planning committee - bassetlawdata.bassetlaw.gov.uk/media/729930/pl081117non.pdf · planning...

PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Meeting to be held in The Ceres Suite,

Worksop Town Hall, S80 2AH on Wednesday, 8th November 2017

at 6.30 p.m.

(Please note time and venue)

Please turn mobile telephones to silent during meetings. In case of emergency, Members/officers can be contacted

on the Council's mobile telephone: 07940 001 705.

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

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

1

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Membership 2017/18

Councillors D. K. Brett, H. Burton, G. Clarkson, S. Fielding, G. Freeman, K. H. Isard, G. A. N. Oxby, D. G. Pidwell, M. W. Quigley, S. Scotthorne, A. K. Smith and T. Taylor.

Substitute Members: None

Quorum: 3 Members

Lead Officer for this Meeting

Myles Joyce

Administrator for this Meeting

Cara Hopkinson

NOTE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

(a) Please do not take photographs or make any recordings during the meeting without the prior agreement of the Chair.

(b) Letters attached to Committee reports reflect the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the District Council.

2

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 8th November 2017

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS * (pages 5 - 6)(Members’ and Officers’ attention is drawn to the attached notes and form)

(a) Members (b) Officers

3. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 11TH OCTOBER 2017 * (pages 7 - 14)

4. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 18TH SEPTEMBER AND 9TH OCTOBER 2017* (pages 15 - 34)

5. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST * (page 35)

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

None

Other Decisions

6. REPORT(S) OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS*

(a) Public Interest Test: (Mr D Armiger, Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods, has deemed that all Items on the Agenda are not confidential)

(b) Appeals Decisions Received (pages 37 - 68) (c) Planning Applications and Associated ltems (pages 69 - 104) (d) Development Management Performance Report (pages 105 - 110)

Exempt Information Items

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

SECTION B - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None

Other Decisions

None.

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

3

* 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:

[email protected]

4

F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Licensing\June Committee\2 declaration of interest.doc

Agenda Item No. 2

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

COMMITTEE ………………………………………………………………………………

DATE ……………………………………………………………………..

NAME OF MEMBER : ………………………………………………………………………………

Type of Interest

1. Disclosable Pecuniary2. Non Pecuniary

Agenda Item No. REASON * Type of Interest

(1 or 2)

Signed

Dated

Note:

* When declaring an interest you must also state the nature of your interest.

Completion of this form is to aid the accurate recording of your interest in the Minutes. The signed form should be provided to the Minuting Clerk at the end of the meeting.

A nil return is not required.

It is still your responsibility to disclose any interests which you may have at the commencement of the meeting and at the commencement of the appropriate Agenda item.

5

F:\Docs\Members\Ms8\REPORTS\Licensing\June Committee\2 declaration of interest.doc

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

HOW TO USE THIS FORM

There are now only two types of Declaration of Interest: Disclosable Pecuniary Interests ) Details can be found in the Councillors ) Code of Conduct which is contained in ) the Council’s Constitution (a summary is Non Pecuniary Interests ) printed below) Upon receipt of the attached form you will need to enter the name and date of the Committee and your own name. By looking at the Agenda you will no doubt know immediately which Agenda Items will require you to make a Declaration of Interest. Fill in the Agenda Item number in the first column of the form. Enter the subject matter and any explanations you may wish to add in the second column. In the third column you will need to enter either if you are declaring a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a non pecuniary interest. The form must then be signed and dated. Please remember that if during the actual meeting you realise that you need to declare an interest on an additional Agenda Item number please simply amend the form during the meeting. The form must be handed into the Committee Administrator at the end of the meeting. NB. The following is a summary prepared to assist Members in deciding at the actual meetings their position on INTERESTS it is not a substitute for studying the full explanation regarding INTERESTS, which is contained in the Council’s Constitution and the Code of Conduct for Councillors, which is legally binding. Members and Officers are welcome to seek, PREFERABLY WELL IN ADVANCE of a meeting advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer on INTERESTS.

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Action to be Taken May relate to employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain May relate to sponsorship May relate to contracts May relate to interests in land May relate to licences to occupy land May relate to corporate tenancies May relate to securities

Must disclose to the meeting - existence of the interest - the nature of the interest - withdraw from the room - not seek improperly to influence a decision on the matter

Non Pecuniary Interests Action to be Taken May relate to any body of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by the Council May relate to any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 A Member may also have a non pecuniary interest where a decision in relation to that business might reasonably be regarded as affecting wellbeing or the wellbeing of other council tax payers, or ratepayers or inhabitants in the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision. . (Note – there are special provisions relating to “Sensitive Interests” which may exclude the above provisions in certain circumstances.)

Must disclose to the meeting - existence of the interest - the nature of the interest - not seek improperly to influence a decision on the matter.

6

DRAFT PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 11th October 2017 at Retford Town Hall

Present:

Councillor D Pidwell (Chair) Councillors D K Brett, H Burton, S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, G A N Oxby, A Smith and T Taylor.

Officers in attendance: B Alderton-Sambrook, D Askwith, J Elliott, C Hopkinson and S Wormald.

(Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.)

(The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and read out the Fire Evacuation Procedure. He also enquired as to whether any member of the public wished to film the meeting or any part thereof; although there were several members of the public present, this was not taken up.)


Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G Clarkson, M W Quigley and S Scotthorne.

42. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(a) Members

There were no declarations of interest by officers.

(b) Officers


43. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13TH SEPTEMBER 2017

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13th September 2017 be approved.

44 . MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 14TH AUGUST AND 11TH SEPTEMBER 2017

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 14th August and 11th September be received.

45. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

Members were advised that the Performance Report would be presented to the next meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED that:

1. The Performance Report be presented to the next meeting of the Committee.2. The Outstanding Minutes be received.


Agenda Item No.3

7

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

46. REPORT(S) OF THE DIRECTOR OF REGENERATION AND NEIGHBOURHOODS

(a) Public Interest Test

The Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods had deemed that all Items on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature.

(b) Appeal Decisions Received

Members were presented with an appeal decision.

RESOLVED that the appeal decision be received.

(c) Planning Applications and Associated Items

Application No Applicant Proposal

17/00271/RES Harron Homes and Hallam Land Management Ltd

Reserved matters approval sought for all remaining reserved matters for 167 dwellings, namely appearance, landscaping , layout and scale, land north east of St Lukes School, Shireoaks Common, Shireoaks

Members were advised that the application sought approval of reserved matters for the erection of 167 dwellings, including appearance landscaping layout and scale. The means of access to serve the residential development from Shireoaks Common was granted as part of the outline planning permission. The proposal is for the erection of 167 dwellings comprising a mix of 14 house types, the majority of which are two storeys high, with three two and a half storey properties. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Slides were used to show the site location.

Thee application site lies outside of the development boundary of Worksop. The site is currently in agricultural use.

The proposal includes the provision of land adjacent to St. Luke’s Primary School, to enable it to accommodate future expansion, and a multi-use games area. The proposal also includes 15% affordable housing provision which equates to 25 dwellings.

The Case Officer commented on the relevant planning policies and gave a summary of responses from statutory consultees, as detailed in the report. Highways, the Lead Local Flood Authority, Severn Trent and Environmental Health have no objection to the proposal. Shireoaks Parish Council have objected to application and the local ward Member had requested that the application be presented to the Committee.

Members were advised that the principle of development was established with the outline planning permission. The site is considered to be in a sustainable location and is considered to comply with local and national policy.

8

Parish Councillor M Wild spoke against the proposal on behalf of Shireoaks Parish Council, on the grounds that:

There is a strong case for not joining Worksop and Shireoaks. If granted Worksop andShireoaks will only have the A57 between them.

The proposal is for large houses. The Parish Council are not happy that the residential and industrial uses have been

separated. There is a feeling that the industrial use will not come forward and there will bea future application for housing.

The access issues are considerable. There is only one point of access and theinfrastructure is not sufficient in the village.

Mr M Wild spoke in objection as a local resident. He advised that there would be four new access roads onto a busy road and that a roundabout onto Coach Road should be considered. The flood risk is a concern as the village has experience flooding in the past. He commented that he would like to see more mature trees planted to shield the site. Car parking for the school is an issue that needs resolving. There are too many large houses proposed and not houses for younger and older people. The children’s play area needs consideration and should be somewhere in the middle of the site. He also raised concern about the maintenance of the site.

Mr M Beevers spoke as applicant’s agent. He advised that:

During the application process discussions have been held with highways to overcomeconcerns including the addition of more turning heads, bus stops and improved cycle links.

Access to the site has been agreed at the outline application stage. Drainage has been discussed and progressed with Seven Trent and the Lead Local Flood

Authority. The scheme will manage its own water. A landscaping scheme has been submitted. It is felt that the development would integrate

well into the location. The scheme will include mature planting which would provide aninstant buffer.

The dwellings are designed facing outwards to provide surveillance over areas of openspace.

The developer is committed to the delivery of the site and wants to commence on site assoon as possible.

The conditions agreed as part of the outline application still remain part of the proposal. The proposal would improvement transport and contrite to bus services. The development would be CIL liable. The proposal delivers the aspirations of the outline planning consent.

Elected Members asked questions/raised issues in relation to:

Can a condition be imposed to ensure mature planting? Who will maintain the children’s play area? Where is the affordable housing located on site? The status of the Neighbourhood Plan when outline planning permission was granted. What can be done about residents’ fears that that industrial element of the site will not

come forward and there will be a further application for residential use? It is hoped that the developer does not come back and say that the development is not

viable if the affordable housing is provided. A grant application has been submitted to one of the Local Enterprise Partnerships to

provide infrastructure to the proposed industrial estate.

In response to questions raised relation to the Neighbourhood Plan the Case Officer advised that outline planning permission was granted prior to the Plan being made. In regards to future applications Members were advised that applications are considered on their own merits as they

9

come forward. If there was to be another residential element an application would need to be submitted which would be considered in the normal way.

In relation to maintenance of the play area the S106 Agreement will require the applicant to provide details of the private management company. The Head of Regeneration advised that the Council’s current policy does not usually adopt open space as it is precluded by long term financial viability. The policy discusses how management of open space would ordinarily be under a management company and set out in a covenant as part of the purchase of the property as required by the s106. It is usual practice for management companies to require a service charge to maintain open space. If the company goes out of business the responsibility would transfer to the Council and the services charges for residents would be paid to the Council to maintain the site so that the site does not become a future issue for residents.

In response to questions regarding mature planting the Head of Regeneration advised that an informative could be added to the decision notice informing the applicant that Members would like to see mature planting where possible. She advised that a condition has to meet tests that the condition is necessary and relevant.

Members raised concerns that an informative could not be enforced and were in favour of an additional condition.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated and that the wording of additional condition requiring an element of mature planting be reported to the Planning Consultation Group.


16/01216/FUL Welbeck Estates Company Ltd

Hybrid application seeking a) outline planning permission for up to 21 dwellings with all matters reserved except access b) Full planning permission for the erection of 15 dwellings, conversion of 1 barn to form dwelling and conversion of 1 barn to form new village facilities with associated works to existing village hall, land south of Portland Road, Nether Langwith

Members were advised that the application was a hybrid application for a combination of full and outline planning permissions. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Slides were used to show the site location.

The Head of Service (on behalf of the Case Officer) presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given, as detailed in the report.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has commented that the site is partly within the Nether Langwith conservation area and within the setting of the Grade II listed house, Greenrigs. The site is currently an agricultural field and includes existing building including two barns and a village hall. One of these barns is considered to be a building at risk due to its poor condition. The site is well screened. The Conservation Officer is content with the overall design and appearance of the proposal. The application would enable the restoration of the derelict barn and is considered to be an enhancement of the Conservation Area.

Nottinghamshire County Highways have requested a condition regarding the garages doors and have suggested the use of Traffic Regulation Order to provide parking restrictions on Queen’s

10

Walk, Limes Avenue and surrounding areas near to the junction to remove inappropriate parking. Members were advised the Order would be sought within the S106 Agreement.

Nottinghamshire County Council Policy (Archaeology) have commented that the site is not a historical site however given its size it is recommended that the applicant undertake a geophysical survey.

Nether Langwith Parish Council support the applicable in principle however has raised issues regarding parking in the locality and drainage concerns. They have commented that they would like to see bat and bird boxes on site, affordable starter homes and open space.

Two petitions and 17 letters of objection from local residents have been received. Three letters of support have also been received from local residents.

Members were advised that the main issue is whether the proposed development conforms with the existing planning policies and whether it contributes to a sustainable pattern of development in the District, with particular regard to the current supply of deliverable housing sites.

The majority of the site is outside, but adjacent, the development boundary. Policy CS1 states that development in the identified settlements will be restricted to area inside defined development boundaries however additional permissions may be granted where it is demonstrated that a development will help to address a shortfall in the District’s five-year housing supply. The National Planning Policy Framework also states that the local planning authority should identify sufficient sites to provide a five year housing land supply plus a 20% buffer.

In terms of heritage assets the Conservation Officer has commented extensively and considered that there would be no harm from the proposal and the conservation area would benefit from the restoration of the barn. Detailed design shows a mix of house types and sizes. The scale and design is considered to reflect the local character and area.

The development would be CIL liable. The applicant has submitted a viability assessment that concludes that with CIL and S106 contributions the scheme generates a profit which is below the generally accepted profit margin and as such cannot support any affordable housing. It is proposed to include an overage clause should profit be greater than shown in the viability assessment.

Councillor M Middleton spoke on behalf of Nether Langwith Parish Council. He advised that:

Around 40 dwellings will increase the population of the village by more than a quarter. It isimportant that in accordance with Policies DM3, DM4 and Section 4 of the NPPF thedevelopment integrates with the rest of the village through clear functional and physicalpedestrian links that are accessible to all people giving access to public transport andother facilities.

There needs to be a pedestrian link from the southern part of the site into Queen’s Walk.Without this walks would be circuitous and distances would be such that most peoplewould choose to drive rather than walk. Opportunities for social interaction would be lostand there would be problems accessing the car park to the rear of the extended village hallon foot when the hall is closed. The original plan had a footpath link, it is physical possibleto provide one.

There is now no meaningful area for young children’s play within the development. PolicesDM4 and DM9 require new development proposals to provide functional open space andopportunities for recreation. Areas of open space within housing areas on the originallayout were removed in subsequent schemes to enable more dwellings to be provided.The Parish Council asks that the applicant provide an area of open space suitable forchildren’s play within the built part of the development.

11

There are drainage concerns, periodic flooding is caused by a combination of river flowgreater than the capacity of the river channel and surcharge from the surface water sewerat the junction of Queen’s Walk and Fairfield Close.

In January and August the Highway Authority pointed out that the applicants flood riskassessment ha not been prepared in accordance with the requirements of BRW365 andwas unacceptable,

Severn Trent Water comment that Section H of the building regulations says that waterdisposal strategies should only use public sewers as a last resort. Despite that and withoutany examination of the issues the applicant proposed to dispose of excess surface waterinto the sewers on Queen’s Walk.

Whether water is disposed of into public sewers or the river and even if flows are throatedthere will still be an increase in flood water as a result of the development.

The NPPF states that when determining applications the local planning authority shouldensure that the flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider developmentwhere informed by site specific flood risk assessment. The applicants flood riskassessment is not complete or fit for purpose.

Ms D Ball spoke in objection to the development. She advised that she is a resident of Nether Langwith and strongly opposes the proposal. Drainage and the risk of flooding are the main concerns. The flood risk assessment admits that further assessment is needed and better design finalised. The assessment should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is not certain. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways warns of the expense of the proposed drainage scheme. Has the cost been accounted for when assessing viability? It is possible the application will return to the Committee to say the applicant cannot provide the S106 contributions. Flooding issues are a concern and there is ineffective drainage. Queen’s Walk is classed as flood zone 3. The lack of a five year supply of housing is not carte blanche for approval. She requested that the Committee refuse the application in relation to flooding issues and the proposal is contrary to the NPPF.

Councillor K Dukes spoke as ward Member for Welbeck. He advised that he had been contacted by a number of local residents. The key concern is drainage and flooding. Tarmac would exacerbate the problems and a proper drainage strategy is needed. There are issues with traffic and the increase in traffic would exacerbate that problem. Access to Queen’s Walk is an issue and there is no footpath proposed.

Mr D Ridout spoke in support as the applicant, he advised that:

They are willing to commit to the application. A percentage of homes would be starter homes for first time buyers. A mix of housing would be provided on site. The dilapidated barns would be brought back into use and improve the conservation area. A significant amount of money would put into the village hall and local community. There have been discussions with the Lead Local Flood Authority and there is ample

space on site to store water and release when appropriate. The current issues will not be exacerbated. The Traffic Regulation Order is supported. There is currently no parking for the village hall, the proposal will improve the situation. Discussions have been held with councillors, officers, conservation and the community.

Elected Members asked questions/raised issues in relation to:

The majority of the site is outside of the development boundary. Buildings at risk would be brought back into use. Sustainability of the development as there are limited facilities in the village. The flood risk. Condition 10 requires all external joinery to be of a timber construction only but does not

state that replacement windows and doors should be of a timber construction.

12

In response to questions raised, the Head of Regeneration advised that as part of the Core Strategy the village is identified as a rural service centre. Any built form is likely to encourage further services to come forward in a locality. The officer report concludes that the site is sustainable. In terms of flooding the Lead Local Flood Authority has no objection subject to the imposition of conditions which can be elaborated to include the detail contained specifically in the LLFA response. Condition 10 can be further strengthened by requesting that timber construction should be kept in situ in perpetuity.


COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated with the following amendments to conditions 10 and 16:

10. All external joinery including windows and doors shall be of a timber construction only andremain as such in perpetuity. Details of their design, specification, method of opening,method of fixing and finish, in the form of drawings and sections of no less than 1:20 scale,shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority beforedevelopment commences. The development shall be carried out only in accordance withthe agreed details.

Reason: Inadequate details of these matters have been submitted with the application andto ensure the development preserves the character and appearance of the ConservationArea.

16. Development shall not commence until such time as full details of the manner in which foulsewage and surface water are to be disposed of from the site have been submitted to andagreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. As requested by the Lead Local FloodAuthority, this must comply with all of the information and statements made in the FloodRisk Assessment submitted as part of the planning application and also consider thefollowing points:

a. Consideration must be given to discharging to the River Poulter as a priority overdischarging to the surface water sewer. If evidence can be provided to show thatthe surface water sewer discharges to the River this is acceptable should infiltrationprove unsuitable.

b. Due to the natural gradients on the site consideration should be given toexceedance flow paths and evidence provided to show that no new properties areput at risk of flooding from flow paths.

c. Evidence of how any SUDS features will be managed and maintained for thelifetime of the development must be provided.

The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the site is drained in a satisfactory manner.


17/00949/FUL Mr Stephen Tasker Construction of a new building to provide blast cooling, chilled storage, packing and associated offices and roads, parking and plant and modification to existing private roads. Wheatley Wood Farm House, Wood Lane, North Wheatley

13

Members were advised that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of new buildings to accommodate the packing, storage and chilling of soft fruit together with associated offices. The site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Slides were used to show the site location.

The Case Officer presented the proposals and a summary of responses from statutory consultees was given, as detailed in the report.

The proposed building would have a floor area measuring 25m x 48m and have an eaves and ridge height of 6.5m and 8.5m respectively. The roof would be constructed of fibre cement and the walls olive green plastic coated steel sheeting.

The site is located outside of the North Wheatley development boundary. Wheatley Wood located to the north of the site is an Ancient Woodland and Local Wildlife Site. North Wheatley Footpath FP5 follows the route of Wood Lane.

In response to questions raised Members were advised that currently fruit is taken off site and packed so this application would reduce those traffic movements.


COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated.

SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

None.


As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(Meeting closed at 8.06pm.)

14

PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 18th September 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors D Pidwell (Chair), A Smith and T Taylor.

Officers in attendance: F Dunning and C Hopkinson.

(Meeting opened at 4.00pm.)

51. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors K H Isard and M W Quigley.

52. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Application No Proposal

17/00987/FUL Construction of two silage clamps, Haughton Park House Farm, West Drayton Avenue, Bothamsall

Members were advised that the application sought permission to construct two silage clamps. Planning permission has previously bee granted for a roundhouse on the site. A site plan and an aerial photograph were tabled.

Gamston Airfield have objected to the application on the grounds that the location is too close to take off surface runway 21, the height, and that heat may be generated that might cause turbulence.

NATS have commented that the proposal does not conflict with safeguarding criteria.

Members were advised that the clamps would be set back from the bridleway by approximately 4m. The height of the clamps when filled would be approximately 4m. The height would not be higher than the existing buildings.

In response to questions raised regarding the comments from Gamston Airfield the Development Team Manager advised that if granted an informative could be added to the decision to ask the applicant to contact the Airfield about turbulence.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions - refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Defer to a future meeting to allow the case officer to contact the Airfield to discuss concerns raised.


17/01007/LBA Conversion to restaurant, two retail and six apartments and renovation and extension, 26 – 28 Grove Street, Retford

Members were advised that the application is a Listed Building Application. The application sought to convert the building to a restaurant, two retail units and six apartments. A location map and photographs were tabled.

Agenda Item No.4

15

The building is considered to be a building at risk and the proposal is supported by the Conservation Officer.

The ward Member, Councillor M Storey, submitted comments to ensure he would have the right to speak if the application went to Planning Committee.


Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision.


17/00929/RES Reserved matters application of outline 16/01472/OUT to erect detached dwelling with garage and new access, plot 2 Beckland Hill, East Markham

Members were advised that the application sought reserved matters to erect a detached dwelling with garage and new access. The site is not within the Conservation Area. Elevations and floorplans were tabled.

East Markham Parish Council have objected to the application on the grounds that the proposal is too large, the development would have an impact on neighbouring residents, the fuel tank is too close to the pavement and there is too much hardstanding area proposed.

Members were advised that subsequently plans haven been amended to remove the fuel tank.

The Lead Local Flood Authority have not raised any concerns.

The Development Team Manager commented that the dwelling is large however there are other large dwellings in the area.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to materials - refer to PCG.



17/00753/FUL Proposed timber stables and tack room, Mill House, Top Street, Misson

Members were advised that the application sought to erect timber stables and tack room. A site plan was tabled.

Members were advised that the applicant’s agent is related to a District Councillor.

No objections have been received.




17/00518/FUL Demolition of existing buildings and change of use to car park, Kingsway Tyres, Victoria Road, Retford

Members were advised that the application sought to demolish the existing buildings and change the use to a car park.

16

Three objections have been received from local residents on the grounds that the lighting will result in impact on amenity; asbestos on site; noise from vehicles; additional noise from the automatic barrier; and vehicles entering and leaving at all hours.

Members were advised that the removal of asbestos is not a planning issue. The applicant has provided details of boundary treatment which includes the existing brick wall and a new wall at the front of the site.

The application has been amended to change the lighting from flood lighting to low level lighting. The application has subsequently been re-consulted and no objections have been raised.

The main intention of the car park is for railway passengers. 22 parking spaces are proposed.

An elected Member asked if a condition could be imposed in relation to a noise management plan.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to standard conditions, boundary treatment and bollard lighting- refer to PCG.

Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision subject to an additional condition to require a noise management plan.


17/00958/COU Change of use from horticultural nursery to glamping (camping) site, land easy of Eastfield Farm, Lincoln Road, Tuxford

Members were advised that the application sought to change of use from a horticultural nursery to glamping (camping) site. A site plan was tabled.

Environmental Health have requested that a condition be imposed regarding construction however noise from construction comes under the control of pollution act. Planning guidance states that conditions should not be placed on planning when it comes under other legislation.

Tuxford Town Council have no objection.

Members were advised that a number of conditions are proposed including limiting the number of pitches; limiting the occupation period; details of the type of structures to be agreed; parking details; and widening of the junction.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to limiting pitches, occupation period details of type of structures, parking details, widening of junction - refer to PCG.



17/00938/HSE Single storey front extension, 111 Grove Lane, Retford

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a single storey front extension. Floorplans were tabled.

The ward Member, Councillor M Storey, has submitted comments to ensure he would have the right to speak if the application went to Planning Committee.

Members were advised that the application is recommended for refusal due to the adverse impact on the neighbouring property.

Initial officer recommendation – Refuse Planning Permission - refer to PCG.

17



17/01013/HSE Replace existing outbuilding with double garage, Orchard Lodge, Southgore Lane, North Leverton

Members were advised that the application sought to replace the existing outbuilding with a double garage. A site plan and elevations were tabled.

In response to a question raised Members were advised that the development is not classed as permitted development due to the height of the garage.

A condition is proposed that the garage be used for domestic purposes only.




17/00960/HSE Proposed side extension, 50 Bracebridge Avenue, Worksop

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a single storey side extension. Elevations and floorplans were tabled.

Members were advised that the applicant’s agent is related to a District Councillor.





17/00939/FUL Five detached dwellings and garages, land west of Woodlea, Great North Road, Ranskill

Members were advised that the application sought to erect five detached dwellings and garages. A site plan was tabled.

Members were advised that full planning permission has previously been granted on the site for 16 dwellings. This application seeks full planning permission for five dwellings.

There would be no affordable housing contribution as the application is for less than ten dwellings. CIL would not be liable if the dwellings are self-built.

Highways have no objection.



18


17/01096/CDM Variation of condition 3 and 4 (13/01390/CDM) to allow a further five years for placement of material and restoration of site, Welbeck Colliery and land Budby Road, Cuckney

Members were advised that the application sought to vary a condition to allow a further five years for placement of material and restoration of the site. The application is a Nottinghamshire County Council matter, the District Council is a consultee.

Initial officer recommendation – Raise no objection - refer to PCG.



17/00973/CDM Continued use for production of wood fuel products, Headon Camp Industrial Estate, Lady Well Lane, Headon

Members were advised that the application sought retrospective planning permission for use of the site for the production of wood fuel products. The application is a Nottinghamshire County Council matter, the District Council is a consultee. A site plan was tabled.

Members were advised that there are industrial uses adjacent the site. There are some residential properties nearby but not adjoining.

Initial officer recommendation – Raise no objection - refer to PCG.



17/01030/VOC Variation of conditions 13, 28 and 33 of planning permission 16/00015/FUL, Icon Polymer Limited, Thrumpton Lane, Retford

Members were advised that the application sought to vary conditions of a previously approved planning application.

The application proposes to remove building A which was a proposed takeaway on the concept plan. The application also proposes to remove D1 and D2 uses and replace these with A1 retail.

Highways have no objection. They have commented that the changes would reduce the demand for parking.

There would be an increase in retail space however this is mainly at mezzanine level. There is no objection in terms of the impact on the town centre.

The application also proposes to change the delivery hours to permit deliveries to the South Street site between 6.00 am – 11.00 pm so that there is no impact to potential customers.


Initial officer recommendation – Agree to proposed changes - refer to PCG.



19

As there was no other business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(The meeting closed at 5.05pm.)

20


Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 25th September 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors S Fielding, S Scotthorne, A Smith and T Taylor.

Officers in attendance: J Elliott and B Pinkney.


53. APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D Pidwell.


Members were advised that the Development Team Manager is currently writing up the White water Shooting Variation of conditions application for the October Planning Committee with the recommendation for refusal.

It was noted that is it important to follow the correct procedures as the application has the expected decision level as “Delegated after referring to PCG”. Councillor Bowles has requested that the application be considered by the Planning Committee.

Members were asked to consider whether they agree with the recommendation of referring the application to Planning Committee.

Members requested for more information before they make a decision to agree to refer the application to Planning Committee.


17/01005/FUL Erection of agricultural building for the storage of agricultural machinery, land adjacent to White Cottage, Gainsborough Road, Everton.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a building for the storage of agricultural machinery. A location map, photographs and elevations were tabled.

Members were advised that the site is currently a field located adjacent to the applicant’s house. The proposal is to erect a building for storage of vehicles and machinery associated with the applicants agricultural bailing contractors business.

It was noted that the unit would be principally to accommodate a tractor, balers, chaser and a forklift. The applicant works on other people’s land across Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. The business has been in operation for 30 years.

The Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection.

Members were advised that the Parish Council raised no objection and supports the application for agricultural business.

The applicant’s agent had submitted supporting information outlining the circumstances of the applicant and the nature of the business.

21

Members were advised that the site is allocated in the draft Neighbourhood Plan for residential development.

Members were advised that the application had been recommended for refusal as it is considered that the proposed development would conflict with the provisions of policy DM1, it is also considered to be out of character with the area.




17/01006/FUL Change of use to restaurant, two retail shops and six residential apartments with internal alterations and new roof extensions over the court yard, 26-28 Grove Street, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought change of use to a restaurant, two retails shops and six residential apartments. A floor plan, elevations and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that the site has already obtained listed building consent.

Members were presented with a floor plan of the development. The restaurant is proposed to be on the ground floor located at the back of the building and the two retail shops on the ground floor at the front of the building. The six residential apartments will be located on the other floors.

Historic England raised no comment.

Members were advised that the Flood Risk team raised no objection.

Members were advised that the application was being presented at PCG as Environmental Health had requested a condition restricting the hours of construction works. Members were advised that such a condition would not be necessary as the noise emissions from constructions sites, is a matter that can be controlled by the Environmental Health Department through the Control of Pollution Act 1974

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission - refer to PCG.




(The meeting closed at 4:20pm.)

22


Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 2nd October 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors D Pidwell, A Smith and T Taylor.

Officers in attendance: J Elliott and B Pinkney.


56. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence.


Cllr A Smith Declared a Non-Pecuniary interest in PA 17/01254/DEM.



17/01053/VOC Vary condition 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of planning permission 16/01533/FUL – Condition 1 to include inspection of Noise Mitigation Measures, condition 6 to vary opening hours, condition 7 to provide a maximum total of Clay Target Shooting of 34.5 hours per week, condition 8 to forego the concession in this condition as no events are to be held and condition 9 for the site to be operated in accordance with the management plan as approved. Whitewater Shooting Ground, land off Whitewater Lane, Bawtry Road, Blyth.

Members were advised that the application sought to vary conditions 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of planning permission 16/01533/FUL – Condition 1 to include inspection of Noise Mitigation Measures, Condition 6 to vary opening hours, condition 7 to provide maximum total of clay target shooting of 34.5 hours per week, Condition 8 to forego the concession in this condition as no events are to be held and Condition 9 for the site to be operated in accordance with the management plan as approved.

Members had been presented with the application as the expected decision level was as “Delegated after referring to PCG”. However, Councillor Bowles has requested that the application be considered by Planning Committee due to the amount of objections.

It has been asked for members to discuss whether PCG agree with the recommendation of referring the application to Planning Committee.

Members were advised that the concerns were with the hours of shooting. The hours were originally 9.30am-5.30pm Monday-Friday and 10:00am-4:00pm Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. The hours have been varied to omit shooting on Mondays and Tuesdays, 10:00am-5:30pm Wednesday-Friday and 10:00am-4:00pm Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. The vary to condition 7 results in an increase to the shooting hours.

Members were advised that condition 8 states that the applicant has no plans to host competition events.

23

Nottinghamshire County Council and Highways England have raised no objection.

Seven Trent Water and The Environmental Agency had made no comment.

Members were advised that Blyth Parish Council have raised objection regarding the following issues:

The applicant’s financial situation and the viability of the business are not material planningconsiderations.

Shooting had taken place on Easter Sunday contrary to the requirements of the existingcondition 6. To vary the opening days/hours to include Easter Sunday and Boxing Day would legitimise the current operation of the site.

The applicant has already applied for an increase in consented shooting hours. Bothapplications were refused on the grounds that increased shooting hours would be detrimental to residential amenity.

Recent posts have been made on the shooting grounds Facebook page of advertisementsfor competitions throughout September.

Members were advised that 19 letters of objection had been received from local residents raising the following issues:

Increased shooting hours will result in further disturbance to local residents; The development has caused a significant deterioration to the rural environment amenity

due to the noise generated; The A1M passes very close to the shooting ground, repeated gunfire’s which can be heard

on the motorway could easily be a distraction leading to a serious accident; Opening on East Sunday and Boxing day is disrespectful; Shooting will impact on wildlife; Viability of a commercial business is not a matter for consideration by the planning

authority.




17/00746/OUT Outline application with some reserved matters (approval being sought for access and layout) 7 no. residential building plots including improvements to existing access position. National Ministry Centre, Retford Road, Mattersey.

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission with some matters reserved for seven residential building plots including improvements to the existing access position. A site plan and photographs were tabled.

It was noted that the application site is within the wider setting of the Grade 2 listed Mattersey Hall. However, the proposal is not considered to be harmful to the setting.

Highways England had made no comment.

Members were advised that County Highways raised no objection as the proposal had been amended in accordance with the requirements of the Highway Authority in respect of the access arrangements into the site and the adjoining Ministry Centre.

The Conservation Officer, Tree Officer and the Environmental Health Manager raised no objection.

24

Members were advised that the Parish Council raised no objection. However, they do have concerns regarding the proposed access to the site. There are difficulties of access and vision already to the hall view and it has been suggested that it would be safer to allow access from the other end of the development.

Sport England originally raised objection regarding concerns over the use of the playing fields. However, following discussions between the local Planning Authority, Sport England and the applicant, Sport England have removed their original holding objection.

A letter of objection had been received from a local resident suggesting that the access to the site should not utilise the existing access but should be sited further to the sought, on highway safety grounds.




17/01046/RES Reserved matters application to seek approval for appearance and landscaping following outline application 14/00465/OUT – Erect detached dwelling with detached single garage. Plot at Thackeray Close, Worksop.

Members were advised that the application sought reserved matters permission to seek approval for appearance and landscaping following outline application 14/00465/OUT to erect detached dwelling with detached single garage. A location map, site plan and elevations were tabled.

Outline planning permission had been granted in 2014 with some reserved for the erection of five dwellings.

The Environmental Health Officer requested to impose a condition restricting the times of noise generating construction activities.

Members were advised that a letter of objection had been received from a local resident raising concern regarding the following issues:

The access road is not wide enough for emergency vehicles; Emergency vehicles will have difficulty accessing the site; The site is contaminated with asbestos; The two bed detached dwelling is not in keeping with the surrounding area; Would lead to on-street parking and congestion.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission – refer to PCG.



17/00709/FUL Proposed detached bungalow, provide new drive entrance and detached garage to existing bungalow and change use of land to incorporate into domestic curtilage, Wynbar, Church Lane, Clarborough.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect detached bungalow, provide a new drive entrance, and erect a detached garage to existing bungalow and change the use of land to incorporate into domestic curtilage. A site plan, elevations and photographs were tabled.

Members were advised that the application site is within the development boundary.

25

No objections were received from the Conservation Officer, the Tree Officer, and Environmental Health Manager. Historic England gave no comments. Members were advised that two letters of objection had been received from local residents raising concern regarding the following issues;

The garage would result in a loss of outlook to occupiers of an adjoining property; The proposed extended curtilage of the property to the rear includes a land drain adjoining

the existing boundary hedge. This drain is often overgrown, exacerbating flooding problems in the area;

The extended domestic curtilage would result in a loss of outlook to adjoining residents; Possible future development in the roof space of the proposed bungalow may result in

overlooking and a subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining residents. The Neighbourhood Planning Team believes that the proposed development meets the necessary requirements in the Clarborough and Welham Neighbourhood Plan. Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 17/00955/RSB Erect residential apartment blocks consisting of three, two bedroomed flats

(Resubmission of Planning Application 16/00819/FUL), land rear of 55-57 Moorgate, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect residential apartment blocks consisting of three, two bedroomed flats. A site plan, elevations and photographs were tabled. Members were advised that this is a resubmission application after it had been refused planning permission in 2016. It was noted that the site is located in the development boundary. Members were advised that 53 Moorgate is a Grade II listed building. Nottinghamshire County Council Highways raised no objection subject to the following conditions required:

Access to be surfaced and drained; Parking and manoeuvring areas to be provided; Wheelie bin collection points to be provided; Pedestrian visibility splays; No structures within visibility splays.

Members were advised that the District Conservation Officer raised no concern regarding the heritage assets on the site. Environmental Health raised no objection subject to a condition limiting the hours of construction. The Principle Planner advised members that they do not intend to impose this condition. Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission – refer to PCG.

26



17/01077/FUL Erection of a single storey industrial building ancillary to existing operations for a temporary period. Canute Haulage Plc, Old London Road, Elkesley.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a single storey industrial building ancillary to existing operations for a period of three years. A site plan and elevations were tabled.

It was noted that the company have recently lost their contract with Wilko and are having to move off the Wilko site at Worksop. Therefore, the company needs a temporary building until they can reconsider and develop options for longer term.

Retford (Gamston) airport, Nottinghamshire Highways Authority and Elkesley Parish Council had raised no objection.

Members were advised that Environmental Health had commented in relation to noise, suggesting a condition to be imposed that all works audible at the site boundary shall be carried out only between 8:00am-6:00pm Monday to Friday, 8:00am-1:00pm on Saturdays and no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. The Principle Planner advised members that the condition will not be imposed.

Members were advised that an email of objection had been received from a local resident raised concern in relation to noise, questioning whether it is going to be a 24 hour maintenance facility and whether work will take place during the night.




17/01043/HSE Outbuilding with pitched roof in rear garden, 217 Scrooby Road, Bircotes.

Members were advised that the application sought permission for the construction of a detached outbuilding in the rear garden of a domestic property. Elevations and photographs were tabled.

One letter of objection had been received from a local resident raising concern regarding the size of the outbuilding, the motive of the outbuilding, and the effect on the views from the residents back windows.

Members were advised that an additional local resident raised no objection to the development.

One local resident fully supports the development as Bircotes has many similar outbuildings, therefore this development should not be a problem.

Members were advised that the Parish Council had raised no objection.

Members were advised that a condition will be imposed on the application to restrict the outbuilding to be for domestic use only.

Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions – refer to PCG.


27

Application No Proposal 17/01023/FUL

Single storey rear extension to form pharamacy, and replacement shop front, 105 Scrooby Road, Bircotes.

Members were advised that the application sought permission for a single storey rear extension to form a pharmacy and replacement of shop front. Elevations were tabled. Members were advised that there had been a delay to the application due to a change from the original plans. No objections have been received. Initial officer recommendation – Grant Planning Permission – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 17/01254/DEM Application for prior notification of proposed demolition of multiple semi-

detached Airey type dwellings. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Styrrup Road and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 20, 22 and 24 Common Lane.

Members were advised that the application sought for prior notification of proposed demolition of multiple semi-detached Airey type dwellings. 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Styrrup Road and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 20, 22 and 24 Common Lane. It was noted that the demolition process requires a notice to be displayed on the site 21 days prior to demolition. Members were advised that if any further comments are received after this PCG meeting the application will be presented again to PCG. Members were advised that no objections had been received. It was noted that the application site has no planning history. Initial officer recommendation – Prior approval not required – refer to PCG. Outcome following PCG – Delegate for officer decision. Application No Proposal 17/00979/RSB Erect two storey side and rear extensions and single storey rear extension

(Resubmission of planning application 17/00608/HSE). Jansel, London Road, Retford.

Members were advised that the application sought to erect a first floor side extension, and a two storey and single storey rear extension. A location map, elevations and photographs were tabled. It was noted that the application is a resubmission of planning application 17/00608/HSE. This application was withdrawn in June 2017 prior to refusal. Environmental Health Officers raised no objection to the application. However, they have recommended for a condition to be imposed on the application for working hours to be limited during the construction phase to Monday – Friday 8:00am to 6:00pm, Saturday 8:00am to 1:00pm, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. It is also recommended that deliveries of

28

goods to and from the site including removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above.

The Conservation Officer raised no objection.

Members were advised that a letter of objection had been received from a local resident raising the following concerns:

The proposed two storey extension to Jansel will overshadow the frontage of Atherley; Flooding issues already occur during periods of heavy rain. The garage floods with the

water run-off from hansel that does not seem to have any drain or soak-a-away; Any proposed extension to the boundary line must involve disruption, how would the

foundations be built without encroaching on their land and between two sewers; The proposed extensions would create a mass of brick wall next to Atherley, which would

break the pattern and add an incongruous element to a thoughtfully planned area of housing on the section of London Road;

The property is not on a private rod as stated on the heritage statement submitted; The properties on London Road represent of the time of the building; the stretch of

housing is spacious, essentially open plan; it shows the urban development of the town at its best and has earnt its place architecturally at the entrance of Retford. If the proposed development went ahead it would destroy this pleasant part of the conservation area.






29


Minutes of the meeting held on Monday, 9th October 2017 at Worksop Town Hall

Present: Councillors D K Brett, K H Isard, D Pidwell and A Smith.

Officers in attendance: M Freeman and B Pinkney.


60. APOLOGIES

There were no apologies for absence.



17/01048/VOC Vary condition 1 of planning application 17/00033/RES – Change of house types at Gateford Park, Ashes Park Avenue, Worksop

Members were advised that the application sought to vary condition 1 of planning application 17/00033/RES to change the house types. A site plan was tabled.

Members were advised that the application had been amended for the different house types on certain plots as shown on the site plan presented to member. The layout will mean those houses are slightly closer to the southern boundary in some cases. The minimum separation distance set out in SPD will still apply.

It was noted that the change to house type would have little or no impact on the character and appearance of the overall development.

No objections were received from all statutory consultees.

Members were advised that three letters of objection had been received from local residents raising concern regarding the following issues:

The movement of dwellings closer to the southern boundary would result in a loss ofprivacy;

The construction works would result in noise, disturbance and dust; The scheme differs from the scheme that was shown at the initial community consultation

stage; The road improvements are not being implemented as initially indicated; Developers are not accountable; The existing properties are not shown on the layout drawing; No details have been provided of the boundary fencing.



31


17/01063/FUL Convert Farm Building into dwelling at Barn 4 Manor Farm, Great North Road, Torworth.

Members were advised that the application sought to convert a farm building into a two bed dwelling. A location map, site plan and elevations were tabled.

It was noted that barns 1-3 had already got planning permission to convert into dwellings.

Members were advised that manor farm and its associated outbuildings are Grade II listed.

Nottinghamshire Highways raised no objection subject to conditions required:

Minimum access width; Widening of dropped kerb; Provision of visibility splays.

The Conservation Officer raised no objection subject to conditions requiring details of:

Windows and doors; Materials to be agreed; Rain water goods to be agreed; Lime mortar pointing; Services and accretions to be agreed; Details of roof lights; Removal of Permitted Development rights.

Members were advised that the application had been presented at PCG as Torworth Parish Council had raised objection on the following grounds:

The access is too dangerous to support multiple dwellings; The A638 is a fast road which experiences speeding traffic; The existing bus stop would obscure visibility; The site would be better served on Low Street.




17/00804/LBA Convert farm building to dwelling at Barn 4 Manor Farm, Great North Road, Torworth.

Members were advised that the application sought listed building consent in association with the previous application.

Torworth parish council and the Conservation Officer raised objections on the same grounds as the previous application.

Members were advised that one objection from a local resident had been received raising the following concerns:

Permission had not previously been granted to convert the farm building to a dwelling;

32

Where is the proposed garage and garden going to be located; Will the paddock be lost; The proposal would be over intensive and detrimental to the setting of the listed buildings; Work has still yet to commence on the three other barn conversions.






33

Agenda Item No. 5

PLANNING COMMITTEE

8th November 2017

OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

Members please note that the updated positions are shown in bold type following each item. (DTM = Development Team Manager)

Min. No. Date Subject Decision Officer

Responsible

45 11/10/2017 Outstanding Minutes List

The Performance Report be presented to the next meeting of the Committee

DTM

Agenda Item No. 6(d)

35

PLANNING COMMITTEE

8th November 2017

INFORMATION REPORT

APPEAL DECISION RECEIVED

16/01166/OUT SP Scholey. Appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for residential development on land to the north of Ranskill, Retford.

DECISION: Appeal DISMISSED by the Inspector.

The Inspector considered that the main issues in this case were whether the development would be consistent with local and national policies relating to its countryside location the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector considered that…

“As a result of the restricted services available within the village, together with the relatively limited access to public transport for all sectors of the community, I consider that future residents are likely to be largely reliant on the car. This is reflected in the village’s designation as a Rural Service Centre suitable only for limited rural growth

I appreciate that additional housing would help to support existing services and facilities in the village. However, there is no substantive evidence to show that these are struggling. Moreover, it seems to me that the vitality of the community can be maintained with fewer new houses. Both on its own and when taken in combination with the existing planning permissions, I consider that the appeal proposal would result in a disproportionate expansion to the village in population terms. In my opinion, concentrating so many houses in this particular location with limited accessibility to services other than by the car would make them functionally isolated and undermine the aims of paragraphs 7 and 17 of the Framework of locating new dwellings in rural areas close to services and facilities as a means of reducing unnecessary travel by car, with its associated carbon emissions, as one measure to cumulatively limit the effects of climate change.”

With respect to the issues of village character, the Inspector concluded….

“The proposal would clearly alter the character of the field, but would do so in a manner not dissimilar to the estate immediately to the south of the appeal site developed in the 1980’s reflecting the historical evolution and form of the village to the north….views into the site when approaching from the north would be very similar to those existing. As such, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not appear incongruous or out

Agenda Item No.6(b)(i)

37

of keeping with the character and appearance of Ranskill and would represent an appropriate extension to the village in this respect.”

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letter follow this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: GRANT

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: REFUSAL – PLANNING COMMITTEE

38

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

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 September 2017

by Zoe Raygen Dip URP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 28 September 2017

Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/W/17/3171728

Land to the North of Ranskill

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

The appeal is made by SP Scholey and the Executors to WA against the decision of

Bassetlaw District Council.

The application Ref 16/01166/OUT, dated 23 August 2016, was refused by notice dated

5 December 2016.

The development proposed is outline planning application (all matters other than access

into the site reserved) for residential development at land to the north of Ranskill.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural matter

2. The application was made in outline form with all matters reserved for future

consideration except for access. I shall determine the appeal on that basis. Amasterplan has been submitted showing a layout providing about 130

dwellings. While I shall treat this as indicative only the appellants confirm thatthe proposal is for up to 130 dwellings within their statement. I have thereforetreated this as being indicative of the appellant’s intentions and have assessed

the proposals on that basis.

3. A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been submitted by the appellants. The UU,

which is a material consideration, includes financial contributions relating to theimprovement of play facilities (£60,000), primary education (£309,285),libraries (£5,975), and obligations relating to the implementation of a

Sustainable Urban Drainage System and the implementation and monitoring ofa Travel Plan. There is also an obligation relating to the provision of 25% of

the total number of dwellings to be constructed on the appeal site as affordablehousing, along with a requirement for the approval of an Affordable HousingScheme. I have had regard to the UU in my consideration of the appeal.

Background and Main Issues

4. I consider that the main issues are:

whether the development would be consistent with local

and national policies relating to its countryside location;

39


Appeal Decision APP/A3010/W/17/3171728

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

the effect of the proposal on the character and

appearance of the area

Reasons

Countryside location

5. Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework CoreStrategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document

2011 (Core Strategy) sets out the spatial strategy for the sustainabledevelopment of Bassetlaw, which supports a policy of settlement hierarchy to

ensure that the scale of new development is appropriate in relation to the size,function and regeneration opportunities of each tier.

6. There is no dispute between the parties that Ranskill is a Rural Service Centrewhich, in accordance with Policy CS1 should accommodate new dwellingswithin the defined Development Boundaries. Policy CS8 of the Core Strategy

states that development in the Development Boundaries of Rural ServiceCentres should be of a scale appropriate to the current size and role of that

settlement and limited to that which will sustain local employment, communityservices and facilities. There is no disagreement between the parties that theappeal site lies beyond, but adjacent to the defined Development Boundary for

Ranskill and in this respect would not meet the requirements of Policy CS1 orCS8.

7. I am also mindful that there is no dispute between the parties that the Councilis unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. As a result,paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)

states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be consideredup to date.

8. Consequently, the so-called tilted balance referred to in paragraph 14 of theFramework is engaged. In such circumstances the presumption in favour ofsustainable development means that permission should be granted unless

consequent adverse impacts of the scheme significantly and demonstrablyoutweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as

a whole or specific policies in the Framework indicate that development shouldbe restricted. This is also reflected in Policy CS1 which states that additionalpermissions may be granted where the Council are satisfied that the proposal

will be of a benefit in addressing the Council’s five year housing land supply.This part of the Policy therefore attracts weight, but needs to be considered in

the context of the Framework as a whole.

9. Paragraph 55 of the Framework seeks to promote sustainable development inrural areas by the location of housing where it will enhance or maintain the

vitality of rural communities and avoid isolated dwellings in the opencountryside.

10. The appeal site is located adjacent to a row of houses on Arundel Drive. As aresult it would be viewed within the context of built development and would nottherefore be physically isolated.

11. The Council considers that Ranskill is not able to accommodate furtherdwellings based on existing services and infrastructure provision, particularly

given that planning permission has been granted for a number of other

40




developments in the village of about 79 houses (16/01323/OUT,

15/00116/OUT, 15/00732/OUT and 16/00081/OUT).

12. Within the village of Ranskill I saw a small shop, fish and chip shop, public

house, church and a primary school which would be within walking distance ofthe appeal site. However, my attention has not been drawn to any healthfacilities, village hall or significant employment opportunities within the village.

It seems to me, therefore, that the local facilities are limited and there wouldbe an essential need for residents to travel further afield on a regular basis for

healthcare, shopping/leisure, and employment opportunities.

13. The settlements of Blyth, Harworth and Bawtry which would provide a widerrange of services are located about 4-6 km away, well beyond a convenient

walking distance. They would though be within a reasonable cycling distance.However, the most direct routes would involve minor rural roads at national

speed limit, with little or no lighting or cycle lane infrastructure. As a resultcycling would be unlikely to be an attractive form of transport particularly inthe winter or inclement weather.

14. There is a bus stop near to the site and the appellant would provide a footpathfrom the main access into the site to link to the existing footpath providing

access to the bus stop. From the evidence in the appellant’s TransportAssessment 2016 (TA) the bus stop is served by a good school service.However, information regarding the main service is limited. While it states the

service to Doncaster and Retford operates every hour Monday to Saturday, Ihave no information as to the time of the first or last bus. I cannot be sure

therefore that the service would provide a convenient commuter service, orwould operate in the evenings for occupiers to access leisure facilities.Furthermore, the service does not operate on a Sunday. A further service,

only operates three days a week on a more infrequent basis. A shopper serviceto Doncaster operates twice on a Tuesday. As a result, on the basis of the

information before me I cannot be sure that the services would offer a realisticconvenient alternative to the use of the private car.

15. A service operates from a bus stop on Blyth Road but would be about 825 m

away from the site. This would be significantly above the advice in thedocument Planning for Public Transport in Developments, Chartered Institution

of Highways & Transportation, 1999 which recommends that the maximumwalking distance to a bus stop should not exceed 400m and preferably be nomore than 300m. Accordingly, I do not find the limited public transport would

reduce dependency on the private car at the appeal proposal, particularly giventhe large scale of development proposed.

16. As a result of the restricted services available within the village, together withthe relatively limited access to public transport for all sectors of the

community, I consider that future residents are likely to be largely reliant onthe car. This is reflected in the village’s designation as a Rural Service Centresuitable only for limited rural growth. Policy CS8 of the Core Strategy suggests

that 599 houses should be accommodated within Rural Service Centres overthe plan period (2010-2028). In this respect part A (iii) of Policy DM4 of the

Core Strategy requires that major development proposals are of a scaleappropriate to the existing settlement and surrounding area and in line with thelevels of proposed growth for that settlement as set out in policies CS1-CS9.

41




17. Policy CS8 acknowledges that new development is likely to include greenfield

extensions, where no appropriate sites exist within the developmentboundaries. Nevertheless, this proposal would deliver approximately 20% of

the total housing requirement for the Rural Service Centres over the whole planperiod adjacent to only one Rural Service Centre within the District. The ParishCouncil suggest that the proposal, together with those schemes already

granted planning permission would result in the increase of the homes withinthe village by 33%. This is not disputed by the appellant and would be a

substantial amount, generating a significant level of car movements.

18. I appreciate that additional housing would help to support existing servicesand facilities in the village. However, there is no substantive evidence to show

that these are struggling. Moreover, it seems to me that the vitality of the community can be maintained with fewer new houses. Both on its own and

when taken in combination with the existing planning permissions, I consider that the appeal proposal would result in a disproportionate expansion to the village in population terms. In my opinion, concentrating so many houses in

this particular location with limited accessibility to services other than by the car would make them functionally isolated and undermine the aims of

paragraphs 7 and 17 of the Framework of locating new dwellings in rural areas close to services and facilities as a means of reducing unnecessary travel by car, with its associated carbon emissions, as one measure to cumulatively limit

the effects of climate change.

19. Whilst I recognise that there is generally a greater reliance on the private car in

more remote rural areas, it remains the case that there would be limitedsustainable transport choices available to enable future residents toconveniently access services and facilities. Leading on from this I do not

consider there to be special circumstances to justify the erection of isolateddwellings, including those cited in paragraph 55 of the Framework namely that

they would be essential for a rural worker; would secure the future of aheritage asset; would re-use a redundant or disused building or would be ofexceptional quality or design.

20. The Core Strategy identifies a strategy which relates to the relativelysustainable locations of the settlements across the area, so that the larger

settlements, with more facilities, are considered able to accommodate highernumbers of new housing. The limited range of facilities available in Ranskill,together with a lack of alternative transport choices, leads me to conclude that

it would not be a sustainable location to accommodate the number of housesproposed.

21. I have had regard to the requirements in relation to the appellant’s ResidentialTravel Plan 2016 (RTP) which forms one of the obligations within the UU.

While the initiatives to encourage pedestrians, cyclists and use of the busservices is welcomed, I have already found that such modes of transport areunlikely to be attractive to future residents to access their day to day services

and facilities due to specific site conditions and the limited available services.

22. I acknowledge that previous applications for housing, to which I have already

referred, have been granted planning permission by the Council whichconsidered Ranskill to be a sustainable location at that time. However, I notethat none of the four individual planning applications proposed more than 30

dwellings which is significantly fewer than the proposal before me now.

42




Furthermore, just because the previous applications for dwellings have been

found to be acceptable does not mean that there is an automatic case that additional dwellings would be equally appropriate. Taken to its logical

conclusion, such an argument could result in the unconstrained development of any given area.

23. For the reasons above therefore, I conclude that the development would not be

consistent with local and national policies relating to its countryside location.The development proposed would therefore be contrary to Policy CS1 and Part

A (iii) of Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 7, 17 and 55 of theFramework.

24. The Council also refers to Policy DM3 of the CS which refers to general

development in the countryside where the appeal site is located. There issome dispute as to whether the Policy is relevant to the appeal proposals. In

any case the wording is similar to that contained within paragraph 55 of theFramework against which I have assessed the proposal.

Character and appearance

25. Ranskill forms a relatively small village within a rural landscape. Mapsprovided by the appellant show its historical evolution from the origins around

the main crossroads in the village, with residential development extendingmainly to the north and east.

26. The appeal site is within the Idle Lowlands Policy Zone 10: Ranskill identified in

the Landscape Character Assessment – Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire, BassetlawDistrict Council, August 2009 (LCA). Characteristics of the area are generally

flat and low lying land with open views towards wooded skylines. I saw this tobe fairly representative of the area around Ranskill. The appeal site isgenerally flat, currently used for arable farmland and mainly enclosed by

hedges and a small number of trees. Its open, undeveloped nature contributesto the rural character of the area.

27. As part of the planning application process, the appellants submitted aLandscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2016(LVIA), which sets out adetailed analysis of landscape character and visual resources. The LVIA judged

the overall landscape effects of the proposed development on the immediatesurrounding area to be negligible due to the marginal degree of change and

therefore the integrity of the area would not be compromised. These findingshave not been disputed by the Council.

28. It is apparent from the evidence before me, and from my site visit that, given

the nature of the development proposed, namely the use of a greenfield site onthe edge of a settlement, it would be likely that the appearance of the area

would change. However, change does not equate necessarily to harm.

29. The proposal would clearly alter the character of the field, but would do so in a

manner not dissimilar to the estate immediately to the south of the appeal sitedeveloped in the 1980’s reflecting the historical evolution and form of thevillage to the north. The illustrative masterplan shows that development could

be set back from Folly Nook Lane and Great North Road, reflecting thecharacter of existing housing on these roads. Furthermore, existing hedgerows

would be maintained and reinforced and an area of public open space providedwithin the site incorporating sustainable urban drainage solutions. The LVIA

43




also confirms that internal tree planting would be carried out. While the

proposal is in outline form many of these features could be secured by the imposition of a suitably worded condition if the proposal was otherwise

acceptable.

30. The Council refer to the provision of two, and two and a half, storey dwellingshaving an impact on the northern access to the village. However, I saw that

some properties on Arundel Drive have two storeys. While two and a halfstorey dwellings may be higher, they would not be significantly so. In any case

the precise details of the size and form of the dwellings would be for futureconsideration by the Council.

31. As a result, views into the site when approaching from the north would be very

similar to those existing. As such, I am satisfied that the proposeddevelopment would not appear incongruous or out of keeping with the

character and appearance of Ranskill and would represent an appropriateextension to the village in this respect.

32. As part of the LCA’s aims to conserve and reinforce the open rural character of

the landscape, it recommends that new development should be concentratedaround the existing settlement of Ranskill and along the A638 Great North

Road. This reinforces my views that the character and appearance of the areawould not be materially harmed due to the proposal.

33. For the reasons above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be

materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area. There would,therefore be no conflict with part A (ii) and Part B of Policy DM4 of the Core

Strategy. These require that development complements and enhances thecharacter of the built, historic and natural environment and respect its widersurroundings.

Other matters

34. Reference is made to the Initial draft Bassetlaw Local Plan which was published

for consultation in late 2016, together with the Ranskill Neighbourhood Plan.However, both documents are at a very early stage of preparation andtherefore in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework I have given

them very limited weight in my consideration.

35. The appellant refers to appeal decision APP/A3010/W/15/3005580 which was

allowed for the residential development at Beckingham also designated a RuralService Centre. I note though that Beckingham has a wider range of facilitiesincluding a village store and post office together with a village hall, than

Ranskill. Furthermore, the proposal was only for 38 dwellings significantly lessthan proposed in this appeal. From the limited information before me therefore

I do not consider that the proposals are directly comparable. In any case Ihave determined the appeal based on its own merits.

36. Whilst I have some sympathy for the Appellant regarding pre-applicationadvice provided by the Council which may have indicated that the proposalwould be acceptable in terms of its location and character and appearance, it is

clearly stated in the correspondence that the advice is informal and does notprejudice the Council’s decision on a subsequent planning application. In any

event, it falls to me to assess the merits of the proposal.

44




Planning Balance and Conclusion

37. There would be economic benefits of the scheme both while the houses werebeing constructed and resulting from future residents using the limited local

facilities contributing to the local economy. However, given that the economicbenefits related to construction would be temporary and that I have found thatit is likely that residents would be largely reliant on the car to access services

outwith the village, it is likely that many of the economic benefits would bereceived outside of Ranskill.

38. There would be some minor ecological enhancement together with theprovision of some public open space, albeit in association with the provisions ofSustainable Urban Drainage Scheme which can be afforded modest weight.

The lack of harm to the character and appearance of the area is neutral withinthe planning balance.

39. It is proposed that 25% of the houses would be affordable, as required byPolicy CS8 of the Core Strategy. Given that there is a pressing need foraffordable housing across the district as a whole, then this would be a benefit

of the scheme.

40. As the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, then

the relevant policies for the supply of housing land cannot be considered up-to-date. In these circumstances, and in relation to decision taking, paragraph 14of the Framework advises that permission should be granted unless any

adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh thebenefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a

whole, or specified policies in the Framework indicate that development shouldbe restricted.

41. I therefore give limited weight to Policies CS1, CS8 and part A iii of Policy DM4,

in so much as it relates to Policy CS8, of the Core Strategy, and thus, theprovision of 130 houses would contribute towards helping address the identified

significant undersupply of housing. However, I have found that Ranskill wouldnot be an accessible location to accommodate the proposed number of housesincluding affordable homes. As a result, the benefit in addressing the five year

housing land supply would be limited and the proposal would not accord withthe social and environmental roles of planning. I give this considerable weight

in my decision.

42. All in all, I consider that the totality of the harm that would be a consequenceof the significant adverse impacts I have identified would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits referred to above when assessedagainst the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole. Therefore, the

proposal does not constitute sustainable development for which the Frameworkcarries a presumption in favour. For this reason, and having regard to all other

matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Zoe Raygen

INSPECTOR

45


PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 30th November 2016 at Worksop Town Hall

Present:

Councillor H Richards (Chair) Councillors S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, G A N Oxby, D G Pidwell, M W Quigley MBE, M Richardson, S Scotthorne, A K Smith and T Taylor.

Officers in attendance: C Crossland, F Dunning, J Elliott, M Freeman and S Wormald.

(Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.)

(The Chair welcomed all to the meeting, read out the Fire Evacuation Procedure, and also enquired as to whether any member of the public wished to film the meeting or any part thereof, this was not taken up)


Apologies for absence were received from Councillor H Burton.


(a) Members

Councillor K H Isard declared a non-pecuniary interest in application 16/00725/FUL as the applicants company has supported past projects in Tuxford. He left the meeting during the Item.

(b) Officers


31. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2ND NOVEMBER 2016

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2nd November 2016 be approved.

32. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 17TH

OCTOBER AND 7TH NOVEMBER 2016

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 17th October and 7th November 2016 be received.

33. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes be received.


Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

Agenda Item No.6(b)(i) Appendix

47

34. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION

(a) Public Interest Test

The Head of Regeneration had deemed that all Items on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature.

(b) Appeal Decisions Received

Members were presented with two appeals decisions.

RESOLVED that the Appeal Decisions be received.

(c) Planning Applications and Associated Items


16/01166/OUT SP Scholey and the executors to W A Scholey

Outline planning application with some matters reserved, approval being sought for access, for residential development, land north of Arundel Drive and east of Great North Road, Ranskill

Members were advised that the application sought outline planning permission for a residential development with some matters reserved. The applicant has provided an illustrative layout showing 130 dwellings. The site is located outside of the Ranskill development boundary as defined in the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework.

The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Slides were used to show the site location.

Members were advised that late comments had been received from Severn Trent raising no objection and the Council’s Parks Officer requesting money in lieu of open space provision. A letter and email received from Ranskill Parish Council had been circulated Members.

The Principal Planner advised of an error in the report. An education contribution of £309,285 has been requested.

A summary of responses from statutory bodies was given. 45 letters of objection from local residents had been received and a petition with 76 signatures. A letter from the County Councillor and local Member of Parliament objecting to the application has also been received.

In terms of planning considerations Members were advised that the site is outside but adjacent the development boundary. The Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing therefore there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is located in a sustainable location on the edge of Ranskill and is considered acceptable in principle.

Councillor A Cooke spoke in objection on behalf of Ranskill Parish Council he advised that:

Ranskill Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Planning Group are not against some newhousing in the village, they appreciate that there has to be some however they do not wantoverdevelopment that will detract from the character of the village.

Traffic is an issue and there are already issues in the area. The local Member ofParliament has recognised the problem and held a meeting regarding the concerns.

Access on Great North Road would be dangerous. A ground survey is needed as there is ground movement in the village.

48

A sink hole has opened up in the past on Great North Road suggesting a fault line on theapplication site. A detailed investigation is needed.

The Bassetlaw Plan states that no single development should increase the number ofdwellings in a village by 10% or more. There are around 600 dwellings currently inRanskill, this application would increase the number by over 20% and there are otherplanned developments.

Residents do not want to lose the character of the village. The site would be overdeveloped.

(Councillor M W Quigley joined the meeting during Mr Cookes’ objection)

Councillor M T Gray, ward Member for Ranskill, spoke in objection to the application. He advised that the local County Councillor also objects to the application and has commented on the size of the development and impact on the village environment. The development will attract families however there is no capacity at the school. The additional traffic is a concern and the five way bottle neck will be exacerbated. Planning policy talks about raising the quality of life in rural areas, he questioned if this application would do that. He advised that despite development in the village there is still no village hall. He commented that if the application was granted that money could maybe be set aside for a village hall.

Mr C Darley spoke on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is a local family and a significant local employer. He advised that:

Concerns have been addressed in the Committee report. All technical consultees have supported the application. The site is not an area at risk of

flooding, there are no nearby listed buildings, the site is not within a conservation area,there are no protected trees on the site and there are no wider ecology issues.

The site is close walking distance to bus stops and there is a good bus service. The shop, pub and chip shop are in walking distance from the site. New residents would help to sustain facilities in the village. The application would contribute to addressing the Council’s five year housing land supply

shortfall. 25% of the dwellings would be affordable homes for local people. The scheme would make a contribution to improving the children’s play area. CIL will be payable and could be used locally for a village hall. The development is sustainable.

Elected Members asked questions/ commented in relation to:

The Council’s current position of its current five year supply of housing land. What ground investigations have been carried out in relation to subsidence? Villages in Bassetlaw are being destroyed. The number of dwellings in the village would increase by 20% from one application. The site is outside of the development boundary. 25% affordable housing would bring younger people back to the village and help them get

onto the property ladder. The significant impact on the local community. Ranskill Neighbourhood Plan. The possibility of a village hall. Library contributions. The excellent quality of officer reports and their professionalism.

49

In response to questions raised regarding subsidence, Members were advised that a geotechnical report has not been submitted as part of the outline planning application. If planning permission is approved it would be in the developers interest to undertake an assessment. The developer would have three years to submit details which could include a geotechnical report prior to commencement of development. The developer may share the outcome of the surveys as part of the siting of the dwellings.

In relation to affordable housing there is a range of housing that is classed as affordable. The Council’s Strategic Housing Manager would recommend the best form of affordable housing for the site.

The Ranskill Neighbourhood Plan was designated in March 2016. The draft is in the process of being produced therefore at this stage has little or no weight.

The Development Team Manager advised that a contribution towards a village hall would not be possible as part of the S106 obligations. It could be possible to use CIL money from the developer towards a village hall.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and the conditions as circulated.

Voting for taking this course of action:

FOR Councillors G Freeman, D G Pidwell, H Richards, M Richardson and S Scotthorne AGAINST Councillors S Fielding, K H Isard, G A N Oxby, M W Quigley, A Smith and T Taylor. ABSTAINED None.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

The size and scale of the development and the impact on the character of the village. The site is outside of the development boundary. Over intensification of the site.

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

(Councillor K H Isard left the meeting)


16/00725/FUL Walker & Son (Hauliers) Ltd

Land north east of Shireoaks Road, Worksop

The application sought full planning permission for 80 dwellings on the former Dormer Tools site. All former buildings on the site have been demolished. The site had been subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Slides were used to show the site location.

The proposal consists of 8 four bedroomed houses, 28 three bedroomed houses, 40 two bedroomed dwellings, including 27 bungalows, and 4 one bedroom dwellings (apartments). The site is accessed from the existing access onto Shireoaks Road.

The site is within the development boundary for Worksop. Immediately adjoining the site to the north is a designated Local Wildlife Site and also Ancient Woodland. The trees to the south of the site are covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

50

The requirement to protect existing or vacant former employment sites for economic development purposes has been addressed previously with the extant planning permission on site granted in September for residential development.

A summary of responses from statutory bodies was given. Rhodesia Parish Council have expressed their disappointment that no senior citizen proprieties are included in the development. A letter has been received from the neighbouring business raising concerns in relation to the impact of associated noise and HGV movements on the potential residential dwellings. Members were advised that a number of conditions are proposed to address concerns.

A summary of the S106 obligations was given. The applicant has agreed the travel plan review contribution but in terms of public transport no contribution is offered as it is felt that the site is sustainable and accessible with bus stops at the entrance.

The applicant has submitted a viability assessment that demonstrates that it is not viable to deliver affordable housing. An overage clause is proposed after the sale of the dwellings so that any additional profits are shared with the developer and the Council.

Members were advised that some of the layout and design does not meet the minimum requirements in terms of amenity space but on balance is considered acceptable.

The application proposes open space to provide a buffer to the adjoining woodland. A condition is proposed to protect the trees during construction.

Elected Members asked questions/ commented in relation to education provision, school expansion and the impact of the development on the neighbouring businesses operations. Members commented that it was good to see a mix of units and in particular bungalows.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION – Grant subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement, the conditions included within the Committee report, the additional conditions as circulated and the amendment of Condition 14 to read:

14. Before development commences, a noise survey shall be undertaken to identify existingnoise levels on the boundaries of the site and any remediation necessary to provideadequate amenity to the residents of the proposed development. The survey shall beagreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and any remediation necessary shall becarried out before the occupation of the dwelling to which it relates.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the proposed dwellings.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Grant subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement, the conditions included within the Committee report, the additional conditions as circulated and the amendment of Condition 14 to read:

14. Before development commences, a noise survey shall be undertaken to identify existingnoise levels on the boundaries of the site and any remediation necessary to provideadequate amenity to the residents of the proposed development. The survey shall beagreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and any remediation necessary shall becarried out before the occupation of the dwelling to which it relates.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the proposed dwellings.

SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None.

51

Other Decisions

None.


As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chair closed the meeting.

(Meeting closed at 7.35pm.)

52

PLANNING COMMITTEE

8th November 2017

INFORMATION REPORT


17/00150/RSB Mr Paul Austin

Appeal against refusal of planning permission to erect four bedroom house with garage and new access at Rowan House, The Crescent, Retford


The Inspector considered the main issue in this case was the effect of the loss of two poplar trees that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order would have on the character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector is of the opinion that the high prominence of the two trees make a significant contribution to the verdant character and appearance of the area and their loss would cause significant harm, contrary to policy DM9 which seeks to protect green infrastructure.

The Inspector concluded that the benefits identified would be outweighed by the adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore contrary to the relevant legislation and policies and fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area.

Copies of the Inspector’s decision letter follows this report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

FINALISED DECISION LEVEL: Delegated

Agenda Item No.6(b)(ii)

53


Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 October 2017

by I Radcliffe BSc(Hons) MRTPI MCIEH DMS


Decision date: 27 October 2017


Rowan House, The Crescent, Retford, Nottinghamshire DN22 7BX


against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr Paul Austin against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.

The application Ref 17/00150/RSB, dated 31 January 2017, was refused by notice dated

10 May 2017.

The development proposed is a four bedroom house with garage and new accesses.

Decision


Main Issue

2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect that the loss of the two poplar trees

that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order would have on the character andappearance of the area.

Reasons

3. The appeal site is located within the development boundary for Retford whichhas a wide range of services and facilities. As a result, residential development

is acceptable in principle.

4. The Crescent is characterised by substantial detached Victorian dwellings set in

spacious plots with mature verdant landscaping within the front and reargardens. Although Rowan House is a more recent dwelling, in layout, scale andlandscaping it is in keeping with the pattern of surrounding development. It is

common ground that the proposed house in terms of its design would be inkeeping with neighbouring development. I have no reason to disagree with

that assessment.

5. The rear boundary to Rowan House’s back garden is along Westfield Road.

Along this boundary, towards its northern end within the appeal site, are twomature poplar trees that are protected by a tree preservation order. Their tallheight, good form and prominent position in relation to Westfield Road mean

that they make an important contribution to the verdant character of the area.As a result, they are of high amenity value. It is common ground that the two

trees are in good health and that the third tree that would be removed, aRobinia (T3), is not worthy of retention and is of little amenity value. I agreewith that assessment. The Council’s tree officer considers that the poplar trees

will continue to contribute positively to the area for twenty years, or more, andI see no good reason to disagree with that assessment.

55




6. The proposed dwelling would sit within the back garden along its rear boundary

and face Westfield Road. Its construction would necessitate removal of one ofthe two trees (T1). The footprint of the proposed house extends several

metres into the root protection area of the second tree (T2). As a result, evenif the second tree could be retained during construction of the proposed house,given how close it would be to the new dwelling the Council would find it very

difficult to resist pressure for its felling.

7. Given the high prominence of these two trees, which make a significant

contribution to the verdant character and appearance of the area, the loss ofthese two trees would cause significant harm.

8. The submitted site plan indicates that three replacement trees of two different

species would be planted. The appellant proposes that they would be of asemi-mature type so that they would more quickly contribute to the character

and appearance of the area. However, these trees would be located at the rearof the appeal site at the furthest point away from Westfield Road, rather thannext to this road as with the poplars, and the new house would be located

between the new trees and the road. Consequently, the new trees would befar less prominent in public views. As a result, I am not persuaded that they

would adequately compensate for the loss of the poplars.

9. The poplars are of an age where parts of the trees may begin to fall off.However, regular cleaning out of their crowns by a tree surgeon would prevent

the unexpected fall of dead wood whilst retaining much of the trees amenityvalue. If branches were to fall the trees are located sufficiently far away from

Rowan House for it not to be damaged.

10. Reference has also been made to minor leaning of the tall rear boundary wall.This is apparent at its southern end furthest away from the trees. By the trees

the wall appears to be vertical and is generally in good condition with brickbuttresses within the garden supporting the wall. Given that the trees are

mature they are unlikely to grow much further and apply additional pressure onthe wall. As a result, I find that there is insufficient evidence that the trees aredestabilising the wall and need to be felled on safety grounds.

11. Taking all these matters into account, I therefore find that the proposeddevelopment in resulting in the loss of the two poplar trees would be contrary

to policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy which seeks to protect greeninfrastructure. It would also be contrary to a core planning principle of theNational Planning Policy Framework which aims to conserve and enhance the

natural environment.

Planning balance and overall conclusion

12. The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development.The policies of the Framework as a whole constitute the Government’s view of

what sustainable development means in practice. There are three dimensionsto sustainable development: social, environmental and economic.

13. The appellant states that the Council does not have a five year housing land

supply and that the supply amounts to 2.5 years. This has not been challengedby the Council. On this basis, a significant undersupply of housing exists in the

District. In such circumstances, paragraph 49 of the Framework advises thatrelevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up todate. Policy DM9 in seeking to protect green infrastructure functions to restrict

the location of housing and so is such a policy. However, this does not mean

56




that the policy no longer applies. In seeking to conserve and enhance the

natural environment in accordance with a core planning principle of the Framework, I attach significant weight to it.

14. Where relevant policies are out of date, the tilted balance in paragraph 14 ofthe Framework applies. The development would make a contribution, albeitvery small, towards the provision of new housing in an accessible location at a

time of need. This would be of modest benefit socially. However, thesignificant harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the

area through the loss of two fine trees would conflict with the environmentaldimension to sustainable development. Economically, the scheme wouldgenerate some construction employment, although by its nature this benefit

would be short lived.

15. The proposed development would result in some social and economic benefits

which I have described above. However, the harm that would be caused to thecharacter and appearance of the area through loss of the poplar trees on thesite is a significant concern. The adverse impacts in this regard would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed againstthe policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal would therefore

not represent sustainable development. In the circumstances of this appeal,material considerations therefore do not justify making a decision other than inaccordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal

should be dismissed.

Ian Radcliffe

Inspector

57


PLANNING COMMITTEE

8th November 2017

INFORMATION REPORT


16/01662/FUL Mr & Mrs S Bolland

Appeal against refusal of retention of boundary walls including lowering of certain walls at Home Farm, Clayworth Road, Wiseton.


The Inspector considered the main issue in this case was whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wiseton and Drakeholes Conservation Area.

The Inspector is of the opinion that the boundary walls, even with the reduced height, would give a fortified and austere appearance to the site. The buildings contained by the boundary walls are of a domestic scale or typical agricultural structures. The substantial form of the walls would appear out of proportion with what they enclose. The proximity of the buildings to the walls would emphasise this uncomfortable relationship, which would further add to the incongruity of the walls and give an overly domineering appearance.

The Inspector concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the relevant legislation and policies and fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The harm to the significance of the designated asset is of considerable weight and importance and is not outweighed by any benefits.




Agenda Item No.6(b)(iii)

59


Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2017

by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI


Decision date: 6th October 2017


Home Farm, Clayworth Road, Wiseton, Nottinghamshire DN10 5AF


against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs S Bolland against the decision of Bassetlaw District

Council.

The application Ref 16/01662/FUL, dated 25 November 2016, was refused by notice

dated 20 January 2017.

The development was originally described as ‘retention of boundary walls including

lowering of certain walls after consultation with Planning Authority’.

Decision


Procedural Matters

2. The plans that were dealt with by the Council and submitted with the appealshow a reduction in height in some parts of the boundary walls that have been

constructed, as well as the retention in height of other parts. Accordingly, Ihave determined the appeal on that basis.

Main Issue

3. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance thecharacter or appearance of the Wiseton and Drakeholes Conservation Area.

Reasons

4. The appeal site comprises a large u-shape of buildings that are in residential

use, together with various associated outbuildings and structures, externalstorage, and a ménage. It is enclosed by the boundary walls subject of thisappeal, as well as by other forms of enclosure. The site is found approximately

500m south of Clayworth Road and approximately 1km from Wiseton village.It is located in countryside and in a relatively open landscape interspersed with

areas of woodland.

5. With regard to the appeal proposal, a boundary wall extends down asubstantial part of the north-west boundary of the site from near to the

ménage to abut the residence, with a further short section sited beyond. Thiswall is of a height of roughly up to 3.5m, although under the proposal this

height is due to be reduced. This wall contains an opening which is proposedto contain a sliding gate, and it also contains a further smaller gate. On theopposite side of the site, a boundary wall runs from near to an animal pen to

61




the main entrance to the residence, which is to be retained at its current

height. The main entrance comprises of a substantial curved wall and gated arrangement. Beyond this entrance, there is a further short section of wall

which is to be reduced in height. The walls are constructed of reclaimed red brick and contain decorative piers and coursing.

6. The Conservation Area forms broadly the estate of the former Wiseton Hall and

contains a pleasing character principally of a low density development offarmland, agricultural uses, parkland, as well as the estate village at Wiseton.

The site is historically linked to the estate as a former associated farm holding.Much of the boundary enclosure in the Conservation Area is relatively informal,with use of hedgerows, post and rail, and decorative chain link fencing, and

this contributes to its significance. Wiseton Hall does contain red brickboundary walls.

7. The boundary walls, even with the proposed reductions in height, would besubstantial structures of some bulk and height that would continue to extenddown much of the north-west and south-east boundaries of the site. They

would give a fortified and austere appearance to the site that would not be inkeeping with its more open surroundings, or the predominant forms of

boundary enclosure in the Conservation Area.

8. The buildings that the boundary walls contain are on a domestic scale or aretypical agricultural type structures. The substantial form of the walls would

appear out of proportion with what they enclose. The proximity of thebuildings to wall would emphasise this uncomfortable relationship. This would

further add to the incongruity of the walls, and give an overly domineeringappearance.

9. With regard to the materials, whilst they are reflective of the built form of the

Conservation Area, they are not the predominate material in boundaryenclosure, and nor do they address my concerns over the height and extent of

the walls. The lack of wider visibility of walls, including from public vantagepoints, does not substantially lessen the level of protection which is afforded bythe location of the site within a Conservation Area.

10. The walls at Wiseton Hall are well separated from the buildings they containand their immediate surroundings so as to give less of a domineering

appearance. Moreover, Wiseton Hall and the associated buildings were clearlyon a grander scale than the appeal site, and the extent and size of the walls atWiseton Hall reflect this. This is not a characteristic which is shared by the

appeal site, as a farm holding which related to the estate.

11. The appellants have stated that they are prepared to alter the facade and

reduce the height of the walls further by removing the external piers. Whilstthese plans were not subsequently submitted and are therefore not before me

for consideration, even if this was the case, I am not persuaded this wouldaddress the harm I have identified because the piers are well spaced out andas it would only result in a reduction in height at the locations along the walls

where the piers are found.

12. The statutory duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) is of considerable weight andimportance. I conclude the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance thecharacter or appearance of the Conservation Area. This failure and the

62




resulting harm to the significance of the heritage asset are of considerable

weight and importance. Similarly, I also conclude the proposal would not comply with Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework Core

Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2011) which states that there will be a presumption against development that will be detrimental to the significance of a heritage asset, and that

development that is of an inappropriate scale, design or material will not be supported.

13. The proposal would also not comply with paragraph 131 of the NationalPlanning Policy Framework (Framework) as it would not make a positivecontribution to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 132 and 137 are

also clear, respectively, that when considering the impact of a proposal on thesignificance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the

asset’s conservation, and that opportunities for new development withinConservation Areas should be sought to enhance or better reveal theirsignificance. The harm that I have identified means the proposal would also

not comply with the Framework in these respects. I do not find any undueconflict with paragraph 128 as the appellants have broadly described the

significance of the asset, although this does not alter my conclusions.

14. Paragraphs 132 to 134 of the Framework also allow for public benefits to bebalanced against the harm to designated heritage assets. Crime prevention

can be considered a public benefit, and the appellants have stated that the sitehas been subject of a number of break-ins, which have been reported and

recorded by the police, of which the site’s isolated location is a contributoryfactor. I have no evidence before me though on the effectiveness of lessintrusive forms of security and I did note from my site visit that there appeared

to be a number of other security measures, including the use of a security firm.I am thus not convinced that the harm to the heritage asset is outweighed by

the proposal providing a deterrent against crime, nor that the heritage asset isthat at such a risk that there is an over-riding requirement for the proposal.

15. The appellants have also cited privacy and protection from adjacent land uses

as part of the justification for the proposal. These are largely personal benefits,though. Overall, the benefits would not outweigh the harm.

Other Matters

16. The proposal is well separated from the Dairy at Home Farm, which is a gradeII listed building that lies to the north of the site. It therefore preserves the

setting of the listed building and accords with the statutory duty under Section66 (1) of the Act. This does not however address the conflict with the statutory

duty under Section 72(1) of the Act.

Conclusion

17. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance ofthe Conservation Area. The harm to the significance of the designated asset isnot outweighed by the benefits. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be

dismissed.

Darren Hendley

INSPECTOR

63


PLANNING COMMITTEE,

8th November 2017

INFORMATION REPORT


17/00328/VOC Mr D Bower Appeal against refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A for the development of land without complying with the conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted for the erection of a building and change of use of land to create a firewood processing facility at Hillcrest farm, Town Street, Treswell. The condition in dispute no.5 states that no processing of firewood shall be carried out outside the confines of the building.


The Inspector considered the main issue in this case was the effect that varying the condition in the manner sought would have on the living conditions of the neighbours with regard to smoke and associated odour.

The Inspector concluded that changing condition 5 to allow the log dryer unit and biomass boiler to remain in place would continue the unacceptable harm that has been caused to the living conditions of nearby residents.




Agenda Item No.6(b)(iv)

65


Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 October 2017

by I Radcliffe BSc(Hons) MRTPI MCIEH DMS


Decision date: 23rd October 2017


Hillcrest Farm, Town Street, Treswell, Nottinghamshire DN22 0EG


against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with

conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.

The appeal is made by Mr D Bower against the decision of Bassetlaw District Council.

The application Ref 17/00328/VOC, dated 1 March 2017, was refused by notice dated

27 April 2017.

The application sought planning permission for the erection of a building and change of

use of land to create a firewood processing facility without complying with a condition

attached to planning permission Ref 12/01487/FUL, dated 20 February 2013.

The condition in dispute is No 5 which states that: No processing of firewood shall be

carried out outside the confines of the building(s) on the site, unless otherwise agreed

in writing with the District Planning Authority.

The reason given for the condition is: To safeguard the amenities of dwellings located in

the vicinity of the application site.

Decision


Main Issue

2. A log dryer unit heated by a biomass boiler located outdoors on the appeal siteforms part of the firewood production process. This is contrary to condition 5

of the planning permission which requires that processing takes place insidebuildings on the site. The appellant seeks to alter the condition to allow the log

dryer unit and biomass boiler to be retained in place. If the appeal is alloweda new permission would be created with condition 5 altered in the mannerdescribed.

3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect that varying the condition in themanner sought would have on the living conditions of neighbours with regard

to smoke and associated odour.

Reasons

4. The appeal site is located on the western edge of Treswell which is a small rural

village. Dwellings are located nearby to the south and east. The biomassboiler is located within the yard to the business. It is fuelled by the burning of

wood and has a 10m tall flue. Since it was installed in 2016 there have beencomplaints from local residents regarding smoke and ash from the boiler.

5. The appellant fitted catalytic converters to address this problem and a 10m tall

flue. The Council’s Environmental Health Service states that there is very

67




limited literature that catalytic converters are effective on larger boilers. This

has not been refuted by the appellant. Indeed the appellant notes that the converters only work between certain temperatures. Therefore, the

effectiveness of catalytic converters in reducing smoke and associated odour is questionable and there are periods during the operation of the boiler that the catalytic converters do not work. Tar build up on the catalytic converters from

the burning of fuel also reduces their efficiency. Under certain weather conditions the Council states that smoke from the flue fails to dissipate and

collects at ground level. Furthermore, in order to refuel the boiler its door is opened three times a day. At such times at ground level smoke from the boiler also escapes. This would appear to explain why despite these measures the

Council’s Environmental Health Service was satisfied that smoke from the boiler amounted to a statutory nuisance and a notice was served requiring its

abatement.

6. The installation of an electrostatic smoke precipitator has been proposed by theappellant. However, the view of the Council is that whilst this may be an

effective means of reducing smoke levels it is unlikely to address smoke odour.In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I therefore find that the

addition of an electrostatic precipitator is unlikely to reduce levels of smokeand associated odour to the extent that they would not demonstrably harm theliving conditions of nearby residents.

7. Taking all these matters into account, I therefore conclude that changingcondition 5 to allow the log dryer unit and biomass boiler to remain in place

would continue the unacceptable harm that has been caused to the livingconditions of nearby residents. This would be contrary to policy DM1 of theBassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development

Plan Document which, whilst supportive of the diversification of agriculturalbusinesses, requires that significant environmental problems are not caused.

It would also be contrary to a core planning principle of the National PlanningPolicy Framework. It advises in relation to decision taking that a goodstandard of amenity should always be sought for occupants of land and

buildings.

8. Condition 5 complies with the tests of paragraph 206 of the National Planning

Policy Framework and the advice of Planning Practice Guidance on the use ofconditions.

Conclusion

9. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, Itherefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Ian Radcliffe

Inspector

68


BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL INDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 08.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________________

Sheet No.

Ref No. Applicant Location Recom. Decision

A1 14/00503/OUT Linden Limited Land West of tiln Lane, Retford.

Outline Application for the Erection of upto 175 Dwellings Including Public Open Space, Attenuation Drainage Basin and Associated Works.

A2 16/01365/VPO4 Wildgoose Construction

Land To The North Of Station Road, Beckingham.

Application to Modify Affordable Housing Contribution Requirement of the Section 106 Agreement for Planning Application 14/01369/OUT

A3 16/01372/VPO4 Wildgoose Construction

Land off Station Road, Beckingham.

Application to Modify Affordable Housing Contribution Requirement of the Section 106 Agreement for Planning Application 14/00630/OUT

Refuse

Agree

Agree

Agenda Item No.6(c)

Pages 71 - 92

Pages 93 - 98

Pages 99 - 104

69

Item No: a1

Application No: 14/00503/OUT Application Type:

Outline Planning Application

Proposal Outline Application for the Erection of up to 175 Dwellings Including Public Open Space, Attenuation Drainage Basin and Associated Works

Location

Recommendation

Land West of Tiln Lane, Retford.

Refuse

Case Officer:

Weblink:

Mandy Freeman

Link to Planning Documents

Tel No:

01909 533259

___________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICATION

The application is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved, for the erection of up to 175 dwellings, including open space, attenuation drainage basin and associated works. The site covers approximately 6.43 hectares.

This site is located to the North of Retford. It is a greenfield site, adjoining a residential estate to the south, and is currently used for agricultural purposes. The land is grade 2 agricultural land. To the north and east the site is bound by fields and farmsteads (one of which, is listed (Moorgate Farm House). To the east is the functional floodplain of the river Idle on the opposite site of Bolham Lane. The southern boundary is formed by gardens to the rear of properties on Badgers Chase.

The site is located outside, but adjoining, the Development Boundary of Retford as identified in the Adopted Proposals Map for the Bassetlaw Development Plan.

This application was previously considered at Planning Committee on 1 October 2014 where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement to secure: 1. The provision of 25% affordable housing on site with at least 70% of these should be

social/affordable rented shall be transferred to a registered housing provider.2. The provision of a LEAP with 5 pieces of play equipment and measures to secure it's

transfer to the Bassetlaw District Council with a future maintenance payment of£12,642.40.

3. The provision of £70,000 towards signal improvements at 3 existing junctions at:a. A620 Moorgate/Amcott Way/Arlington Way junctionb. A620 Amcott Way/Morrisonsc. A638 Arlington Way/Chapelgate/Spital Hill

4. £13,200 towards bus stop improvements to BA0134 on Richmond Road5. up to £130,000 in order to fund the additional cost in public transport provision6. £3,432 for the monitoring of the approved Travel Plan7. education contribution towards additional school places, the actual number and

details to be reviewed at reserved matters stage based on Nottinghamshire CountyCouncil's formula of £ per child

8. contribution towards library provision based on Nottinghamshire County Council'sstock figure of 1,532 items per 1,000 population at a cost of £10.53 per item (on thebasis of 175 dwellings at an average 2.4 persons per dwelling = 420 people, therequired contribution would be 420 people x 1.532 items per person x £10.53 =£6775).

71

http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=N46N93CSKVE00

http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=N46N93CSKVE00

VIABILITY HISTORY The application was due to be reported to Planning Committee on 4th January 2017 after an initial review of the applicant’s viability assessment by the District Valuer. The applicant and District Valuer have been unable to agree on the viability assessment estimates and assumptions. As there was significant difference between the figures of the applicant and District Valuer, Members deferred the application to allow further independent assessment of the viability before re-presenting to Planning Committee. The viability assessment has now been subject to a further independent assessment. The application has also been considered at Planning Consultation Group on 2 February 2015 to change the wording slightly to conditions 3, 4, 8, 15 and the addition of condition 18 separating out wheel washing requirements and 16 February 2015 where a further amendment to the condition 8 wording was agreed. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Part 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the Government is committed to securing sustainable economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity. It also reinforces the position that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Of particular relevance are paragraphs, 14, 47 and 49 which set out if the approach local authorities should adopt in the absence of a 5 year supply of land for housing. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF also indicates that account should be taken of the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. Paragraph 205 of the NPPF indicates that where obligations are beings ought or reviewed , account should be taken of changes in market conditions over time and, where appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. Planning Practice Guidance also gives advice on viability and decision taking and indicates that where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations. Policy CS1 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework 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. In addition, it states that over the plan period, additional permission may be granted where the development proposal would benefit in addressing a shortfall in the District's five-year housing supply or its employment land supply. Policy CS3 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework identifies Retford as a Core Service Centre and states that all housing development resulting in a net gain of one or more units, will be required to contribute towards the achievement of an affordable housing target of at least 25% for Retford.

72

Policy DM4 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that all major development proposals will need to demonstrate that they make clear functional and physical links with the existing settlement and surrounding area; complement and enhance the character of the built, historic and natural environment; are of a scale appropriate to the existing settlement and surrounding area and provide a qualitative improvement to the existing range of houses, services, facilities and open space. Policy DM8 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that the historic environment shall be protected and enhanced to secure its long term future and that any development that would be detrimental to the significance of the heritage asset or its setting, will not be supported. This is reiterated in paragraph 132 of Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that any harm or loss to heritage assets should require clear and convincing justification Policy DM9 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework 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, protect green infrastructure assets and demonstrate that they will not adversely affect or result in the loss of features of recognised importance. Policy DM11 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Frameworks 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. In addition it states that 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. Policy DM12 'Flood Risk, Sewerage and Drainage' of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Polices DPD indicates that all new development will be required to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) and provide details of adoption, ongoing maintenance and management unless other key factors show them not to be technically feasible. Policy DM13 of the Bassetlaw Local Development Framework states that development proposals will be expected to, minimise the need to travel by car, provide linkages or develop new footways, cycle paths and bridleways giving access to key local facilities and provide appropriate facilities to support access to high quality public transport. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN STATUS There is no designated neighbourhood plan in this locality. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 14/00281/SCR - A screening opinion was issued in relation to residential development on this site on 4 April 2014. This concluded that an Environmental Impact Assessment will not be required to accompany any planning application.

73

RESPONSE OF STATUTORY BODIES BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL'S PLANNING POLICY TEAM has previously commented as follows: NPPF Paragraph 47 states that to boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should identify sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing this buffer should be increased to 20%. The NPPF also states in Paragraph 49, that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The council's current Five Year Supply Statement (published 26 August 2014) shows that there is a significant shortfall in the district's five-year housing land supply. Adopted Core Strategy Policy CS1 supports additional permissions outside development boundaries when doing so would help to address a shortfall in the District's five year housing supply. Under paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF, current housing policies should not be considered up-to-date when a full five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, housing applications should be determined under the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless the adverse impacts of doing so outweigh the benefits, or the land is restricted/protected from development, in accordance with the policies of the NPPF. Although this site is not a preferred site identified in the Preferred Options Site Allocations consultation document its development must be considered in the light of the council's current five-year housing supply. As a full five year supply with a necessary buffer cannot be demonstrated at this time, this outline proposal must be regarded as being consistent with Core Strategy Policy CS1 and the NPPF, which emphasises the need to significantly boost the supply of housing in the area when it is in a sustainable location. The proposed residential development of this site would be of a benefit in helping to meet the current shortfall in Bassetlaw's five year supply. NPPF Paragraph 14 promotes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under this presumption, when a development plan is out of date, i.e. in terms of its five year supply of deliverable housing, the NPPF recommends the granting of planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF. Therefore any relevant material planning considerations or impacts of this development must the weighed against the requirement to meet the five year housing supply. If outline permission is granted, any subsequent reserved matters application(s) must take into account the requirements of the Residential Design SPD - Successful Places. In particular the applicants must be able to demonstrate how they have approached the design and layout of the site and how they have considered the key stages of the design process as set out in the SPD. As the site is located within a 'conserve' landscape character area, if permission is granted the design of the site must comply with section C of Core Strategy Policy DM9: Green infrastructure: Biodiversity & Geodiveristy; Landscape; Open Space & Sports Facilities. To meet this, the design of the site must meet the requirements of the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment's recommendations for the Idle Lowlands Policy Zone 8 to ensure its development does not undermine the landscape value of the wider area

74

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY has previously commented as follows: Junction Modelling The Transport Assessment (TA) NTT2053 TA Rev 4 submitted with the application only considers the measures and infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the direct transport impacts of this development after allowing for known committed developments. No consideration has been made for likely future site allocations. This strictly speaking accords with the DfT 'Guidance on Transport Assessments' in that only extant planning permissions and allocated sites need to be considered as committed development in the preparation of a TA when assessing future traffic levels. However, in advance of the allocation of this and other preferred sites, the Highway Authority is of the view that the cumulative impacts of all other likely future local allocations must be considered otherwise their delivery may be prejudiced due to increased highway mitigation costs as a result of additional traffic on the highway network generated by this development. Notwithstanding the above, the TA considers the traffic impact of the development at the site accesses, as well as the Tiln Lane/A620 Moorgate junction (to be upgraded to traffic signals) and the A620 Moorgate/Amcott Way/Arlington Way junction. Further modelling post submission of the A620 Amcott Way/Morrisons supermarket signal controlled junction, and A638 Arlington Way/Chapelgate/Spittal Hill traffic signal controlled crossroads has been provided that demonstrates that these junctions will continue to operate satisfactorily post development. The A620 Moorgate/Amcott Way/Arlington Way junction modelling predicts a slight worsening in performance when compared to the no development scenario. This would not usually be an issue if the junction had a lot of spare capacity. However, in this instance, there is little scope to accommodate any loss of performance before the junction reaches practical capacity. This junction has already been identified for strategic transport improvement in the Bassetlaw Transport Study. Similarly the A620 Amcott Way/Morrisons junction and A638 Arlington Way/Chapelgate/Spittal Hill crossroads suffer a performance degradation of between 3% and 7% bringing them much closer to, or over, their theoretical capacities. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the modelling makes no allowance for other future development which will increase demand at these junctions. Transport Study As the site is not included in the Bassetlaw Preferred Site Options Report, it does not feature in the Bassetlaw Transport Study commissioned by Bassetlaw District Council to underpin the preparation of the Bassetlaw Local Plan. Therefore the strategic traffic implications of this site in combination with all other proposed development in the emerging Bassetlaw Site Allocations Local Plan Document has not previously been considered. The Bassetlaw Transport Study has however examined the impacts of additional traffic in Retford and has recommended a strategic improvement at the A620/A638 roundabout to be funded from developer contributions via the Bassetlaw Community Infrastructure Levy. If this development constitutes additional development in Retford i.e. rather than a substitution for a previously favoured site then the traffic pressures at the above named junction and elsewhere in the town could be exacerbated without contributions and the securing of additional highway improvements. Public Transport The TA acknowledges that bus service number 23 routes closest to this site and suggests that options are being considered to improve the frequency of bus service 23 enhancing public transport connectivity. It then goes on to say that discussions will explore viable options to be dealt with through Section 106 contribution. However, service 23 is unlikely to form part of the network from this summer as part of the review of local bus services.

75

Nevertheless, it should be possible to re-route or extend other potential new services such that buses pass through the site. Public transport infrastructure will be required within the site in the form of bus shelters and real-time displays. The development spine road will have to be designed at sufficient width to accommodate the bus service. This would usually be a 6.0m wide road with widening on bends where necessary to accommodate the swept path of buses. Walking and Cycling The TA acknowledges the existing public footpath between Bolham Lane and Camborne Crescent as a desirable pedestrian link from the development to Hallcroft. This has the potential to reduce car commuting to the Elizabethan Academy and industrial premises from the Tiln Lane area. In order to make provision for cycling, the east-west route across the development currently proposed as a footpath should be designed and constructed as a shared-use (pedestrian and cycle) path. Likewise, the new footpath to be constructed from the existing footway on Tiln Lane should be designed to shared-use standard, together with appropriate signage. Section 106 In order to encourage a reasonable transport modal split away from the private car and to reduce the traffic impact of this development, the Highway Authority seeks a contribution of up to £130k in order to fund the additional cost in public transport provision until a point where the development is likely to be capable of providing sufficient bus patronage to sustain an extended service. In order to mitigate the traffic impacts of the development and so not to disproportionately increase the highway mitigation costs of other possible development sites in the emerging Bassetlaw Local Plan, the Highway Authority recommends that a contribution of £70,000 is sought towards signal controller upgrades including Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) at the A620 and A638 junction complex. This will work as a dual strategy alongside the existing SCOOT urban traffic control system. The MOVA will then be able to intervene when required to maximise the capacity of the junction and claw back some of the performance lost due to the development flows. Conclusion The Highway Authority has no objection to this proposal. In order to ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner, and to ensure that appropriate sustainable transport infrastructure is put in place, the Highway Authority recommends various conditions be attached if planning permission is granted. The Highway Authority also recommends that the approved residential travel plan reference NTT2053 TP Rev 6 and its subsequent monitoring and review be secured by Section 106 Agreement. This contains a requirement for a site-wide Travel Plan Coordinator to be appointed and for monitoring reports to be produced following implementation. To allow the monitoring reports to be reviewed, the County Council seeks a monitoring review fee of £3,432. The HIGHWAYS AGENCY has previously commented that the proposed development is not expected to have a material impact on the closest strategic route, the A1. Therefore, under Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the Highways Agency has no objections to the proposal. BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL'S TREE OFFICER agrees with the tree report submitted by the developer and agrees with the recommended works they have outlined is required to the trees on site. It is recommended that the trees are protected and retained if the development goes forward and would suggest that the trees are protected by Tree Preservation Order's if they are deemed worthy of this status. All works carried out to any trees should be in accordance with BS 3998.

76

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICE has previously commented that there is little evidence for archaeological features existing within the development site but this may well reflect the lack of investigation with the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, both medieval and prehistoric features are known to exist north of the site. Accordingly, he recommends that the applicants be requested to supply additional information on the buried archaeological resource, in accordance with the advice given in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (paragraph 128). An archaeological field evaluation is necessary here, and this work should include an archaeological geophysical survey, possibly with a subsequent scheme of trial trenching. A professional archaeologist or archaeological organisation should carry out this work, and the results of the evaluation should be made available before the planning application is determined. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE WILDLIFE TRUST has previously commented that one local wildlife site (River Idle - Bolham) has been identified in close proximity (0.1km to the west of the site), however as this is located on the other side of Bolham Lane, we agree that the development is highly unlikely to lead to an adverse impact provided that steps are taken to prevent run off from any site activities into the river, as per Environment Agency protocols. Any required vegetation clearance work should be carried out outside of the bird breeding season (March to September inclusive). If works are to be carried out during this time then a suitably qualified ecologist should be on site to survey for nesting birds. All birds, their nests and eggs (except pest species) are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This should cover trees and hedgerows, as well as arable/grassland vegetation which should be suitable for ground nesting birds. Should you be minded to approve the application, the requirement should be secured by way of condition. A number of trees on and adjacent to the site were identified in the ecological assessment report as providing potential roosting opportunity for bats. With this in mind, NWT request the retention of trees and associated hedgerows be specified for the development. Should any trees with bat roost potential be proposed for removal, further advice should be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist. NWT are supportive of the recommendation for installation of non-spill lighting for the development which is directed away from trees and hedgerows. Additional planting of native species, ideally of local provenance, to supplement existing hedgerows would benefit a number of faunal species including bats and we would wish to see this carried through from the masterplan. Suggested species appropriate to the area could include oak, crab apple, hawthorn, blackthorn, hazel, spindle, common dogwood and dog rose. Should you be minded to approve the application, the requirement should be secured by way of condition. Whilst NWT note that no evidence of badger was found during the ecological survey, we welcome the recommendation for including the following best practice measures which will protect any mammals which may utilise the site. Any trenches dug during works activities which are to be left open over night must be left with a sloping end or ramp to allow any badgers or any other animal that may fall in to escape. Any pipes over 200mm in diameter should be capped off at night to prevent animals entering. Proposals are given for checking of reptile habitats and directional strimming which should be followed during the construction works. Should you be minded to approve the application, the requirement should be secured by way of condition. NWT is pleased to see that the pond to the south of the site is proposed to be retained. We suggest that as part of the development, there is potential for both this pond and the proposed surface water attenuation basin to be enhanced to increase their nature conservation value. Creation of areas of permanent water on site would benefit species such as dragonflies and amphibians and these could also include areas of reedbed and other marginal wetland planting. This is an opportunity to incorporate species-rich grassland within the proposed public open space and swales which would enhance the area for invertebrates.

77

Management of species rich grassland should be via a single late summer cut once wildflowers have set seed, with removal of arisings to prevent nutrient build-up. Additional enhancements in the form of bat and bird boxes are recommended with the ecological report. We would wish to see these included within the site plan, along with details of number, location and specification. Such biodiversity enhancements would be in line with recommendations within Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. In summary, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust has no objection in principle to the above application based on the plans submitted, subject to the inclusion of the above recommendations. THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY has previously commented that an outline planning permission could be granted to the proposed development if the planning conditions recommended are imposed relating to surface water drainage scheme based on SuDS principles; a remediation strategy to deal with risks associated with contamination on the site; and no infiltration of surface water drainage. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RIGHTS OF WAY SERVICE has previously indicated that there are no definitive paths that are affected by the development, but it is important to note that it is always possible that other public rights of way may exist on it, which have not been registered. It is noted that from the accompanying documentation consideration has been given to creating links on the development site that will connect with existing public rights of way on either side of it. Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way Team would welcome these proposals. BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE has commented in relation to noise that I have no objections to this application. However, working hours should be limited during the construction phase to 8am-6pm Monday-Friday, 9am-1pm Saturday, with no working on Sundays, bank and public holidays. Also recommended steps to be taken to prevent dust causing problems to surrounding residents and that no burning takes place on site as this is likely to lead to complaints. In relation to pollution prevention and control and contaminated land; The site subject to the above planning application may have been previously used for potentially contaminative uses, and there is the presence of sensitive receptor. Therefore, if planning permission is to be granted on this application, it is requested that a condition is attached in relation a site investigation being carried out in relation to potential contaminated land. ANGLIAN WATER has previously commented that we do not cover the wastewater in this area, which is covered by Severn Trent. BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL'S CONSERVATION TEAM has previously commented that whilst this is an outline application with all matters reserved development at this site will result in a level of harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Moorgate House and the non-designated heritage asset that is Bolham Manor. This harm however is considered to be less than substantial and the public benefits of the proposals will most likely outweigh the harm to the setting. As such Conservation does not consider a strong objection could be maintained on these grounds and the proposals can be considered compliant with Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DM8 and policies 131,132; 134 and 135 of the NPPF.

78

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING has commented as follows: Highways Development Management The Highway Authority has no objection in principle to this development. However, there are issues in relation to the proposed Tiln Lane, Moorgate signal junction and wider highway capacity issue on the local road network. These have been raised with the developer and will need to be addressed prior to being in a position to support this application. Strategic Highways This application site did not feature in the recent Bassetlaw Transport Study, commissioned by Bassetlaw District Council to underpin the preparation of the Bassetlaw Local Plan, and therefore the strategic traffic implications of this site in combination with all other proposed development in the Bassetlaw Local Plan has not been considered. The Transport Assessment submitted with the application establishes the measures and infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the direct transport impacts of this development after allowing for known committed developments. It does not consider however (nor should it necessarily do so under the DfT 'Guidance on Transport Assessments') the cumulative impact this application with all future proposed development in the borough will have on strategic transport infrastructure in Retford. The Bassetlaw Transport Study has examined the impacts of additional traffic in Retford and has recommended a strategic improvement of the A620 / A638 roundabout to be funded from developer contributions via the Bassetlaw Community Infrastructure Levy. If this development constitutes additional development in Retford i.e. rather than a substitution for a previously favoured site then the traffic pressures at the above named junction and elsewhere in the town could be exacerbated. In which case it is strongly recommended that in addition to the highway and transport measures being offered by the applicant that a contribution is also sought towards strategic transport improvements which are required to support the cumulative impact of all proposed development in the borough. Bus Service Support Section 106 contributions will be required in order to help maintain and sustain daytime and evening services. This is of particular note in light of impending service level reductions to Council funded routes from summer 2014; these will also likely have a knock on effect on the commercial network. The development comprising of 175 dwellings is situated at Tiln Lane. The current level of service is as described by BWB on page 10 of the Transport Assessment Document. Section 2.7.7 states - "Overall, given the frequency of the bus services, the destinations served, and the proximity of the bus stops, there are opportunities for bus travel to and from the site. However, this could be improved as part of the proposed development, by enhancing the frequency of the existing services at an improved hourly frequency throughout the day or during peak periods." It is noted that Section 3.3.2 of the Transport Assessment states the following: "As noted in Section 1, the actual development proposals are for up to 175 dwellings, but this report assumes a maximum of 200 to provide a robust assessment. The proposed site access carriageways measures 6.0 metres in width, and includes 10 metres kerb radii.

79

As shown in Drawing NTT/2053/110-001 revision P3 and NTT/2053/100-101 revision P2, the junctions can accommodate the swept path of a single deck bus and a large refuse vehicle." The County Council would support the principle of seeking developer contributions from the developer to enhance the frequency of services in the vicinity of the site in line with the above and existing Council policies for supporting public transport services. It should be noted however that following the relaying of the transport network the Service 23 is unlikely to remain from Summer 2014 onwards and this would need to be considered in the extension or rerouting of new and replacement services. Details on the level of support can be determined following developer contact with Transport and Travel Services and Development Control. Further to this we would expect a contingency fund to be made available to mitigate the impact on existing bus services should construction works interfere with these. To support the above and the site travel plan that will be required (contact Transport Strategy) the County Council would expect free travel passes made available to new residents on first occupation. The County Council would expect the developer to liaise directly with Transport and Travel Services to determine details of what contribution towards bus service support is expected. Infrastructure The County Council would expect all properties to be located within 400m of a bus stop and therefore new stop/s to be created should properties fall outside this. o The Transport study within the planning application determines as follows: 3.5.5 Figure 7 shows the indicative location of the nearest bus stops on Tiln Lane and the A620 respectively. The bus stop on Tiln Lane is adjacent to the Carr Hill Primary School, and is in the form of a flag and pole. The bus stop on Tiln Lane is within 400 metres walking distance of the site access. However whilst the periphery of the development is approximately 400 metres from BA0134 Richmond Road, the dwellings on the western edge of the development are approximately 675 metres from the stop. The distance of the bus stops on Moorgate at which a regular service operates is considerably greater. There is currently 1 bus stop in the immediate area of the development as follows: o BA0134 Richmond Road The current infrastructure is directly outside of Carr Hill Primary School and consists of a pole and a Bus Stop Clearway. This bus stop would benefit from an upgrade of a bus shelter with solar lighting, a raised kerb, a real time pole and the relevant infrastructure to make the Clearway enforcement. The footway does not appear to be of significant width and therefore it is likely that only a small shelter would be practical. The current costs remain approximately as follows: Bus Shelter - £2,500; Solar Lighting for a Bus Shelter - £2,500; Raised Kerb - £1,500; Bus Stop Clearway - £500-700; Real Time Displays and Associated Electrical Connections - £6,000. Final clarification of costs can be confirmed through correspondence with Transport & Travel Services and Development Control.

80

Landscape and Visual Impact The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has followed the general guidance as set out in the "Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment" (Third Edition, 2013 Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management) and the Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, published April 2002 by the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. The County Council are in general agreement with the findings within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which largely addresses the relevant issues. Should planning permission be granted native planting should be of local provenance and suitable for the Idle Lowlands County Landscape Character Area. Reclamation The site is currently set aside to agricultural use, with arable crops being cultivated. The site is predominantly flat but with a ground fall of 5m across the site east to west. The site has had very little industrial commercial development as a consequence the risks from contamination (localised sources) is considered low in the report. Sources of contamination identified are in-filled ground, pond and a brickyard. It is noted that a Tannery is located in close proximity to the site, with a risk of a contamination source from this activity. A phase one desk study has been completed and a conceptual site model for the contamination risks identified. This has identified low to medium risks principally associated with the in-filled ground. A geotechnical investigation is proposed with the addition of soakage testing. It should be recommended that any soakage testing should not be carried out in the made ground areas until the chemical composition is known and risks to the underlying aquifer can be assessed. A geo environmental site investigation is proposed this could be integrated with the geotechnical investigation. The proposals have the support of a fully formed conceptual site model and can be progressed on an assured basis; the ground investigation proposed will further inform the site conceptual model which will be refined further once the results of the investigations become available. The report has identified risk issues; however these are to be addressed in the proposed investigation works. These risk items are not considered to present insurmountable issues and these should be able to be engineered out during the progress of the development project. Ecology The County Council have the following comments regarding this application, which is supported by an Ecological Assessment (dated April 2014): The habitats present on the site are generally of low ecological value, being dominated by arable farmland; however, the boundary hedgerows and mature trees present within these are of higher value. An HSI assessment for Great Crested Newts was carried out on a small pond on the site, concluding that this is of poor suitability for Great Crested Newts; given the absence of records from the surrounding area, the sub-optimal terrestrial habitat present on the site and

81

the lack of other ponds within 500m, the Ecological Appraisal concludes that Great Crested Newts are not a constraint to the development. No other evidence of protected species has been found at the site; however, it should be noted that breeding bird surveys and bat activity surveys have not been carried out. Inferences are made about the species of birds likely to use the site, and whilst the trees on the site are assessed with regards to their potential to support roosting bats, no comments are provided in relation to bat activity. Given that 50m of hedgerow are to be removed, it is requested that comments on bat activity are sought prior to the determination of this application. A range of mitigation measures are proposed in section 6.2 of the Ecological Assessment, relating to precautionary measures for reptiles and badgers, the design of artificial lighting, and the clearance of vegetation during the bird nesting season; these should be secured through appropriate planning conditions. In addition, measures to ensure the protection of retained trees and hedgerows during construction should be secured through a condition. A range of site enhancement measures are outlined in section 6.3 of the Ecological Assessment. Specifically, the following measures should be secured through appropriate conditions: a. The submission of a detailed Landscaping Plan, ensuring the use of native species appropriate to the local area and of native genetic origin within all areas of open space and around the site periphery, and providing details of species mixes, establishment methods and maintenance regimes. This should cover tree, scrub and hedgerow planting, wildflower meadow seeding, and wetland planting within the attenuation basin. b. The incorporation of boxes for bats and birds (house sparrow, starling and swift) within a proportion of the proposed dwellings, and the installation of bird and bat boxes on trees at the site. Heritage The site is bounded by four buildings that are recorded on the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record: Bolham Manor and Bolham Pumping Station are non-designated heritage assets. Moorgate Farm, to the east of the proposal site is a designated grade II listed building and Bolham Hall to the north is recorded on the Notts HER as grade II* listed. The Heritage Statement accompanying the application is incorrect when it states only the Pumping Station as being recorded on the HER. The visual impact assessment does not include any of these sites as receptors and is therefore of limited use in assessing the potential impacts on the visual setting of these heritage assets. The listing grade of Bolham Hall is recorded on the web 'National Heritage List' as grade II but as grade II* on the Notts HER. This should be checked. If the grade is II* this application will require consultation with English Heritage. Bolham Hall was downgraded to Grade II in March 2010. Developer Contributions Should the applications proceed, Nottinghamshire County Council will seek developer contributions relating to the County Council's responsibilities in line with the Council's

82

adopted Planning Contributions Strategy and the Developer Contributions Team will work with the applicant and Bassetlaw District Council to ensure all requirements are met. Education Developer contributions will be required towards education provision. Discussions with regard to education requirements as a result of the proposed development are currently ongoing between Nottinghamshire County Council, Bassetlaw District Council and the applicants. Libraries The proposed development comprises 175 new dwellings. At an average of 2.4 persons per dwelling this would add 420 to the existing library's catchment area population. The nearest existing library to the proposed development is Retford Library. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) publication "Public Libraries, Archives and New Development: a standard approach" recommends a standard stock figure of 1,532 items per 1,000 population. The County Council would seek a developer contribution for the additional stock that would be required to meet the needs of the 420 population that would be occupying the new dwellings. This is costed at 420 (population) x 1,532 (items) x £10.53 (cost per item) = £6775 Minerals The adopted Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Core Strategy (adopted 10 December 2013) (full title Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Replacement Waste Local Plan, Part 1: Waste Core Strategy) and the saved, non-replaced policies of the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Waste Local Plan (adopted 2002), along with the Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan (adopted 2005) (and emerging replacement plan) form part of the development plan for the area. As such relevant policies in these plans need to be considered. In relation to the Minerals Local Plan, the proposed site is not in close proximity to any existing or proposed mineral extraction allocation sites. However, it should be noted that a very small part of the site (to the far west) lies within a Mineral Safeguarding and Consultation Area for sand and gravel. In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 143) the Minerals Local Plan Preferred Approach (2013) sets out a policy (DM13) concerning these areas. Although not yet adopted, its provisions can be given some weight as a material consideration (in line with NPPF paragraph 216). No consideration of the provisions of this policy can be found within the applicant's supporting information. However, in this instance we would not raise any objection to the proposal in relation to Policy DM13 (i.e. it is not considered to be unnecessarily sterilising mineral resources and will not pose a serious hindrance to future extraction in the area). Prior extraction would also not be sought in this case due to the small size of the safeguarding area lying within the site. Waste In terms of the Waste Core Strategy, there are no existing waste sites within the vicinity of the site whereby the proposed development could cause an issue in terms of safeguarding our existing waste management facilities (as per Policy WCS10).

83

As a significant housing development we would be keen to see the best practice of waste management for the development. As set out in Policy WCS2 of the Waste Core Strategy, the development should be 'designed, constructed and implemented to minimise the creation of waste, maximise the use of recycled materials and assist the collection, separation, sorting, recycling and recovery of waste arising from the development.' Overall Conclusions The Highway Authority has no objection in principle to this development. However, there are issues in relation to the proposed Tiln Lane, Moorgate signal junction and wider highway capacity issue on the local road network. These have been raised with the developer and will need to be addressed prior to being in a position to support this application. The applicant and the highway authority have discussed the issue further and agreed solutions or financial contributions to be paid to resolve these issues. The County Council recommend that in addition to the highway and transport measures being offered by the applicant that a contribution is also sought towards strategic transport improvements which are required to support the cumulative impact of all proposed development in the District. The County Council would support the principle of seeking developer contributions from the developer to enhance the frequency of services in the vicinity of the site in line with the above and existing Council policies for supporting public transport services. The County Council are in general agreement with the findings within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which largely addresses the relevant issues. Should planning permission be granted native planting should be of local provenance and suitable for the Idle Lowlands County Landscape Character Area. The proposals have the support of a fully formed conceptual site model and can be progressed on an assured basis; the ground investigation proposed will further inform the site conceptual model which will be refined further once the results of the investigations become available. The report has identified risk issues; however these are to be addressed in the proposed investigation works. These risk items are not considered, by the County Council to present insurmountable issues and these should be able to be engineered out during the progress of the development project. The County Council would seek a developer contribution for the additional library stock that would be required to meet the needs of the 420 population that would be occupying the new dwellings. This is costed at 420 (population) x 1,532 (items) x £10.53 (cost per item) = £6775 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL EDUCATION has confirmed that a development of 175 dwellings would yield an additional 37 primary and 28 secondary places. Based on current pupil projections, the additional 28 secondary aged pupils can be accommodated in existing schools. The primary schools are, however, at capacity and unable to accommodate the additional 37 primary places. They wish to seek an education contribution of £423,835 (37 x £11,455) to provide additional primary provision to serve the proposed development. BASSETLAW'S LEISURE AND CULTURAL SERVICES has previously analysed the provision of play in the area in 2014 and the development would require the provision of a LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play) facility, which would require a minimum of 5 play items and an area approximately 500sqm. In planning of this facility it should be noted that any future expansion would necessitate the creation of a NEAP (Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play) and the requirement for a MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) and the relevant buffer

84

zones. They have also confirmed historically that the Council would be willing to adopt the area as it would strategically meet the need to provide some play provision within the local area. Maintenance costs for 500 sqm of amenity grass is £924 per annum. The commuted sum figure for adoption purposes (based upon 12 year maintenance) would be £12,642.40. Following Cabinet meeting on 6 December 2016, it was resolved not to actively adopt or maintain any new public open space. In exceptional circumstances the Council may still adopt open space, provided that full cost recovery ‘lifetime’ (60 years) commuted sum is paid by the developer in advance of the adoption. The proposed S106 agreement would need to include a contribution to account for the 60 year maintenance of the play area if it was to be adopted by the Council. Alternatively, as the applicant has proposed, maintenance through a resident management company could be secured through the S106 agreement. BASSETLAW'S STRATEGIC HOUSING SERVICE has commented that: Based on the Core Strategy Policy CS3, there would be a requirement for 25% of all units on site to be affordable - at least 70% of this should be social/affordable rented to be transferred to a registered housing provider (in line with the guidance set out in the Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment). Consideration should be given to the location and appearance of the affordable housing to ensure that the properties are integrated within the development. Currently smaller units are preferable to housing providers in light of the recent welfare reforms and therefore the mix of properties to be affordable should be researched with "active" housing providers in the area (details of these can be provided upon request). Onsite provision would be the preference here. A detailed affordable housing scheme should be submitted to the Council as part of the application process, but it is expected that 50% of the units should be transferred to the housing provider before occupation of 50% of the scheme, with the remainder of the units transferred before occupation of 75% of the scheme. The proposed development, providing that the above is delivered, meets the policy requirements for affordable housing provision in line with the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD and the Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment 2013. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED COUNTY COUNCILLOR FOR MISTERTON (LIZ YATES) has previously commented that although the site is not in my county division, the impact of traffic on Smeath Lane which is in Clarborough/Hayton, would be detrimental to residents in my area. The route through from Retford to Clarborough has caused problems for many years, it being used as a rat-run and alternative route for high sided vehicles, due to the low bridge on the A620, it is currently under review for a 40mph limit to try and move some of the traffic away from this route and the hazardous canal bridge by The Gate Inn. A development of 175 houses would only add to the problems we currently have, instead of reducing the number of vehicles. I ask that serious consideration is given to refusal for this application, on traffic grounds. Or, if recommendations are to grant, that remedial measures are put in place to stop an increase in traffic through to Clarborough. RETFORD CIVIC SOCIETY has previously commented that they are opposed to the development, as it would extend the built-up area of Retford unnecessarily into the

85

countryside, harming the character of this part of town and the setting of the attractive former farmhouse on the opposite side of Tiln Lane. It would increase the volume of traffic using Tiln Lane. This would add to congestion at the junction of Tiln Lane and Moorgate and increase the risk of accidents, particularly at the sharp bend where Tiln Lane meets Smeath Lane. There is a major foul sewer running across the site from Clarborough to a pumping station at Bolham Lane. This pumping station regularly emits unpleasant odours and the extra sewage from 175 houses is likely to aggravate this. Owing to the clay subsoil the area is prone to saturation by surface water and to water running off the land onto lower ground along Bolham Lane, causing flooding. There is a substantial risk that the proposed development would increase this problem due to the areas of hard surface that would be created. The Society feels there are better sites within the town for new residential development. The Council's draft proposals to allocate two sites in Ordsall and one on North Road are preferable to development of the land on Tiln Lane, as they have better access and would round off nearby development rather than extend the town into the countryside. 111 letters/emails objecting to the proposal, from LOCAL RESIDENTS on the grounds: Green infrastructure 1. Loss of prime agricultural land which is grade II 2. Detract from existing green infrastructure and impact heavily on character of the area 3. Well used wildlife corridor along the River Idle which continues to SSSI Idle Valley

Nature Reserve 4. Bat colony currently in the trees to the south of the site Planning issues 5. Extension of development boundary of Retford into countryside 6. Not a preferred site in the Bassetlaw Site Allocation Preferred Options document 7. Better site exist elsewhere, including brownfield 8. Already over capacity with existing planning consents and new build properties for

sale Highway safety and transport concerns 9. Amount of traffic and speeds along Tiln Lane is already hazardous, particularly at

school drop off/pick up times. 10. Tiln Lane/Smeath Lane already busy due as alternate route for heavy goods vehicles

avoiding low bridge at Welham on A620 11. The listed bridge at the Clarborough end of Smeath Lane is narrow and hazardous

and unsuitable for the volume of traffic already using it 12. Proposed access to the site is beyond the existing 30mph zone. 13. There is an existing blind blend where Tiln Lane goes onto Smeath Lane. 14. Lack of footpath/cycle link through site between Bolham Lane and Tiln Lane 15. Already congestion at Tiln Lane/Moorgate junction at busy times. The proposed

traffic lights will exacerbate this. Drainage and flooding 16. Land is subject to flooding occasionally due to poor land drainage due to the geology 17. Increased hard surfacing cause flooding elsewhere as higher than neighbouring

properties 18. Mains sewage pipe across site causes problems due to capacity 19. Stability of the ground due to existing cave system and potential collapse of the

sandstone cliff Amenity 20. Lack of services in the immediate vicinity, with reliance on town centre

86

21. Insufficient education provision 22. Impact on listed buildings in the vicinity 23. Loss of privacy due to higher land levels of proposed site 24. Overshadowing and loss of light Copies of all the responses and comments are available for inspection either on the Council's web page or in the Council's offices. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUES Members considered the application at Planning Committee on 1 October 2014 where it was agreed to grant planning permission subject to S106 agreement. As such, it was considered that the principle of the development was acceptable on this site and the proposed development conforms with the existing planning policies contributing to a sustainable pattern of development in the District, having particular regard to the current supply of deliverable housing sites, in addition to heritage impact, drainage, highways impact and other planning obligations. The main issue is whether the proposal remains a sustainable development with the reduced S106 obligation and not providing any affordable housing as part of the development. A viability report was submitted by the applicant Linden Homes in January 2016, and on the basis of the details submitted it was the applicant’s view initially that the development is not able to support any affordable housing or other S106 contribution. The viability report was independently assessed by the District Valuer who queried some of the figures within the viability assessment and concluded that the scheme can deliver some S106 obligations. They suggested:

1. 16.57% affordable housing 2. £745,987 towards CIL 3. £13,200 towards highway signal improvements 4. £3,432 towards the travel plan,

or alternatively, as a pot of money, the amount available would be £2,751,623 which could be distributed between affordable housing and other S106 contributions, at the Council’s preference. Linden Homes dispute the District Valuers findings/conclusions as they state that neither scenario ultimately generates either a sensible land value to encourage the vendor to sell without going through a protracted expert determination or an acceptable developer’s margin. Further to this consideration Linden Homes offered to contribute:

1. Linden cannot afford to provide any affordable houses if they are to meet the financial burden set out below. However, the proposed mix of units is likely to reflect the following, c. 36 No 2 bed units and 82 No 3 bed units (118 out of 175 (or 67%) being 2 or 3 bed homes). Anticipated price range for the smallest 2 bed to the biggest 3 bed is from £115k to £175k. We suggest these prices, albeit 100% market prices, are affordable market prices. Any subsidisation of the homes on this scheme will reduce revenue and thereby reduce the availability of monies to fund s106 contributions. In short, the site will have a comprehensive mix of properties catering for all purchasers needs and levels of affordability.

2. Linden are proposing to provide a LEAP on-site and will transfer it to a residents management company therefore Linden is paying for both provision and future maintenance of the LEAP.

87

3. Linden will pay £70k to NCC for NCC to undertake the works to the 3 junctions listed. For clarity, Linden will not be undertaking the works.

4. Linden will pay £13,200 towards bus stop improvements to BA0134 on Richmond Road.

5. Linden will pay up to £130,000 in order to fund the additional cost in public transport provision.

6. Linden will pay £3,432 for the monitoring of the approved Travel Plan. 7. Linden will pay £420k towards education. For certainty, it will be easiest to express

this as an absolute figure rather than a formula. 8. Linden will pay contribution towards library provision of £6775. 9. Linden will construct the SUDs and maintain them via the on-site resident’s

Management Company. 10. Linden can afford to offer £300k towards CIL. The combined cost of CIL and s106

contributions amount to c £945,000. The application was reported to Planning Committee on 4 January 2017, where it was deferred pending further details and assessment, as Members were concerned with the significant discrepancy between Linden Homes and the District Valuer. A further independent assessment of the viability of the site by CP Viability Ltd (CPV). This concluded that the scheme can deliver:

1. 9 on-site affordable houses (5.14%) 2. £1,300,000 Community Infrastructure Levy 3. £423,835 Education 4. £92,402 recreation 5. £6,775 Library 6. £146,632 Public Transport 7. £70,000 Off-site road improvements

Linden Homes are also disputing some of the figures and assumptions within CPV report, including resale values, build costs and legal costs. Linden Homes have subsequently reviewed the whole scheme in detail and now believe they can sustain the following position:

1. £1,300,000 Community Infrastructure Levy (depending on final reserved matters scheme)

2. £70,000 Off-site Road Junction Improvements Linden cannot contribute to any further planning obligations, including affordable housing, education, Local Equipped Play Area, library stock or public transport improvements. As the latest CPV report considers 5.14% affordable housing can be achieved, which is still substantially less than the original 25% required in Policy CS3, as well as education, recreation, library and public transport contributions, it is considered that proposed contributions by Linden Homes, set out above still fall substantially short of what surplus is considered available in the independent assessment from the CPV. Although some contributions are now proposed to provide essential enabling infrastructure for the development in relation to junction improvements, it is considered that the lack of contributions towards other essential enabling development, contrary to the policies and aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and Bassetlaw Local Development Framework is unacceptable given the surplus in the CPV independent assessment and the site is therefore considered unsustainable. It is suggested in CPV report that as the scheme does not provide the full affordable housing provision, an overage clause should be included whereby if the scheme produces a higher return than expected, the council would benefit from the increase, enabling additional contribution towards affordable housing. Linden Homes has indicated that in principle an overage clause is not something that would be acceptable to them.

88

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) The CPV in its assessment of the viability report has made an allowance of £1,300,000 for CIL payments. On the basis of the current figures for decisions in 2017, the CIL payment is now estimated be £934,702, based on floorspace indicated by Linden Homes. However as this is an outline planning application, the actual amount will depend upon specific net floor spaces at reserved matters stage and the date of decision. SUMMARY Members first considered this application at Planning Committee on 1 October 2014. It was resolved to grant planning permission subject to a S106 agreement to secure planning obligations in line with the policy requirements. The S106 was not signed and subsequently the applicant Linden Homes submitted a viability assessment in January 2016 indicating that the development was not viable if they had to meet all the S106 planning obligations previously agreed and that the development could not support any affordable housing. The viability assessment has subsequently been independently assessed by the District Valuers and also separately more recently by CP Viability Ltd (CPV). The most recent assessment by CPV has concluded that there is still scope for 5.14% (9 dwelling) affordable housing contribution in addition to the other policy obligations. Linden Homes has reviewed the overall scheme and are now offering contributions towards £70,000 off-site junction improvements to be secured through S106 agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission Reasons:

1. The National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 14 contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Development should be determined in accordance with the development plan and taking account of any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies. Paragraph 187 also promotes approval of sustainable developments that improve economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Retford is seen as providing a substantial contribution to the housing requirements of Bassetlaw. This includes sustainable urban extensions. Bassetlaw Local Development Framework Policy CS3 requires new housing development to provide facilities necessary to support a new community including open space and play facilities, community facilities and transport improvements. A 25% affordable housing target is also a requirement and this has been tested through whole plan viability during the Plans concept, formulation and adoption. The proposal does not include any affordable housing to be provided as part of the development or contributions towards certain other enabling infrastructure that has been identified as essential. A viability assessment submitted by the applicant has been independently assessed and concludes that there is scope to provide some affordable housing and other contributions within the scheme. The proposal would therefore be contrary to aims of NPPF and contrary to policy CS3 the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (2011).

89

2. In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the proposal would fail to secure contributions towards Education, Recreation, Library, Public Transport and off-site road improvements. As such it would fail to mitigate the effects of the proposal upon infrastructure. It would therefore conflict with Policy DM11 of the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (2011) and paragraph 203 of the NPPF 2012.

90

Item No: a2

Application No: 16/01365/VPO4 Application Type:

Modify or Discharge S106 Agreement

Proposal Application to Modify Affordable Housing Contribution Requirement of the Section 106 Agreement for Planning Application 14/01369/OUT

Location Land To The North Of Station Road, Beckingham.

Recommendation: Agree to Amend S106

Case Officer: Fiona Dunning

Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

BACKGROUND

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act was amended to provide an application and appeal procedure for reviewing affordable housing obligations based on economic viability without taking into account other aspects of the original planning consent. These amendments were under Sections 106BA to 106BC.

These Sections had a sunset clause so that any applications made before 30 April 2016 could be considered under these sections. The application before Planning Committee were submitted after 30 April 2016 so S106BA no longer applies so the applicant has no right to appeal if the Planning Committee resolve to not agree to amend the S106.

Notwithstanding the above sunset clause now expired, the application to amend the S106 is recommended subject to a new clause in the S106 being included to enable Council to share in any additional profit that may be made at the completion of the development.

If Planning Committee were to refuse the application to amend the S106, then the applicant could submit a new planning application with a viability assessment and the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework Council’s policies and the National Planning Practice Guidance would apply.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 The proposal is to modify the Section 106 so does not fall under the EIA Regulations.

National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s overarching approach for the planning system.

The relevant policies of the NPPF were considered in the assessment of the application in 2015. In regard to the application to amend the S106, the issues of Viability and delivering housing are the main considerations.

Paragraphs 173 to 177 of the NPPF cover sustainable development in ensuring viability and deliverability.

93

http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OEIL1JCS00Z00

These paragraphs discuss that the scale of obligations and policy burdens should not be so great that they threaten the viability of a development where there are not competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer and therefore an undeliverable development. The cumulative impacts of policies and standards should not put the implementation of the development plan at serious risk. Development should be facilitated throughout the economic cycle and local planning authorities understand the district-wide development costs in preparing Local Plans to provide infrastructure. Paragraph 177 specifically refers to affordable housing and states that affordable housing that may be applied to development should be assessed at the plan-making stage, where possible, and kept under review. Paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicate that planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Paragraph 205 indicates that where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account in changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. Planning Practice Guidance indicates where the deliverability of the development may be compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011) The affordable housing requirement is 35% for Beckingham under Policy CS8. The Affordable Housing SPD states that this percentage is the starting point for negotiations. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 14/01369/OUT – Outline Planning Permission granted at appeal for residential dwellings using access from adjoining development granted under 14/00630/OUT. The S106 agreed at appeal was: • On site affordable housing comprising 35% of the dwellings (14 dwellings based on

concept plan • Highway contribution of £15,400 towards bus stop improvements Note: The contribution towards open space and the Management fee were removed based on the Planning Inspector’s decision which stated at paragraph 17: “In terms of public open space, there is no evidence that there is a shortage in the quantity or quality of provision serving the settlement. As a consequence, it has not been demonstrated that a contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. A management fee is also sought. However, as monitoring for the most part is a local planning authority function this fee is not necessary to make the development acceptable.” The S106 was varied by agreement on 5th October 2015.

94

The applicant submitted one viability appraisal in December 2015 for 14/01369/OUT and 14/00630/OUT. This viability appraisal was reviewed in-house and some queries were raised. The applicant provided further information and the Interim Development Team Manager at the time advised “that based on the viability information submitted, there is no requirement for affordable housing provision in relation to the granted planning consent.” The applicant was not informed that they were required to submit an application to vary the requirement for affordable housing provision and didn’t submit an application until October 2016. This was after the sunset clause for S106 modifications based on viability had been removed. CONSULTATION Site Notice Posted Date: 13 October 2016 Press Notice Date Published: 20 October 2016 Letter to Consultees Date Sent: 1 October 2016 Letter to Neighbours Date Sent: 11 October 2016 Beckingham cum Saundby Parish Council reaffirms that it strongly opposes both proposals for residential development. They not a recommendation has already been made to Planning Committee to agree the S106 conditions on the website and are disappointed that it has taken over a year to be consulted on this issue. There is little information on the website regarding the viability assessment and it is therefore difficult to give meaningful feedback. In general the Parish Council is concerned about the removal of any affordable housing obligations. They are of the opinion that there is not the need for the sizeable planning proposals submitted over recent months, however a recent NHP survey revealed there is a need for some affordable housing in the village. Consultation with residents Two objections have been received: - Objected to original application - Affordable housing is to be provided for young people who grew up in the village and cannot afford to buy their own home - Removal of affordable housing contribution gives greater consideration to profit margins of developers - Viability assessment is not available to view, therefore how can residents make informed comments? - Original objection remains valid as many children from the new estate would use Green Lane where there is no pavement for pedestrians. Comment – the proposed recommendation aims to address the provision of contributions towards affordable housing with an overage clause. The NPPF requires Councils to take financial viability into account in determining applications. Assessment The application submitted requested the removal of the 35% affordable housing provision in the S106. At the time of this submission, it was considered that the viability appraisal was out of date and an updated viability appraisal was submitted in January 2017 and reviewed. The Viability Appraisal submitted shows that the figures submitted in the revised appraisal and these are not disputed and therefore an independent review could not be sought. Notwithstanding the figures not being disputed, the applicant has agreed to an independent viability assessment. The independent assessment was undertaken on the 2015 appraisal rather than the 2017 appraisal.

95

The conclusion reached was consistent with officer’s conclusion in regard to the development not currently being viable to provide affordable housing due to the other S106 and CIL requirements. The applicant has agreed for a clause to be included in the S106 so that at the completion of the development, a Viability Appraisal is undertaken with all of the known costs and 50% of any additional profit would be paid to Bassetlaw District Council for the provision of off-site affordable housing. The reason for this clause is to avoid any delays in providing the housing and to ensure that if the viability has over-estimated the potential costs of the development and under-estimated the value, then there will be an opportunity of reviewing this and obtaining some contributions towards affordable housing based on real figures not estimates as set out in the viability appraisal. Due to the clauses in the NPPF, it is very difficult not to agree the above as the development is shown not to be viable to provide all of the contributions sought under S106 requirements and CIL. However, the developer has no right to appeal if the application to amend the S106 is refused. The alternative to this would be to submit a new planning application with a viability appraisal demonstrating that the proposal is not financially viable with CIL and S106 contributions. Financial Implications Since the Planning Committee resolution to grant, the Council has adopted its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1 Sept 2013. The development will be subject to CIL. The actual amount of CIL payable will be calculated when a decision is made on the subsequent reserved matters application. If there is additional profit in the scheme then it is recommended that the S106 be amended to ensure that Council receives a share of this profit and this goes towards affordable housing. Summary The application was submitted requesting the removal for the requirement of 35% affordable housing. The SPG on affordable housing states that the percentage is the starting point for negotiations. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal showing that the development would not be viable with any affordable housing. There is no right to appeal if the Local Planning Authority does not agree the amendment to the S106 as the application is not under S106BA. However the applicant could submit a new application and submit a viability appraisal which would need to be taken into consideration. It is likely, based on the planning history, that a new planning application would have merit with a S106 having an overage or clawback clause for affordable housing rather than a requirement for 35%. The end result would be a delay in the building of the housing. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the S106 be amended removing the requirement for 35% affordable housing but including an overage clause to ensure that Council receives contributions for off-site affordable housing if there is excess profit.

96

Item No: a3

Application No: 16/01372/VPO4 Application Type:

Modify or Discharge S106 Agreement

Proposal Application to Modify Affordable Housing Contribution Requirement of the Section 106 Agreement for Planning Application 14/00630/OUT

Location Land Off Station Road, Beckingham.

Recommendation: Agree to Amend S106

Case Officer: Fiona Dunning

Web Link: Link to Planning Documents

BACKGROUND Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act was amended to provide an application and appeal procedure for reviewing affordable housing obligations based on economic viability without taking into account other aspects of the original planning consent. These amendments were under Sections 106BA to 106BC.

These Sections had a sunset clause so that any applications made before 30 April 2016 could be considered under these subsections. The application before Planning Committee were submitted after 30 April 2016 so S106BA no longer applies so the applicant has no right to appeal if the Planning Committee resolve to not agree to amend the S106.

Notwithstanding the above sunset clause now expired, the application to amend the S106 is recommended subject to a new clause in the S106 being included to enable Council to share in any additional profit that may be made at the completion of the development.

If Planning Committee were to refuse the application to amend the S106, then the applicant could submit a new planning application with a viability assessment and the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework Council’s policies and the National Planning Practice Guidance would apply.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 The proposal is to modify the Section 106 so does not fall under the EIA Regulations.

National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s overarching approach for the planning system.

The relevant policies of the NPPF were considered in the assessment of the application in 2015. In regard to the application to amend the S106, the issues of Viability and delivering housing are the main considerations.

Paragraphs 173 to 177 of the NPPF cover sustainable development in ensuring viability and deliverability.

99

http://publicaccess.bassetlaw.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OEKF2OCS00Z00

These paragraphs discuss that the scale of obligations and policy burdens should not be so great that they threaten the viability of a development where there are not competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer and therefore an undeliverable development. The cumulative impacts of policies and standards should not put the implementation of the development plan at serious risk. Development should be facilitated throughout the economic cycle and local planning authorities understand the district-wide development costs in preparing Local Plans to provide infrastructure. Paragraph 177 specifically refers to affordable housing and states that affordable housing that may be applied to development should be assessed at the plan-making stage, where possible, and kept under review. Paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework indicate that planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Paragraph 205 indicates that where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account in changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. Planning Practice Guidance indicates where the deliverability of the development may be compromised by the scale of planning obligations and other costs, a viability assessment may be necessary. This should be informed by the particular circumstances of the site and proposed development in question. Bassetlaw District Local Development Framework Core Strategy & Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted December 2011) The affordable housing requirement is 35% for Beckingham under Policy CS8. The Affordable Housing SPD states that this percentage is the starting point for negotiations. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 14/00630/OUT – Outline Planning Permission granted for up to 27 dwellings. Planning Committee resolved to grant outline planning permission for up to 27 dwellings which included a S106 agreement to secure the following: • On site affordable housing comprising 35% of the dwellings (10 dwellings based on

concept plan) • Public open space contribution of £12,521.25 • Highway contribution of £15,400 towards bus stop improvements • £5,000 management fee While the contribution towards open space and the Management fee were removed based on the Planning Inspector’s decision for 14/01369/OUT, these obligations remain in the S106 relating to 14/00630/OUT. The applicant submitted one viability appraisal in December 2015 for 14/01369/OUT and 14/00630/OUT. This viability appraisal was reviewed in-house and some queries were raised. The applicant provided further information and the Interim Development Team Manager at the time advised “that based on the viability information submitted, there is no requirement for affordable housing provision in relation to the granted planning consent.”

100

The applicant was not informed that they were required to submit an application to vary the requirement for affordable housing provision and didn’t submit an application until October 2016. This was after the sunset clause for S106 modifications based on viability had been removed. CONSULTATION Site Notice Posted Date: 13 October 2016 Press Notice Date Published: 20 October 2016 Letter to Consultees Date Sent: 1 October 2016 Letter to Neighbours Date Sent: 11 October 2016 Beckingham cum Saundby Parish Council reaffirms that it strongly opposes both proposals for residential development. They not a recommendation has already been made to Planning Committee to agree the S106 conditions on the website and are disappointed that it has taken over a year to be consulted on this issue. There is little information on the website regarding the viability assessment and it is therefore difficult to give meaningful feedback. In general the Parish Council is concerned about the removal of any affordable housing obligations. They are of the opinion that there is not the need for the sizeable planning proposals submitted over recent months, however a recent NHP survey revealed there is a need for some affordable housing in the village. Consultation with residents Two objections have been received: - Objected to original application - Affordable housing is to be provided for young people who grew up in the village and cannot afford to buy their own home - Removal of affordable housing contribution gives greater consideration to profit margins of developers - Viability assessment is not available to view, therefore how can residents make informed comments? - Original objection remains valid as many children from the new estate would use Green Lane where there is no pavement for pedestrians. Comment – the proposed recommendation aims to address the provision of contributions towards affordable housing with an overage clause. The NPPF requires Councils to take financial viability into account in determining applications. Assessment The application submitted requested the removal of the 35% affordable housing provision in the S106. At the time of this submission, it was considered that the viability appraisal was out of date and an updated viability appraisal was submitted in January 2017 and reviewed. The Viability Appraisal submitted shows that the figures submitted in the revised appraisal and these are not disputed and therefore an independent review could not be sought. Notwithstanding the figures not being disputed, the applicant has agreed to an independent viability assessment. The independent assessment was undertaken on the 2015 appraisal rather than the 2017 appraisal. The conclusion reached was consistent with officer’s conclusion in regard to the development not currently being viable to provide affordable housing due to the other S106 and CIL requirements.

101

Wildgoose Constructions have agreed for a clause to be included in the S106 so that at the completion of the development, a Viability Appraisal is undertaken with all of the known costs and 50% of any additional profit would be paid to Bassetlaw District Council for the provision of off-site affordable housing. The reason for this clause is to avoid any delays in providing the housing and to ensure that if the viability has over-estimated the potential costs of the development and under-estimated the value, then there will be an opportunity of reviewing this and obtaining some contributions towards affordable housing based on real figures not estimates as set out in the viability appraisal. Due to the clauses in the NPPF, it is very difficult not to agree the above as the development is shown not to be viable to provide all of the contributions sought under S106 requirements and CIL. However, the developer has no right to appeal if the application to amend the S106 is refused. The alternative to this would be to submit a new planning application with a viability appraisal demonstrating that the proposal is not financially viable with CIL and S106 contributions. Financial Implications The Council adopted its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1 Sept 2013. The development will be subject to CIL. The actual amount of CIL payable will be calculated when a decision is made on the subsequent reserved matters application. There are viability implications with the introduction of CIL and the S106 monetary contributions. The viability assessment presented by the applicant indicates that the scheme is not financially viability with all of the S106 and CIL contributions. Summary The application was submitted requesting the removal for the requirement of 35% affordable housing. The SPG on affordable housing states that the percentage is the starting point for negotiations. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal showing that the development would not be viable with any affordable housing. There is no right to appeal if the Local Planning Authority does not agree the amendment to the S106 as the application is not under S106BA. However the applicant could submit a new application and submit a viability appraisal which would need to be taken into consideration. It is likely, based on the planning history, that a new planning application would have merit with a S106 having an overage or clawback clause for affordable housing rather than a requirement for 35%. The end result would be a delay in the building of the housing. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the S106 be amended removing the requirement for 35% affordable housing but including an overage clause to ensure that Council receives contributions for off-site affordable housing if there is excess profit.

102

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE REPORT

2017/18 QUARTER 1

Cabinet Member: Regeneration Contact: Myles Joyce Ext: 3259

1.0 Public Interest Test

1.1 The author of this report, Myles Joyce has determined that this report is not confidential.

2.0 Purpose of the Report

2.1 To provide Members with a quarterly performance report recorded for the Development Management function for Quarter 2 of 2017/2018, for the period of 1 July to 30 September 2017.

3.0 Background and Discussions

3.1 Following agreement at Planning Committee in June 2014 that performance reporting would be presented to Members on a regular basis. This paper provides details of the planning application performance for Quarter 2 for this year.

4.0 Matters for Consideration

4.1 Once a planning application has been validated, the Local Planning Authority should make a decision on the proposal as quickly as possible after the consultation period has ended. The statutory time limit is set nationally and applications should be determined in this time unless a longer period is agreed in writing by the applicant.

4.2 Statutory time limits are usually 13 weeks for applications for major development, and 8 weeks for all other types of development (unless an application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, in which case a 16 week time limit applies). These times can be agreed to be extended with the applicant and this must be confirmed in writing.

4.3 Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced another measure of performance for major applications. If Local Planning Authorities are not meeting the standards then they will be a designated planning authority, which

Agenda Item No.6(d) BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

8 November 2017

105

means applicants can submit planning applications directly to Secretary of State. Two criteria are used for measuring the performance of Local Planning Authorities. These are:-

Timeliness – Local Planning Authorities are deemed to be underperforming if they determine less than 50% of major developments within the statutory timescales; or

Quality – Where more than 20% of major planning application decisions are overturned at appeal.

4.4 Major applications are defined as those where 10 or more dwellings are to be constructed (or where the number is not given, the site area is more than 0.5ha), or where the commercial floorspace proposed is 1000sqm or the commercial site area is 1000sqm or more.

4.5 The designation criteria was amended for major applications to 60% within time and 10% of all applications allowed on appeal and for non-majors 70% within time and no more than 10% of all applications allowed on appeals. The local targets are 10% above the national targets.

Quarter 1 Performance; Speed of Determination

Indicator Achievement 2016/17

Local Target Q July - Sept 2017

2017-18 To date

% of “major” applications determined in 13/16 weeks (or authorised extended period)

87.5%

70%

30.77% (4/13)

59.3% (16/27)

% of “non-major” applications determined in 8 weeks

89.73%

80%

82.1%

(160/195)

83.9% (339/404)

106

4.6 Quarter 2 application determination performance has not met the local or national targets for major applications due to a number of the major applications being determined out of time in the last quarter, although the returns remain above national targets for the year to date.

4.7 The reasons for was largely down to a failure to secure extensions of time as most of these had gone to Planning Committee in good time. Whilst this is of concern it is considered to be rectifiable through improved caseload management and return to the higher returns which has bene the recent norm for the Development Team.

4.8 For non-major planning applications the figures remain above local and national targets for this quarter and for 2017-18 to date, albeit a slight decline from Q1 for this quarter. Whilst there is some concern, it is considered that careful monitoring of the caseload and the Major caseload in particular will result in improved returns going into the final half of the year. The above shows that whilst the team has met the local and national targets and shows a team that is working well. It is noted that the percentages are not as good as last year so the next three quarters will need to be be carefully monitored.

Qualitative Measures - Appeals

4.9 During Quarter 2, a total of nine appeal determinations were made. Out of these, three were allowed and six were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate, equating to a performance of 33% for the quarter. For the first two quarters of 2017-18, 4 appeals out of 18 determined were allowed, which results in a return of 28.6%

4.10 This percentage is higher than the local target of 20% but it is important to remember that the relatively small numbers involved do result in relatively large swings from quarter to quarter. In regard to the new national target of 10% for all majors decided central government is looking at appeals for applications submitted between April 2015 to March 2017 and this is discussed at 4.13.

Appeal Performance Detail; Quarter 1 of 2017/1018

App ref Address Proposal Appeal Decision

17/00007/S36 Wood End Farm and Land Coach Road Shireoaks Worksop Nottinghamshire S81 BAL

Outline Planning application with some Matters Reserved for Residential Development for Demolition of Existing Farm Buildings and Erection of 73 dwellings and Construction of New Access

Allowed. Committee Overturn

17/00016/HSE 22 Dryden Dale, Worksop, Notts S81 0ET

Single storey rear extension Wheelchair accessible single bedroom and wet room

Allowed

107

17/00136/S36 Land off The Drive, Barnby Moor, Nottinghamshire

Outline Planning Application for Erection of Single Detached dwelling

Allowed

17/00015/S36 Land North off Orchard Lodge Sturton Road South Wheatley

Outline Application for one dwelling

Dismissed

17/00022/S36 Land North of Arundel Drive and East of Great North Road Ranskill Nottinghamshire

Outline Planning Application with some matters reserved, approval being sought for access for residential development

Dismissed. Committee Overturn.

17/00011/S36 Land to side of The White House, Main Street Welham, Retford, Notts DN22 0SJ

Outline application with all matters reserved approval sought for access for the erection of a dwelling

Dismissed. Cost Application against LPA Dismissed

17/00018/S36 Land adjacent to Allison Dene, Treswell Road. Hampton, Notts

Erect Two Storey Dwelling and Construct New Access (Resubmission of P/A/16/00130/FUL)

Dismissed.

17/00019/S36 Land adjacent to Hawthrone Lodge, Brickyard Lane, Walkeringham, Doncaster S Yorks DN10 4LZ

Outline Application with some matters reserved (Approval sought for access) to erect detached house with Double Garage and Construct New Access

Dismissed

17/00020/HSE 16 Old Blyth Road, Ranby, Retford, Notts, N22 8HZ

Extension to Lower round Floor and Erection of Conservatory to be built on top

Dismissed

Costs Appeals

4.12 One cost application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate but this was dismissed.

Appeal performance for Major April 2015 - ~March 2017

4.13 There were 6 major application appeals decided in this period and three of these were dismissed at appeal. This is out of a total of 97 major applications. The percentage of appeals allowed in this period determined is 3%, well below the 10% threshold of overturned appeals. The final performance figure for this period will be determined in December 2017 after a 9 month lag to allow for appeals on those determined applications to be decided. The percentage of appeals will continue to be monitored with the final percentage being reviewed before the 2018 designation round.

4.14 Decisions must be based on the relevant planning policy and the Planning Inspectorate is now determining appeals based on a recent High Court Decision, which placed more importance on Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. This paragraph is provided below and needs to be considered in all refusals:

108

14. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour

of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running

through both plan-making and decision-taking.

For decision-taking this means:

● approving development proposals that accord with the development plan withoutdelay; and

● where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out‑of‑date,

granting permission unless:

–– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

–– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.

5.0 Summary : How are we performing?

5.1 This report has shown that in Quarter 2 of 2017/2018, the standard of performance met the local and national targets for both Majors and Non Major applications, but for Majors fell well below the local target.

5.2 The reasons for this are set out above and whilst this is of concern, it is considered that this is a temporary downturn which should be rectified as 2017-18 progresses.

5.2 There is therefore an increased need to maintain focus, as given the relatively low numbers of appeals and major applications that are received, even a small number of overturned appeals or out of time major applications can make a large difference to the performance figures as has bene borne out by Q2 returns.

6.0 Implications

a) For service usersEfficient and effective regular monitoring enables a consistent approach toensuring a good quality of service delivery which benefits service users.

b) Strategic & PolicyThe reporting of the Development Team performance meets with CorporateAmbition 2: Local Growth through ensuring that the Service provides anefficient processing of applications to deliver a maximisation of potential.There are no strategic and policy implications arising from this report.

c) Financial - There are no financial implications arising from this report. Ref: 18-

172.

d) Legal – There are no legal implications arising from this report. Ref:86/08/2017

e) Human ResourcesThere are no human resources implications arising from this report.

109

f) Community Safety, Equalities, EnvironmentalThere are no Community Safety, Equalities or Environmentalimplications arising from this report.

g) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number.No.

7.0 Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations

7.1 To ensure that appropriate monitoring and performance management procedures are in place and that the Council continues with its focus on achieving high performance, facilitating development and providing good service to all who use the Planning Service.

8.0 Recommendations

8.1 That the report be received and the Committee notes the current performance data.

Background Papers Location

Development Management returns to DCLG

PS1 and PS2 for 2017/18 Q2

Planning Services

110