

Agent Mr. Grant Anderson

Parish/ward Cheadle Date registered 09/06/17

If you have a question about this report please contact: Ben Haywood tel: 01538 395400 ex 4924 ben.haywood@staffsmoorlands.gov.uk

REFERRAL The Application has been referred to committee because it is a major development within the Green Belt and a departure from the Development Plan.

1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to conditions

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The Site, which comprises c. 38 hectares, is situated on the A522 Leek Road, approximately 1.3 km to the north-west of Cheadle town centre. 2.2 Access to the Site is via a three-arm priority controlled roundabout situated on the A522, with the western arm providing a direct access into the Site. 2.3 The Site lies within the North Staffordshire Green Belt as designated in the saved Cheadle inset plan in the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan adopted in 1998. 2.4 The Site comprises two industrial buildings which house JCB's Earthmovers, Landpower and Compact Products businesses. The two buildings are located either side of a central parking area. 2.5 A service road from the access roundabout on the A522 bisects the central car parking area to provide access to service yards/storage areas to

the rear of the buildings. A test track for the testing of JCB products is also located to the rear of the buildings. 2.6 An area of hardstanding has been constructed to the north-east of the Earthmovers building to provide additional car parking. 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 3.1 Full planning permission is sought for:

- the provision of two separate parking areas for the Compact Products and Earthmovers businesses. A new car park is to be constructed for Compact Products situated to the east of the Compact Products building and providing 545 staff car parking spaces.

- the existing hard-core overflow car parking for the Earthmovers business situated in the north-eastern part of the Site will be upgraded and laid out to provide permanent parking for the Earthmovers business providing 604 staff car parking spaces.

- the existing car parking areas situated between the two industrial buildings will be redeveloped to provide segregated delivery and dispatch areas for the business. This will include:-

- a dedicated holding area for heavy goods vehicles providing capacity for 26 vehicles;

- a dedicated proposed machine dispatch yard. - Separate machine storage areas for the Earthmovers and

Compact Products businesses will located to the west of the existing service yards for each building.

- A perimeter road will be constructed running around the Earthmovers building which will provide connectivity and a circulatory route around the Site.

- Various supporting infrastructure will also be provided, including screening bunds, landscaping and drainage attenuation ponds.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 06/00548/OUT Industrial Development – Approved

5. PLANNING POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

5.1 The Development Plan comprises of:

Saved Local Plan Proposals Map / Settlement Boundaries (adopted 1998).

Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2014) Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (1998)

5.2 Development boundaries within the 1998 Adopted Local Plan are still in force until such time as they are reviewed and adopted through the site

allocations process. The Preferred Options Local Plan is currently out for consultation.

Adopted Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy DPD (26th March 2014)

5.4 The following Core Strategy policies are relevant to the application:-

SS1 Development Principles SS1a Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SS6A Rural Area Strategy SD1 Sustainable Use of Resources SD3 Carbon-saving Measures in Development SD4 Pollution and Flood Risk H1 New Housing Development DC1 Design Considerations DC3 Landscape and Settlement Setting C1 Creating Sustainable Communities NE1 Biodiversity and Geological Resources T1 Development and Sustainable Transport T2 Other Sustainable Transport Measures

National Planning Policy NPPF National Planning Policy Guidance

6. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT Town Council 6.1 It was resolved that the Council supported this application with two stipulations that the proposed lorry park would allow overnight parking and to request that a condition be incorporated into the granting of permission to provide for screening together with a landscaping scheme that could be a possible tourist attraction bringing investment into Cheadle. Rights of Way 6.2 The Illustrative Layout Plan recognises the existence of Public Footpath No 33 Cheadle which needs to be diverted to allow the proposed new northern car park to be built. 6.3 The attention of the developer should be drawn to the existence of the path and to the requirement that any planning permission given does not construe the right to divert, extinguish or obstruct any part of the public path. The developer will need to apply to your council under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert the footpath to allow the development to commence. The County Council will need to be formally consulted on the proposal to divert this footpath. The applicants should be reminded that the granting of planning permission does not constitute authority for interference with the right of way or its closure or diversion. For

further information the applicant should be advised to read section 7 of DEFRA's Rights of Way Circular (1/09). 6.4 It is important that users of the path are still able to exercise their public rights safely and that the path is reinstated if any damage to the surface occurs as a result of the proposed development. The surface of the footpath must be kept in a state of repair such that the public right to use it can be exercised safely and at all times. Heavy vehicular use can cause the way to become unsuitable for use and in some instances dangerous. Some attention needs to be drawn to this and that surface works may be required. Ecologist 6.5 No objection subject to the following conditions:

Updated Badgers Survey if work does not commence within 12 months

Hedgehog Mitigation Measures

Breeding birds Mitigation Measures

Reptile Mitigation Measures

Control of Lighting provision in relation to bats and breeding birds

Submission, approval and implementation of Scheme to address Invasive species – Japanese Knotweed

Submission, approval and implementation of Biosecurity Protocol

Submission, approval and implementation of Constuction environmental management plan

Submission, approval and implementation of Ecological design strategy

Trees and Woodlands Officer 6.6 I have no objection to this application, and note that it would be anticipated to result in some useful landscape and habitat enhancement in the long term. 6.7 The landscape masterplan submitted with the application sets out an appropriately simple and robust landscaping scheme showing locations and schedule for areas of native woodland planting well suited to the scale and character of the site and the proposed development. However, there are a number of additions or amendments to the detail of the landscaping scheme which I would suggest in order to address specific areas or issues, as follows:

- The proposed planting schedule comprises a mix of suitable native tree and understorey shrub species. However, I would suggest significantly increasing the overall proportion of understorey species, in order to increase and maintain density and screening effectiveness at lower levels, even at maturity. Additionally it would be useful to add some further, smaller shrubs of typically natural multi-stemmed form into the species mix, such as Hazel, Guelder Rose and Dogwood. Mainly the planting is intended to screen relatively low features such as cars and modest lighting columns, and would also help to disguise the

artificial/engineered appearance of the screening bunds, so that’s the level where a big part of the screening density would be most usefully provided. Such proportional increases and additional species should be at the expense of larger-sized tree species such as Oak, Aspen, Birch and Lime - which should nonetheless be retained as appropriate in landscape and habitat terms but their overall proportion in the species mix decreased.

- Add a few groups of pondside trees (eg Alder, Crack Willow) in places around the new attenuation ponds (see Notes (A) on attached annotated plan) to give more landscape setting and reduce engineered appearance; however this should be limited as water quality for ecological benefit will generally be better with plenty of light to the ponds so the intention would not be to surround or heavily overshadow them.

- Add a few extra parkland clumps of trees to the grassland frontage south of the main access roundabout at Leek Road (see Note (B) on attached annotated plan) in order to replace those which would be lost and also to provide further screening of existing parking area and lighting between the two factory buildings as viewed from the main road.

- Increase woodland planting area Block WB6 to extend down the remaining bund and around the southern end of the proposed Earthmovers stock yard (see Note (C) on attached annotated plan) in order to provide increased screening to views from the elevated public footpath to the south.

6.8 If these relatively minor additions and amendments can be secured prior to determination, we would simply need to include a landscape implementation and maintenance condition in the event that planning permission is granted:

The planting plan shown on Drg. No. _______ shall be fully implemented before the end of the first available dormant season (November to February inclusive) following completion of the development hereby approved. The trees and shrubs planted in accordance with this landscaping scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years following planting. Any plants which within this period are damaged, become diseased, die, are removed or otherwise fail to establish shall be replaced during the next suitable season.

6.9 Alternatively, a condition requiring further/amended landscaping details to be submitted may be required if any amendments are not secured prior to determination, along the lines of:

Notwithstanding indications on the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of development (including any site clearance, stripping or site establishment) an amended landscaping scheme shall be

submitted to and approved by the LPA. Such a scheme shall include full details of all new tree and shrub planting, giving specification for species, positions, planting sizes and numbers/densities of all new planting. The landscaping scheme so approved shall be fully implemented before the end of the first available dormant season (November to February inclusive) following completion of the development hereby approved. The trees and shrubs planted in accordance with this landscaping scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years following planting. Any plants which within this period are damaged, become diseased, die, are removed or otherwise fail to establish shall be replaced during the next suitable season.

Highways 6.10 There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal. The Transport Statement refers to cycling but there is no reference to any facilities for cyclists within the factory complex. Cycle parking should be provided and cycling encouraged. Travel Plan has been discussed with JCB some time ago. A Travel Plan should be considered and provided by JCB to encourage sustainable transport. County Flood Risk Team Initial Comments 6.11 As the development is classified a major development and is a full planning application, the applicant needs to submit a detailed drainage design. Drainage design should demonstrate that there is a sufficient safe means of disposing of surface water. It should also demonstrate that the site is safe for the 1:100 year plus climate change storm event, and that the flood risk to any third party is not increased as a result of the proposed development. Revised Comments 6.12 The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measure(s) as detailed in the SUDS Strategy document July 2017 17-3134 submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission Condition 6.13 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved SUDS Strategy produced by GHW and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the new paved areas so that it will not exceed greenfield run-off rates from the undeveloped site and will not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

Provision of an appropriate volume of attenuation flood storage on the site to a 100year + climate change standard.

Reason 6.14 To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that storage of flood water is provided. Environment Agency 6.16 No objections, in principle, to the proposed development but wish to make the following comments. Groundwater & Contamination 6.17 We have the following comments to make on this application (SMD/2017/0400) which relate solely to the protection of ‘Controlled Waters’. Matters relating to Human Health should be directed to the relevant department of the local council. 6.18 Reference to the 1:50,000 scale geological map Sheet 124 (Ashbourne) indicates that the site is located on Carboniferous Coal Measures and Triassic Sherwood Sandstone which are designated as a ‘Secondary (A)’ and ‘Principal Aquifer’ respectively by the Environment Agency. The southern part of the site is located within Source Protection Zone 3. Drain tributaries of Cecily Brook and the River Tean are located adjacent to the site. 6.19 We understand that the areas to be developed have not been subject to any previous significant development and consequently we have no requirement for any further investigation into the presence of contamination. 6.20 It should be noted that in accordance with Government policy detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 120), ‘where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner’. Therefore, should any significant contamination, not assessed by virtue of this report/project, subsequently become apparent responsibility remains with these parties. Conservation Officer 6.21 I have looked again at the information submitted and as far as I can see there is no mention of Harewood Hall across the road and no assessment has been made of any likely impact on its setting as they are required to do under the 1990 Act (section 66) and the NPPF (para.128 & para.129). I am not saying that there is necessarily a problem with the proposal but the applicants need to take account of the building’s setting and likely impact. Environmental Health Noise

6.22 A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the application ST16225 (Wardell Armstrong July 2017). The assessment in paragraph 6.1.4 predicts that noise will not exceed the existing planning condition sound levels based on results using noise prediction software. The Environmental Health Department can accept the predictions indicate compliance but a more robust assessment should be provided for a development on this scale. The assessment should be undertaken in consideration of existing noise conditions and a more detailed assessment of noise impacts caused by the levels of parking much of it shift related (night time). 6.23 The concern is this condition was originally set out for the factory operations which most likely would be a steadier noise quantifiable noise, The noise from a shift change at an outside car park may cause a different range of noise impacts. There is no advice provided as to where the noise predictions have been derived, there is also an argument that there could be significant breaches to the condition specifically between 6am and 7am as shifts change given the number of cars which will be arriving and leaving the site during this peak time. Table 1 in appendix B bases all predictions over 1 hour where as the condition requires consideration over 15 minutes. The movement of 342 and 311 cars in and out of the site between 6am and 7am may not cause significant impacts but these movements over a shorter time period may cause adverse noise impacts and breaches to the existing condition. 6.24 The nature and level of the noise caused by the vehicle movements specifically in the early hours of the morning should be clearly quantified, potentially by obtaining measurements from the existing site or a similar shift working site in order to determine real impacts especially to the residential neighbours close to NSR point 1, 2 and 3 set out in Title ST16225-010. In addition the pre-existing noise environment should be considered and account taken of impacts in the mitigation in order to protect the night time/early morning noise environment aside from the existing condition. The simple use of modelling software is not sufficient to ensure that the neighbourhood amenity is being considered by this application in the opinion of environmental health. The specific times of concern are 6am-7am for staff car movements. 6.25 A development of this size and the introduction of car parks with the large capacity as set out in such close proximity to existing neighbouring properties should ideally be assessed site specifically in order to support the predictions set out in the model. Additionally or alternatively there could be a requirement to conduct post completion testing to ensure compliance with the existing or any new noise restricting condition with an undertaking to make remedial noise reduction works where required. 6.26 NOTE :This Department has previously received noise complaints against the premises relating to large volume of vehicles entering and leaving the site including horn sounding, loud exhausts etc. These allegations of nuisance have not been substantiated.

6.27 Also recommend a condition requiring a construction environmental method statement. Lighting 6.28 The proposed lighting is predicted within the assessment to comply with the requirements of an E2 zone under the guidance set out the Institute of lighting Engineers Guidance for Reduction of Obtrusive Light. The Environmental Health Department would agree with this proposal and if approval was granted the limits as set out in the guidance would be recommended as required lighting impacts levels at the nearest residential properties. Highway and ecological lighting impacts are not in the remit of Environmental Health light impact considerations. Contaminated Land 6.29 Recommend a condition requiring Coal Mining Risk Assessment and Land Contamination Assessment and conditions to deal with any unexpected contamination encountered during construction. 7. OFFICER COMMENT AND PLANNING BALANCE Policy Framework 7.1 As with all applications, the LPA is required to determine this application in accordance with the Development plan, unless there are material circumstances which indicate otherwise and in determining these applications, it shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, in so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations. 7.2 Core Strategy Policy SS1a establishes a 'Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development' in line with the National Planning Policy (herein referred to as the NPPF) where: (1) planning applications that accord with policies within the Core Strategy will be approved without delay and (2) where there are no relevant policies or they are out of date, the Council will grant planning permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise considering:-

I. Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, or,

II. Specific policies in within the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.

Principle of Development 7.3 This is a greenfield site situated outside any defined Development Boundary in open countryside and within the Green Belt.

7.4 Polices SS6C which refers to the development strategy for the rural areas of the District states that strict control will continue to be exercised over inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that only exceptions will be allowed as defined by government policy. Government policy is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and states that “as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 7.5 According to Paragraph 90, certain forms of development not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These include engineering operations. 7.6 The proposed construction of a 545 space carpark and upgrading and permanent laying out of a an existing overflow carpark to provide a further 604 spaces will undoubtedly result in additional built form in terms of hard surfacing, lighting columns and engineering works as well as the parking of vehicles themselves, all of which will have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, it should be noted that the proposed parking area is contained within the factory curtilage and would not result in any further encroachment into open agricultural land. Whilst the landscape and visual impacts (discussed in more detail below) will be mitigated by landscaping, planting and earth bunding, lack of visibility in itself does not mean that the proposal would not impact on openness and would not therefore be inappropriate development. 7.7 On this basis, it is necessary to consider whether there are any Very Special Circumstances to outweigh the harm to openness identified above. In this case the arguments are predominantly economic ones. 7.8 The Applicant’s Planning Statement explains that:

JCB is a leading manufacturer of construction equipment, with 22 plants on four different continents. Whilst JCB's business is worldwide, with a global workforce of c. 12,000 and c. 770 dealers, Staffordshire remains its home, where up to 6,000 people are employed in the business. JCB's global headquarters are situated in Rocester (c. 8.5 miles from the Site), where three factories are also located. Further manufacturing facilities for the JCB business are situated at Waterloo Park, Uttoxeter (where the Heavy Products factory and World Parts Centre are located). In addition, the JCB World Logistics distribution hub is situated in Newcastle under Lyme. In 2013/14, JCB announced proposals to significantly expand its business in Staffordshire, referred to as the 'Staffordshire Plan'. The Staffordshire Plan represents a multi-million pound investment in the business to support significant growth of the JCB business and is expected to result in the creation of up to 2,500 new jobs. The plan comprises a number of inter dependent elements including:-

(a) The expansion of the manufacturing capability at the World Headquarters site at Rocester by the provision of an additional 12,085 sqm of manufacturing floor space. This part of the plan has been granted planning permission and implemented;

(b) The relocation of JCB's Finance and JCB's Insurance Services Divisions into new modern, purpose-built facilities. Whilst planning permission has been granted for this element, it is yet to be implemented;

(c) The relocation of JCB Cabs Systems from its existing facility in Rugeley, Staffordshire to a larger modern, purpose-built manufacturing facility at Waterloo Park (next to the existing JCB Heavy Products factory). Planning permission has been granted for the new manufacturing facility, which is in the process of being implemented;

(d) The construction of a world-class golf course development next to the JCB Global Headquarters at Rocester. Planning permission has been granted for this facility, which is under construction and due to open in 2018;

(e) The provision of state of the art testing and demonstration facilities at Kevin Quarry, Ramshorn. A planning application has been submitted for this proposal;

(f) The expansion of the manufacturing facilities at the Harewood Estate through the Proposed Development.

It is important to note that the strategy outlined in the Staffordshire Plan comprises a number of inter dependent elements. Whilst it is acknowledged that each application must be determined on its own merits, it is an important material consideration that the delivery of JCB's wider strategy, which is expected to result in the creation of up to 2,500 new jobs, is dependent on each aspect of the strategy coming forward. The Staffordshire Plan has not been promoted by JCB as a suite of options from which relevant Councils can choose which particular aspects they prefer. It has been promoted as a coherent business strategy with a number of integral and inter dependent constituent parts. For this reason, JCB has undertaken extensive pre-application consultations with key partners prior to the delivery of the strategy through various planning applications.

7.10 The application which is currently under consideration is the first phase of a two phase development. The Phase 2 Development will involve the construction of an additional parking area to the north of the Earthmovers building which will provide 300 staff car parking spaces. This will be located in

the area currently occupied by screen bunding to the north of the Earthmovers building which will be recontoured. In addition, the Phase 2 Development will include the provision of a second roundabout on the A522 in the north-eastern corner of the Site to provide additional vehicle capacity and enhance the efficient operation of the Site. The Phase 2 Development will be the subject of a separate planning application to be submitted subsequently.

7.11 Coupled with the phase 2 development, the application proposals are seen as essential in enabling JCB to deliver the five-year growth plan as part of the Staffordshire Plan. The Planning Statement goes on to explain that:

The business plan for the Earthmovers and Compact Products businesses at the Site forecasts significant growth in annual machine output from the Site.

In terms of employment, the business plan forecasts that the growth in business will increase employee numbers at the Site from 1,098 in 2016 to 1,914 in 2020, an increase in the total workforce of 816 employees, equating to a 74% increase.

JCB’s ability to deliver that growth at the Site is currently constrained by the limitations on site infrastructure, operational efficiency, parking, circulation, storage and dispatch. Expanding the business infrastructure within the Site will enable JCB to achieve the operational efficiencies necessary to enable the businesses to deliver the forecast growth at the Site. As stated above, the proposals do not involve the creation of additional manufacturing floor space at the Site to minimise impacts as JCB considers the expansion proposed above will enable the growth in output to be achieved from the existing buildings at the Site. It is therefore clear that the proposals contained within the Phase 1 Development and Phase 2 Development are an important element of the wider Staffordshire Plan.

7.12 It is clear from the above, that the proposals are part of a much wider expansion strategy which will have very significant and far reaching economic benefits not only for the District but for Staffordshire as whole, not least of which is substantial employment generation. Whilst substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt in this case the harm arising from a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt which would result from the proposals is clearly outweighed by other economic considerations as outlined above which together constitute Very Special Circumstances. The proposal is therefore in compliance with Policy SS6C of the Core Strategy and the NPPF in respect of Green Belt Policy. 7.13 Furthermore, as will be discussed in more detail below, the proposal will not result in any significant landscape and visual impact or any other harm in planning terms.

Landscape and Visual Impact (including Hedgerows & Trees) 7.14 The main elements of this application are two very large and one smaller area of new car parking in the presently open grassland along the A522 Leek Road frontage of the site, together with new machine stock storage/dispatch and waste yard areas to the rear (west) of the existing factory buildings and 2 new attenuation ponds. Associated with this are proposed major screening bunds and woodland planting. The site is not a designated landscape, such as a National Park, AONB etc, and is not considered to constitute a “valued landscape in the context of paragraph 109 of the Framework, which case law has established must display some particular physical attribute other than mere popularity 7.15 The Council’s Trees and Woodlands Officer has considered the application in terms of its impact on existing trees and hedgerows as well as the wider landscape and visual impacts when viewed from outside the site.. 7.16 He has concluded that the location of the proposed new car parks, and the footprint area of the proposed bunds around these car parks, would allow retention of and avoid significant impact on the existing hedgerows and hedgerow trees contained within them, including the short stretch returning from the Leek Road boundary towards the northern-most corner of the Earthmovers building. The proposed southern car park and bund would require the removal of 2/3 existing groups of presently young trees in “parkland” style clumps, which in the context of the overall scale of the site and proposed development would not constitute a significant loss and could be readily mitigated in the short to medium term by appropriate new planting. 7.17 The application details, including section drawings, indicate that bunding would generally be up to c.4 – 4.5m high above car park surface levels, thereby providing screening of the car parks and massed vehicles from most ground level pedestrian viewpoints and passing vehicle viewpoints along Leek Road (and more distant viewpoints to the north, east and south-east of the site). Proposed lighting columns to car parks are shown as 6m tall; these would therefore initially be visible above the peripheral bunds, but progressively become screened as new planting becomes established. 7.18 The screening bunds themselves would, in the short to medium term, have notable visual impact as clearly artificial landforms imposed on the landscape, due to their regular linear alignments, consistent slopes and crest heights, engineered form and unnaturally steep slopes arising abruptly from otherwise flat or very gently sloping land. In the medium to long term such obviously man-made visual character would be tempered and progressively disguised by the proposed new woodland planting areas. 7.19 Again in the medium to long term, in addition to screening the new car parks/vehicles, the proposed bunds and planting would also provide some beneficial screening/structural landscape setting to the overall factory site

including, from some aspects, the forest of lighting columns seen against the skyline between the 2 factory buildings. 7.20 The proposed new stock and waste yard to the rear of the Compact Products building would involve excavation into and removal of a substantial part of an existing area of bunding and supported trees/scrub running parallel with the rear of this building. However, the outer part of the existing bunding would be retained and would receive a new woodland planting treatment, and this area of the site is anyway fairly well screened from external viewpoints by well established on-and off-site tree cover. The proposed south-western bund and associated woodland planting would provide further screening of this yard area in views from the west. 7.21 The proposed new stock yard to the rear of the Earthmovers building would likewise involve excavation into and removal of a substantial part the south-east end of the existing, currently unplanted bund in this location. Again part of the bund immediately around the new yard would be retained and would receive woodland planting. However, in this instance this yard and stored machines would be readily visible from the elevated public footpath to the south of the site, carrying one of the Staffordshire Moorlands Walks promoted routes – in this case from Cheadle town northwards towards and then through the JCB site. It is reasonable to expect to see factory buildings, and associated stock and industrial paraphernalia, from a footpath passing through the factory site itself. However, further to the south where the footpath is on elevated hillsides, the currently scattered machines etc in this “behind the scenes” area are somewhat visually intrusive. No doubt this application is partly aimed at addressing this uncontained storage, but it is considered that proposed new planting of Block WB6 should be extended to provide additional screening of this element of the scheme, (see Note (C) below and on attached annotated plan). 7.22 The proposed attenuation ponds would also avoid impact on existing trees and hedgerows, and would further contribute to large scale landscape interest and biodiversity habitat enhancement to the setting of the factory.

7.23 As a result, in conclusion, the Trees and Woodlands Officer has no objection to this application, and has commented that it would be anticipated to result in some useful landscape and habitat enhancement in the long term. He has recommended some minor modifications to the landscaping proposals which could be secured by way of amended plans prior to determination or by condition. At this stage the latter has been recommended although his comments have been passed to the developer and in the event that revisions are received Members will be updated and the recommendation will be modified accordingly. Subject to this condition the proposal is in compliance with Policy DC 3 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF in respect of landscape and arboricultural impacts.

Layout and Design 7.24 Clearly the construction of hardstanding, access roads and associated lighting columns, infrastructure etc as well as the parking of vehicles will have some adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the area, particularly when viewed from Leek Road, and the public right of way through the site, as well as the vantage points in the wider countryside. 7.25 Nevertheless, the proposal itself represents a high quality design. Large areas of earth bunding are proposed along with significant amounts of new screen planting. The proposal offers the opportunity to improve the existing, somewhat unsightly temporary overspill carpark to the front of building, with proper surfacing and landscaping, which is clearly visible from Leek Road. In addition the proposed balancing pond to the front of the site, will create an attractive feature at the site entrance on Leek Road, and coupled with the other works will create a new and enhanced landscape setting to the 2 existing factory buildings. This will reflect the JCB corporate image, and will be similar in style albeit on a smaller scale, to the landscaped parkland setting of the World Headquarters at Rocester. 7.26. The new completed machinery storage and dispatch areas between and to the rear of the buildings, will address an existing problem, where due to limited capacity highly visible yellow machines are stored on the landscape areas, parked on grass verges around the stie, particularly to the rear of the building, around the existing attention pond and helipad, where they are clearly visible from the rising ground to the south and west. The proposed machinery parking areas will be properly screened by landscaped bunding and by the factory buildings themselves. 7.27. Therefore, on balance, the proposal is considered to represent a high quality, landscape led masterplan, which will provide an enhanced parkland setting to the existing factory buildings. This will outweigh any harm in character, appearance and street scene terms arising from the loss of undeveloped grassland area. Subject to this condition the proposal is acceptable in design terms and complies with Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF in this respect. . Ecology 7.28 A preliminary ecological appraisal was conducted by Wardell Armstrong dated June 2017. An additional survey for great crested newt found no evidence of presence within 500m of the site. The Survey’s have been considered by the Council’s Ecologist who has commented that no significant impacts are envisaged in relation to legally protected, priority biodiversity action plan or section 41 Natural Environmental and Rural Communities Act (NERC ACT 2006) listed species. Conditions defining method statements in relation to reptiles, bats, breeding birds and badgers should avoid and mitigate development impacts.

7.29 The majority of the site was considered to have species poor semi-improved grassland. The creation of the bunded car parking areas will result in a considerable loss of this habitat. To compensate for this biodiversity loss the creation of areas of species rich grass land in other areas of the site is advised. Areas in front of northern bund at the northern edge of the site and grassland areas adjacent to proposed and the exisiting attenuation ponds could be enhanced. The suggested tree planting along the edge of the site will provide additional foraging habitat for bats and birds. A mix of scrub and trees would be of greater biodiversity value. Native flowering scrub such as hawthorn, mountain ash, dogwood, rose species would provide additional nectar sources. Ensuring the boundary screen is scalloped on the south –west facing edge will help create microhabitats for invertebrates. Some suggestions are detailed on the attached plan. 7.30 Once established woodland screening has the potential to be enhanced further by creating nesting sites for birds and roosting opportunities for bats. 7.31 An ecological constuction management plan should be produced to control impacts during the construction phase. An ecological design strategy should also be produced to show where compensatory habitat and ecological enhancements are to be implemented. All of the above can be secured through appropriate conditions and as a result the Council’s Ecologist raises no objection. The proposal therefore complies with Policy NE1 of the Core Strategy.

Rights of Way 7.32 The Illustrative Layout Plan recognises the existence of Public Footpath No 33 Cheadle which needs to be diverted to allow the proposed new northern car park to be built. 7.33 In accordance with Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Borough Council, as Planning Authority, can make an Order diverting a footpath if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to enable development to be carried out in accordance with a planning permission that has been granted. 7.34 Consultations on the Planning have not elicited objections to the proposal and it is considered that the legal tests for the making and confirming of a Diversion Order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are satisfied. 7.35 Objections received to the proposed order, if not withdrawn, could lead to a public inquiry or hearing with attendant legal involvement and use of resources.

7.36 Public Footpath No. 33 Cheadle commences on Trimpos, close to Parkhall Farm and runs across fields in an easterly direction to point A on the attached plan before entering the JCB factory site at its most westerly corner.

It runs along the boundary in a north easterly direction before crossing the site of the proposed carpark and arriving at the Leek Road boundary.

7.37 The section of path required to be diverted by the applicants is shown by a dotted line on the attached plan running between points A- B on the attached plan. The length of path to be diverted is 79m and is a grass surface which is relatively level and open. The proposed diversion is illustrated with a blue soild line on the same plan, running between points A-C-B. The proposal changes the route with no significant gradient differences to the existing path. 7.38 The land over which the current route runs and over which the proposed route would run is in the same legal ownership as the planning application site.

7.39 With regard to the development sought by the applicant, part of the current line of Public Footpath No.33 Cheadle would be obstructed by the development of the northern carpark and associated engineering works, including the proposed screen bunding at the northern end of that carpark. Therefore, the footpath diversion is required to preserve safe public access around the development.

7.40 The length of footpath proposed for diversion (points A-B) is approximately 79m metres all of which would be directly affected by the development.

7.41 The proposed diversion route would skirt the perimeter of the new development, following a norther direction further to the north than the current route before turning west to run around the end of the new carpark (points A-C) and would arrive at Cheadle Road at the same point. The total distance from A-C via the existing route (Point B) is 79m whilst the total distance from A - C via the proposed route is 156m. 7.42 The diversion would be made in the interests of the landowner and is necessary to enable the development as consented to be carried out.

7.43 The proposed footpath will be marginally less convenient for the public as the distance between Points A and B would be lengthen but the diversion will make not difference to the enjoyment of the path as a whole.

7.44 The surface of the path would be like the current path which has a grass surface, and the gradient would be no steeper than the existing. The width available to users of the route will be 2 metres and it can be designed to ensure that are no stiles, gates, bridges or steps along its length. It is considered that the diverted section of path is compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and would be accessible to all.

7.45 Staffordshire County Council have been consulted about the proposal and have no objections in principle to the diversion but will need to consider detail of width and surfacing.

7.46 It is recommended that should Members be minded to approve the application that they also resolve to make the necessary Diversion Order. Once the Order is made Cheadle Town Council, statutory consultees, user groups and the local Councillors will be consulted about the proposal and a copy of the order will be posted at either end of the proposed diversion. In addition a notice will be posted in the Cheadle Post and Times. Amenity 7.51 The nearest neighbouring residential properties is Harewood Hall and Harewood Hall Farm, both of which are over 100m from the site boundary. Given this distance, the existing and proposed screening referred to above, it is not considered that any adverse impacts would arise in terms of loss of privacy or overshadowing. Matters of noise and pollution are dealt with in more detail below. Noise 7.52 A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the application ST16225 (Wardell Armstrong July 2017). The assessment in paragraph 6.1.4 predicts that noise will not exceed the existing planning condition sound levels based on results using noise prediction software. The Environmental Health Department can accept the predictions indicate compliance but the condition was intended to reflect more general factory operations and a more robust assessment should be provided for a development on this scale, particularly in terms of the noise impacts caused by the levels of vehicle activity at shift change times, especially at night. 7.53 On this basis, the Environmental Health team have additional site specific assessments of the likely impact on neighbouring properites to support the predictions set out in the model prior to determination. Alternatively there could be a requirement to conduct post completion testing to ensure compliance with the existing or any new noise restricting condition with an undertaking to make remedial noise reduction works where required. This could be secured by condition. 7.54 The Environmental Health Officer has also recommended a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Construction Environmental Method Statement to address the issue of noise during the construction phase. Lighting 7.55 The Environmental Health Department have confirmed that they have no objections to the scheme on light pollution grounds provided that the lighting complies with the requirements of an E2 zone under the guidance set out the Institute of lighting Engineers Guidance for Reduction of Obtrusive Light. This can be secured by condition. Landscape and ecological lighting impacts have been considered elsewhere in this report but due to the existing

and proposed levels of screen planting, coupled with the proposed earth bunds, it is considered that any adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated. 7.56 At this stage the latter has been recommended although his comments have been passed to the developer and in the event that revisions are received Members will be updated and the recommendation will be modified accordingly. 7.57 It is therefore concluded that subject to these conditions the scheme complies with Policies DC1 and the SD 4 of the Core Strategy and the provisions of the NPPF with respect to amenity. Dust. 7.58 The proposed development is near to existing properties so care needs to be taken during the construction phase to ensure these activities do not cause unreasonably disruption to the neighbour’s enjoyment of their properties as a result of dust. Measures which can be imposed through the recommended Construction Environmental Management Plan condition will ensure that residential amenity is protected during the construction phase. . Contamination: 7.59 The Environment Agency has commented that the areas to be developed have not been subject to any previous significant development and consequently they have no requirement for any further investigation into the presence of contamination. 7.60 The Council’s Environmental Health team have also considered this issue and commented that the site is in a high risk development zone (see below) so a coal mining risk assessment should have accompanied the application, and the Coal Authority consulted. It is likely that many of these possible issues were addressed previously at the time the factory was built (early 90’s) and thus unlikely that any issues identified would be of such a magnitude as to affect the viability of the proposal in principle. On this basis, the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that in this instance the requirement for this assessment can be conditioned. 7.61 Similar to the above Prior to building of the current factories the site had been subject to coal workings at various times, including underground and opencast coal workings. Cheadle Park Colliery, which closed in 1915, was located in the centre of the site and the southern part of the land has been subject to extensive shallow mine workings over various periods. Opencast coal mining took place in the northern part of the site up to 1968. 7.62 However, the proposals for the site are for a low sensitive end use (car parks), so it is not considered that this former use would prove to be a significant obstacle to this development. However, the site should be developed with this knowledge in mind to ensure a safe development; therefore a contamination assessment is recommended as a condition.

Flooding & Drainage 7.63. The hardstanding areas associated with this development are above 1.0 ha and they lie within Flood Zone 1. The developer has submitted a drainage strategy and confirmed that they be applying SUDS principles to the design of the two new car parks which will discharge via a balancing pond into the existing ditch at the northern boundary. The balancing pond will be designed to accommodate the attenuation required for a 1:100 year + 30% storm. 7.64 In addition to the above it is planned to reconfigure the parking area between the two buildings and add more concrete yard areas to accommodate HGV’s that visit the site during the daytime only, which do not park overnight, together with the storage of finished JCB machines. At present these existing areas discharge into a discharge balancing pond and ultimately into a ditch and it is planned to follow this same strategy for the reconfiguration of the existing together with the new service yards. A new balancing pond will be provided for the new yard and road areas designed to accommodate the attenuation required for a 1:100 year + 30% storm ultimately discharging into the existing ditch to the South. 7.65 A Maintenance Strategy will be produced for the new drainage scheme which will be maintained in perpetuity by the client who own the wider development. 7.66 This has now been supplied to the Environment Agency and has also been considered by Staffordshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. The application has also been subject to consultation with Severn Trent and subject to conditions, no issues on flooding or drainage are raised. Access/Highways 7.67 The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement prepared by BWB. It concludes that: .

Whilst the proposals will not result in an increase in gross floor area (GFA), it is acknowledged that JCB are looking to maximise the efficiency of their existing units, ultimately leading to increased production and a need for additional staff.

The proposals will also look to rectify a number of operational issues surrounding the site’s current layout, these include:

o Insufficient waiting areas for HGVs accessing the site, often resulting in HGVs blocking back onto Leek Road;

o Inadequate storage areas across the site; o Insufficient parking to accommodate future growth plans; o Number of conflicting movements (car drivers / HGVs) sharing a

central parking / service area.

The proposed Masterplan looks to rationalise the existing layout by providing separate dedicated parking areas for the Compact Products and Earthmovers units. The central service area will be amended to

accommodate separate delivery and dispatch yards, whilst also helping to maximise on site storage. The delivery yard will also incorporate circa 26 HGV parking bays to help reduce the possibility of HGVs blocking back onto the Leek Road.

The JCB Business Plan forecasts that the total number of delivery and dispatch vehicle movements at the site could increase from 177 HGVs in 2017 to 282 HGVs in 2020, an increase of 59%. To facilitate this increased production, JCB will look to increase the number of people employed at the site from 1,383 in 2017 to 1,914 in 2020, an increase of 38%.

To facilitate the increased number of employees, it is proposed the site’s current parking provision is increased from 929 to 1,257 bays. This increase equates to an uplift of 35% which is broadly in line with the number of additional employees forecasted at the site.

The site access junction has been modelled to assess whether the additional development trips would have an adverse impact on the local highway network. The modelling results demonstrate that Leek Road would operate well within capacity across the morning and evening peaks, but that the site access arm will start to operate close to its theoretical capacity threshold in the evening peak.

Whilst no further highway works are required to support this application, should the uses at this site develop further its likely some improvements will be required to ease traffic exiting the site in the evening peak.

7.68 The Local Highway Authority has carefully considered the submitted Transport Statement. They accept the conclusions therein and raise no objection to the application. 7.69 Given that no increase in gross floor area of the factory is proposed, the Highway Authority is not in a position to insist that JCB produce a Travel Plan as a condition of this permission. However, they recommend that they consider producing one on a voluntary basis. This can be added as an informative to any decision notice. 7.70 It is for these reasons that no objection is raised on highway grounds and the application is thus considered to comply in this respect with Policies SS5C, T1 and T2 of the Core Strategy and advice in the NPPF. Heritage and Conservation Issues 7.71 The site is a short distance from the Grade II Listed Harewood Hall which lies across the road to the north east.. 7.72 Under sections 66 and 67 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, the local planning authority when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, are required to have "special regard" to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

7.73 Further, paragraph 128 and 129 of the Framework state:

In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

7.74 In this case, no assessment was been made of any likely impact on the setting of the hall as part of the submission. In order to comply with the above it is necessary to take account of the building’s setting and likely impact. 7.75 This was brought to the attention of the developer and a further submission has been received. This concludes:

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) submitted with the planning application has considered the visual impact of the proposed development on a number of receptors. These include the following:

Viewpoint 3 which is located to the north of the A522 Leek Road, opposite the Earthmover’s factory. This viewpoint is located c.100 metres from Harewood Hall and provides close range views of the Site.

Viewpoint 5 which is located on footpath 32. This provides longer range views of the Site (c.500 metres) but includes Harewood Hall in that viewpoint.

These viewpoints are considered to be representative of the views from Harewood Hall and enable an assessment of the proposed development on the setting of Harewood Hall to be made (see section 5.5.33 et seq of the LVIA).

The LVIA examines the existing views of the Site from these viewpoints and also the impacts of the proposed development. The following conclusions are drawn:

The proposed development will introduce new elements (screen bunds and planting), but they will only represent a minor component of wider views. The LVIA assesses these impacts as being neutral. Once established, the screen bunds and planting will be seen as grassed embankments and integrated into the existing landscape setting. The bunds will screen both the northern and southern car parks from Harewood Hall. Furthermore, once the woodland planting is established along the bunds, they will also screen parts of the factory buildings from this location, which will be of benefit to the Hall.

From the above assessment, it is clear that the proposed development will have a neutral effect on Harewood Hall in the short term, with beneficial effects in the longer term. It is concluded that the proposed development either does not affect the setting of Harewood Hall or will have no detrimental impact on the setting of the Hall. In the short term, the planting proposals will have a neutral impact and in the longer term there will be a beneficial impact by providing greater screening of the factory buildings on the Site. The proposal will therefore comply with the policy requirements of the NPPF and Core Strategy.

7.76 Paragraph 134 of the Framework advises:

Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

7.77 Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the proposal will lead to any harm to the designated heritage asset and if so whether such harm is substantial or less than substantial. Having made this judgement the decision maker must properly weigh the impacts against the public benefits in order to undertake a proper assessment of the planning balance. The additional information was still under consideration by the Councils Conservation Officer at the time of report preparation. The Conservation Officer does not consider that this is likely to result in an objection but an update on this issue will be provided to Members prior to their meeting to guide them in their consideration of this matter. 8. CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE 8.1. The Framework says at Paragraph 14, for decision taking, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan

without delay. where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, as in this case it says that Local Planning Authorities should grant permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as whole or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. 8.2 This is a greenfield site situated outside any defined Development Boundary in open countryside and within the Green Belt. 8.3 Polices SS6C which refers to the development strategy for the rural areas of the District states that strict control will continue to be exercised over inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that only exceptions will be allowed as defined by government policy. Government policy is contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and states that “as with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 8.4 According to Paragraph 90, certain forms of development not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These include engineering operations. 8.5 The proposed construction of a 545 space carpark and upgrading and permanent laying out of a an existing overflow carpark to provide a further 604 spaces will undoubtedly result in additional built form in terms of hard surfacing, lighting columns and engineering works as well as the parking of vehicles themselves, all of which will have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. However, it should be noted that the proposed parking area is contained within the factory curtilage and would not result in any further encroachment into open agricultural land. Whilst the landscape and visual impacts (discussed in more detail below) will be mitigated by landscaping, planting and earth bunding, lack of visibility in itself does not mean that the proposal would not impact on openness and would not therefore be inappropriate development. 8.6 On this basis, it is necessary to consider whether there are any Very Special Circumstances to outweigh the harm to openness identified above. In this case the arguments are predominantly economic ones. 8.7 The application which is currently under consideration is the first phase of a two phase development which will be the subject of a separate planning application to be submitted subsequently. Coupled with the phase 2 development, the application proposals are part of wider JCB proposals to significantly expand its business in Staffordshire, referred to as the 'Staffordshire Plan'. The Staffordshire Plan represents a multi-million pound investment in the business to support significant growth of the JCB business and is expected to result in the creation of up to 2,500 new jobs. It includes the expansion of the manufacturing facilities at the Harewood Estate through the Proposed Development which will increase employee numbers at the Site

from 1,098 in 2016 to 1,914 in 2020, an increase in the total workforce of 816 employees, equating to a 74% increase. 8.8 It is clear from the above, that the proposals are part of a much wider expansion strategy which will have very significant and far reaching economic benefits not only for the District but for Staffordshire as whole, not least of which is substantial employment generation. It is considered that these constitute Very Special Circumstances and outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and significant impact on its openness. 8.9 The Trees and Woodlands Officer has no objection to this application, and has commented that it would be anticipated to result in some useful landscape and habitat enhancement in the long term. The proposal is considered to represent a high quality, landscape led masterplan, which will provide an enhanced parkland setting to the existing factory buildings. This will outweigh any harm in character, appearance and street scene terms arising from the loss of undeveloped grassland area. 8.10 Subject to suitable conditions, the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on protected species or other nature conservation resources of acknowledged importance. 8.11 The Illustrative Layout Plan recognises the existence of Public Footpath No 33 Cheadle which needs to be diverted to allow the proposed new northern car park to be built. The proposed footpath will be marginally less convenient for the public as the distance between Points A and B would be lengthen but the diversion will make not difference to the enjoyment of the path as a whole. It is recommended that should Members be minded to approve the application that they also resolve to make the necessary Diversion Order. 8.12 The Environmental Health Officer has no objection subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions on the grounds of light pollution, noise impact or contaminated land. With regard to amenity, the nearest neighbouring residential properties is Harewood Hall and Harewood Hall Farm, both of which are over 100m from the site boundary. The submitted information indicates that there should be no increase in noise levels over and above those permitted under the existing planning conditions. Whilst, the Environmental Health Officer has requested further verification of this either through site specific assessments or verification testing, this can be secured by condition, and has not triggered an objection. 8.13 There are no objections from the statutory consultees with respect to flooding or highway impacts and with regard to the latter, there may be some betterment as the proposals would help to address problems associated with insufficient HGV parking resulting in vehicles queuing down the access road onto the Leek Road. 8.14 The assessment which has been provided of the impact on the setting of the Grade II listed Harewood Hall was still being considered the

Conservation Officer at the time of report preparation. However, the Conservation Officer does not anticipate that this will result in an objection. However, Members will be provided with an update on this matter prior to the meeting to aid their consideration of whether any harm would occur to the setting of the building, whether any harm would be ‘substantial’ or ‘less than substantial’ and whether that harm is outweighed by the public benefits in the overall planning balance. 8.15 In terms of the overall planning balance, therefore, whilst the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there are Very Special Circumstances in terms of Economic benefits which outweigh the harm. Subject to the further views of the Conservation Officer, it is considered that any other harm arising from the development is extremely limited and therefore it is recommended that Members resolve to approve the development. 8.16 Because the development consists of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and by reason of its scale and nature would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the Local Planning Authority intends to approve the application under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 the application must be referred to the Secretary of State to give them an opportunity whether to exercise his call-in powers under Section 77 of the Act. 9. RECOMMENDATION A. Subject to no objection being received from the Conservation Officer, refer to the Secretary of State with recommendation to APPROVE subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the

expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. No development shall take place until and Ecological design strategy (EDS) has addressing mitigation and Enhancement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: The EDS shall include:

i. Purpose and conservation of objectives of the

proposed enhancements. ii. Detailed designs and or working methods to achieve

stated objectives. iii. Extent and location of proposed works on

appropriate plans and scale maps iv. Type and source of material used where appropriate

e.g. native species of v. local provenance.

vi. Creation and enhancements of semi natural habitats linked to Staffordshire and UK Biodiversity Action Plan priorities In particular species rich grassland broadleaved native woodland and scrub plus the enhancement of hedgeows

vii. Ponds designed with some surrounding tree planting linked to other created habitats

viii. Timetable for the implementation of works demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phases of the development.

ix. Creation of bird nesting features sparrows and roosting sites for bats and within created broad leaved woodland on bunds

x. Specifications to minimise light spill into surrounding hedgerows and the adjacent countryside.

xi. Lighting must demonstrate minimal impacts on foraging or commuting bats and allow birds species to exhibit undisturbed behaviour patterns.

xii. Timing and phasing of any proposed vegetation removal to minimise impacts on breeding birds.

xiii. Persons responsible for implementing the proposed works.

xiv. Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance for different habitats for 20 years post creation

xv. Details of monitoring and remedial measures. xvi. Details of disposal of any wastes arising from works.

The EDS shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manor thereafter. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

3. No development shal commence until a construction environmental

management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted and approved in writing by the loal planning authority. The CEMP(Biodiversity) shall include

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction operations.

b) Identificationof biodiversity protection zones. c) Practical measures (both physical and working methods) to

avoid or or reduce impacts during construction. This should include site clearance, site set up, groundworks and construction, disposal of wastes and final site clearance.

d) Detailed measures to reduce site run off, effluents or pollution.

e) The location and timing of work to avoid harm to biodiversity features.

f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. g) The role and responsibilities of and ecologist, ecological clerk

of works or similarly competent person. h) Use of protective fences barriers or warning signs.

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

4. Prior to the commencement of development , an invasive non-native

species protocol shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority detailing the containment, control and removal of Japanese Knotweed on site. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved protocol. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development a biosecurity protocol shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority detailing measures to remove or minimise the risk of introducing invasive or alien species during the construction of water bodies. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved protocol. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

6. Prior to the first use of the development hereby permitted a lighting

strategy for biodiversity for shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall:

a) Identify those areas that are particularly sensitive for bats

breeding or foraging birds and that are likley to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory for example for foraging.

b) Show how and where external lighting will be installed ( via contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated areas lit will not disturb or present bats or birds using their territories or having access to breeding sites or resting places.

c) The use of artificial lighting shall show it follows the protocols outlined in the Institute for Lighting Engineers document “Guidance for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lighting” (2005) and the Bat Conservation Trust’s “Artificial Lighting and Wildlife Interim Guidance: Recommendations to Help Minimise the Impact of Artificial Lighting” (2014) to minimise disturbance and sky-glow across the site.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

7. To ensure no harm occurs to reptiles the following protocol shall be adopted:

a) Prior to the commencement of works all vegetation within the proposed development area of the site shall be cut to a height of 15cm to encourage reptiles to move out of the area.

b) the vegetated area shall be maintained as a short sward. Removal of vegetation shall take into account seasonal constraints such as the breeding bird season.

c) Any trees and shrubs shall be cut back to stump level. d) Areas of debris shall be checked by hand prior to their

removal. e) Should any reptiles or common toad be encountered, they

shall be transferred in a bucket or cloth sack and placed in a suitable adjacent habitat that is not going to be impacted by the development.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity 8. Should the construction work not begin within 12 months, an

updated badger survey shall be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure that there are nobadger setts within the site and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works taking palce on site.. If badgers are identified on the site an appropriate avoidance mitigation and compensation plan must be submitted to the Local planning authority and apprived in writing prior to works being undertaken. Develompent shall take place in complete accordance wit hthe approved mitigation and compensation plan. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

9. No vegetation clearance shall take place during the hibernation period for Hedgehogs (November-March). Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

10. All excavation works shall include creation of sloping escape ramps for badgers/ hedgehogs by edge profiling excavations or placing planks into them at the end of each working day and open pipework greater than 150mm being planked off at the end of each working day Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

11. Prior to any commencement of works between 1st March and 31st August in any year, a detailed survey shall be carried out to check for nesting birds and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where nests are found in any building, hedgerow, tree or scrub to be removed (or converted or demolished in the case of buildings), a 4m exclusion zone shall be left around the nest until breeding is complete. Completion of nesting shall be confirmed by a suitably qualified person and a further report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any further works within the exclusion zone take place. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity

12. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved SUDS Strategy produced by GHW and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the new paved areas so that it will not exceed greenfield run-off rates from the undeveloped site and will not increase the risk of flooding off-site.

Provision of an appropriate volume of attenuation flood storage on the site to a 100year + climate change standard. Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that storage of flood water is provided.

13. Notwithstanding indications on the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of development (including any site clearance, stripping or site establishment) an amended landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include full details of all new tree and shrub planting, giving specification for species, positions, planting sizes and numbers/densities of all new planting. The landscaping scheme so approved shall be fully implemented before the end of the first available dormant season (November to February inclusive) following completion of the development hereby approved. The trees and shrubs planted in accordance with this landscaping scheme shall be properly maintained for a period of 5 years following planting. Any plants which within this period are damaged, become diseased, die, are removed or otherwise fail to establish shall be replaced during the next suitable season. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

14. Within 3 months of the completion of the development, post completion noise testing to ensure compliance with the existing or any new noise restricting conditions shall be undertaken and report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authortiy The report shall incudle any reemedial noise reduction works where required. The approved remedial works shall be carried out within 3 months of the approval of the report. Reason: In the interests of amenity

15. Any external lighting installed at the site shall accord with the

requirements of an E2 zone under the guidance set out the Institute of lighting Engineers Guidance for Reduction of Obtrusive Light. Reason: In the interests of amenity

16. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development should not commence further until an initial investigation and risk assessment has been completed in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. If the initial site risk assessment indicates that potential risks exists to any identified receptors, development shall not commence until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the

intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property, and the natural and historical environment has been prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to bringing the development into first use, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason - To ensure that the proposed development meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in that all potential risks to human health, controlled waters and wider environment are known and where necessary dealt with via remediation and or management of those risks.

17. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall take place until a Demolition and Construction and Environmental Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which shall include the following details:-

I. the hours of work, which shall not exceed the following:

Construction and associated deliveries to the site shall not take place outside 08:00 to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays, and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holiday

II. the arrangements for prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties;

III. the responsible person (e.g. site manager / office) who could be contacted in the event of complaint;

IV. a scheme to minimise dust emissions arising from construction activities on the site. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and the methods to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development. The approved dust suppression measures shall be maintained in a fully functional condition for the duration of the construction phase;

V. a scheme for recycling/disposal of waste resulting from the construction works;

VI. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; VII. the loading and unloading of plant and materials;

VIII. the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

IX. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

X. details of measures to protect the public footpaths and amenity of users of the pubic footpaths crossing the site during the construction works.

All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any alteration to this Plan shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the alteration. Reason: To protect the amenities of the area.

18. Prior to commencement of development a Coal Mining Risk

Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Assessment shall identify any necessary mitigation measures. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved mitigation measures. Reason: In the interests of public safety

19. Prior to the development commencing:

(a) A Phase1 contaminated land investigation shall be carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA)

(b) The Phase II contaminated land report recommends that further Phase II investigations are required to assess any actual/potential contamination risks, a supplementary Phase II investigation including a gas monitoring programme shall be carried out and the results submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA.

(c) If the Phase II investigations indicate that remediation is necessary, then a Remediation Statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The remediation scheme in the approved Remediation Statement shall then be carried out in full prior to the first use of the development.

(d) If remediation is required, a Site Completion Report detailing the conclusions and actions taken at each stage of the works, including validation works, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA

Reason - To ensure that the proposed development meets the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework in that all potential risks to human health, controlled waters and wider environment are known and where necessary dealt with via remediation and or management of those risks.

B. An Order be made under Section 257 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 to divert part of Public Footpath No. 31 Leek Town, as illustrated on the attached plan on the grounds that the District Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to allow development to take place. Public Notice of the making of the Order be given and in the event of there being no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said Act. In the event of objections to the Order being received and not resolved, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or public inquiry.

C. In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services has delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the [Planning Applications Committee], provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

9. APPENDICES TO THE REPORT 9.1 The link below to the Council’s website is where the detail of this application can be viewed. http://publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=114922