28th October 2013 Telephone: (01636) 655247E-mail: catharine.saxton@nsdc.info

www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk

Kelham HallKelhamNewark

NottinghamshireNG23 5QX

Dear Sir/Madam,

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Kelham Hall, Newark on Tuesday, 5th November 2013 at 4.00 pm.

Yours faithfully,

A.W. Muter

Chief Executive

A G E N D A

Page Nos. 1. Apologies

2. Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 1st October 2013

1 - 6

3.

Declarations of Interest by Members and Officers

4.

Declaration of any intentions to record the meeting

Page Nos. PART 1 - ITEMS FOR DECISION

5. Ash Farm, Cockett Lane, Farnsfield (13/01072/OUTM) (Site Visit: 12:00 hours – 12:40 hours)

7 - 32

6. Pitomy Farm, 121 Low Street, Collingham (13/01235/FUL & 13/00506/VAR106) (Site Visit: 09:15 hours to 09:30 hours)

33 - 50

7. Westbury, The Spinney, Winthorpe (13/01114/FUL) (Site Visit: 09:40 hours to 09:50 hours)

51 - 56

8. 19 Kirkby Close, Southwell (13/01103/FUL) (Site Visit 10:20 hours to 10:30 hours)

57 - 62

9.

37 Easthorpe, Southwell (13/01156/FUL & 13/01157/LBC) (Site Visit: 10:35 hours to 10:45 hours)

63 -70

10.

4 Farthingate Close, Southwell (13/01283/FUL) (Site Visit: 10:50 hours to 11:10 hours)

71 - 78

11. 3 The Paddocks, Southwell (13/01113/FUL) (Site Visit: 11:15 hours to 11:20 hours)

79 - 84

12. Lockwell Hill Farm, Kirklington Road, Farnsfield (12/01075/FUL) 85 - 106

13. Rufford Forest Farm, Centenary Avenue, Rufford (13/00952/FUL) 107 - 124

14. Bowers Caravan Park, Tolney Lane, Newark on Trent (13/01167/FUL) 125 - 136

PART 2 – ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

15(a) Appeals Lodged

137 - 138

15(b) Appeals Determined

139 - 140

PART 3 - STATISTICAL AND PERFORMANCE REVIEW ITEMS NIL

PART 4 - EXEMPT AND CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS The following items contain exempt information, as defined by the Local Government Act, 1972, Section 100A(4) and Schedule 12A, and the public may be excluded from the meeting during discussion of these items.

NIL

NOTES:- A Briefing Meeting will be held in G21 at 3.00 pm on the day of the meeting between the Business Manager Development, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee to consider late representations received after the Agenda was published.

NEWARK AND SHERWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of the Meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber, Kelham Hall, Newark on Tuesday, 1st October 2013 at 4.00pm. PRESENT: Councillor D.R. Payne (Chairman) Councillor B. Wells (Vice-Chairman) Councillors: T.S. Bickley, R.V. Blaney, J. Bradbury, Mrs C. Brooks, Mrs G.E. Dawn,

J.E. Hamilton, G.P. Handley, D. Jones, G.S. Merry, Mrs S.E. Saddington, M. Shaw and Mrs L.M.J. Tift.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors: Mrs I. Brown, P.R.B. Harris, R.J. Jackson and R.B. Laughton 220. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor I. Walker. 221. MINUTES

AGREED that the Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 3rd September 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

222. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS

NOTED that the following Members declared an interest in the items shown below:

Member Agenda Item

Councillor G.P. Handley Agenda Item No. 5 - 62 Kirklington Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire (13/01056/FUL) Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, the application site was adjacent to Councillor Handley’s property.

Councillors D. Payne, M. Shaw Agenda Item No. 5 – 62 Kirklington and B. Wells Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire (13/01056/FUL) Personal Interest,

Members of the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

223. DECLARATION OF ANY INTENTIONS TO RECORD THE MEETING There were none.

1

(Councillor G.P. Handley declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Minute No. 224 and left the meeting at this point). 224. 62 KIRKLINGTON ROAD, SOUTHWELL (13/01056/FUL) The Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive, following a site

inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought the revision to a previously approved scheme for the formation of a new access off Kirklington Road at the eastern end of the site and the construction of a private drive running parallel with the eastern boundary from Kirklington Road leading to turning areas to serve the two proposed 4 bedroom detached houses. These were shown sited with their principal elevations facing east and on an east-west alignment. The private amenity space was to the rear (west) of the dwellings.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which included

correspondence received after the agenda was published from the applicant, submitting a Section 109 agreement received from Severn Trent Water, which confirmed in writing the proposed drainage design was accepted and approved and that combined surface water and sewage could be connected to the main public sewer.

Councillor P.R.B. Harris as local Ward Member for Southwell West spoke against the

application. He asked the Committee to consider deferral of the item until information was received from the review coordinated by Nottinghamshire County Council regarding surface water flow rates.

The Business Manager Development confirmed that officers had spoken with the

Environment Agency and Nottinghamshire County Council; they had confirmed via email that the proposals were low risk and Severn Trent could control the water.

A Member raised concern that the land was in 100 yards of the land which had

recently flooded and whether the flood matrix had been used. The Business Manager Development confirmed that this was a consented scheme to

which Severn Trent had a duty to connect. The proposal was a revision to the previously approved scheme for the formation of a new access and a family room to the rear of the dwellings.

A Member confirmed that a meeting had taken place last week at the Minister

School, Southwell, regarding a study which was being undertaken regarding the flood issue within Southwell. The Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and Internal Drainage Board on receipt of those results would use the information for future planning applications. The Environment Agency and Nottinghamshire County Council had issued no objection, although it was felt that they should have given details of why they were granting consent, earlier than the day of the meeting. It was considered that as the application had been granted consent on appeal, the small additions were minimal.

2

A vote was taken that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the review coordinated by Nottinghamshire County Council; the vote was lost with 5 votes for, 7 votes against and 1 abstention.

AGREED (with 8 votes for, 4 votes against and 1 abstention) that planning

permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report and the following:

(i) Revision to the plans condition to tie the overlay plan of the

appeal scheme and this proposal; and (ii) change to condition four to split into two separate sentences

the submission and implementation phases. 225. HILLCREST, 7 HOVERINGHAM ROAD, CAYTHORPE (13/00885/FUL) The Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive, following a site

inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought full planning permission for the demolition of the existing building on the site and the erection of a two storey replacement dwelling.

Councillor R.J. Jackson as local Ward Member for Lowdham spoke in support of the

application on the grounds that this was a large plot which could easily accommodate this size of house. If all the outbuildings were included in the calculations, the plot size would be similar. The old building was small and dilapidated and contained asbestos. The applicant was a local person who worked nearby at the family business.

Members felt that the proposals were too large for the plot. The site appeared to be

tucked away when on site, however when approached from Hoveringham would be prominent in the open countryside. They further commented that a replacement dwelling larger than the current property would be supported, but the proposals presented were too large.

AGREED (with 10 votes for and 4 votes against) that planning permission be

refused for the reasons contained within the report. 226. SILVERWOOD, BROOMFIELD LANE, FARNSFIELD (13/01042/FUL) The Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive, following a site

inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought four retirement dwellings plus alterations to existing dwelling at Silverwood.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which included

correspondence received after the agenda was published from the applicant. Councillor R.B. Laughton as local Ward Member for Farnsfield and Bilsthorpe Ward

spoke in support of the application. He commented that there were a number of local residents in support of the development. Proposals for this land had been on going from 2002. Previous objections had been addressed in the current proposal,

3

including highways objection and modifications to windows which had satisfied the Parish Council.

Members felt that given the position of Silverwood any development on this site

would be difficult. The design however before them was over development which was inappropriate.

The Business Manager Development commented that that there was an error in

paragraph 1 of the reasons for refusal, which should read ‘protect and enhance’. AGREED (unanimously) that planning permission be refused for the reasons

contained within the report, with the amendment to condition one. 227. 78 MILLGATE, NEWARK (13/00909/FUL & 13/00915/LBC) The Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive, following a site

inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought planning permission for the change of use of a five bedroomed house to a three bedroomed bed and breakfast with two bedrooms remaining for the owner’s accommodation. An infill extension to the rear to provide an ensuite at first floor, a bin store at ground (street) level and a garden store at basement (garden) level. In addition the internal alterations to insert an ensuite to an existing bedroom and creating a door through to a bathroom.

Councillor Mrs I. Brown representing Newark Town Council spoke in support of the

application on the grounds that although Nottinghamshire County Council Highways had raised their objection regarding in adequate parking, the Town Council felt that the bed and breakfast business would be welcomed within Newark and there were a number of car parks in the town that could be used to facilitate the business.

Members considered that the site is in a highly sustainable location, well served by

several modes of transport, with parking available in the wider locality. In addition the benefit of bringing into full use a listed building and the contribution to tourism was a significant material consideration.

AGREED (unanimously) that:

(a) contrary to officer recommendation 13/00909/FUL - full planning permission be approved, subject to reasonable conditions; and

(b) 13/00915/LBC - listed building consent be approved. 228. 165 HAWTON ROAD, NEWARK (13/01069/FUL)

The Committee was informed that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

4

229. 18 STATION ROAD, COLLINGHAM, NEWARK (13/01079/FUL) The Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive, which sought full

planning permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow and replacement with two, two storey detached properties with detached single garages.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which included correspondence received after the agenda was published from the applicant. The applicant advised that they had been approached by a neighbour the previous evening, seeking that the scheme be amended, swapping the location of one of the houses and the garage to overcome one of their issues. The suggested amendments involved the repositioning of the garage and alterations to the roof design to hip it away from the neighbour at number 14. The Business Manager Development informed Member to make their decision based on the proposals submitted and consulted on, and not to consider the amended scheme submitted the day before committee. The Business Manager Development advised that the amended scheme had not been through the proper consultation process, and so should not be considered further at this stage.

A Member commented that the applicant had responded to the neighbours concern by proposing the late amendment; however the Committee could approve the original scheme in view of the applicant submitting a proposed amendment at a later stage.

AGREED (with 13 votes for and 1 abstention) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report. 230. (a) APPEALS LODGED AGREED that the report be noted. 231. (b) APPEALS DETERMINED AGREED that the report be noted. 232. 19 PELHAM STREET, NEWARK, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE The Committee considered the verbal late item from the Business Manager Development regarding an enforcement matter, following the site inspection undertaken by Committee Members that morning. The Committee were asked to note that enforcement action would not be taken on the works undertaken at 19 Pelham Street, Newark. The works represented an external insulating solution for the whole house comprising covering the three external walls. The brick walls were treated with a glue/cement substance before fixing 90mm thick grey polystyrene wall insulation blocks to the brick and applying a 1.5mm silicone render finish.

5

Due to an administrative error, the local planning authority had confirmed that planning permission was not required for the works as they represented permitted development.

Part of the works had been already completed in good faith. The polystyrene blocks had been attached to the external brickwork. Works had ceased while consideration was given to an appropriate way forward. The removal of the polystyrene blocks would result in severe damage to the brickwork beneath due to the strength of the adhesive bond between the two surfaces. Any attempt to remove the works already carried out would destroy the bricks beneath. Initially it was proposed to have a pebbledash finish, however, through negotiations it was now agreed that a simple painted render finish, to match the property opposite would be used. The Business Manager Development therefore concluded that in the circumstances it would not be expedient to take enforcement action.

AGREED (unanimously) that:

(a) the Business Manager Development’s intention not to take enforcement action be noted; and

(b) this does not set a precedent for similar development in the Conservation Areas in the future.

The meeting closed at 6.10 pm Chairman

6

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Application No: 13/01072/OUTM Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 100 no. dwellings

with associated infrastructure, along with up to 0.5 ha of B1 and B2 employment development (including means of access)

Location: Ash Farm, Cockett Lane, Farnsfield Applicant: Barratt Homes North Midlands Registered: 13.08.2013 Target Date: 05.11.2013 The Site and Surroundings The application site relates to just over 3.9 hectares of land, currently grazed, and forming part of the agricultural holding Ash Farm. The site wraps around the farmhouse and second dwelling, an annexe, and farm buildings. The site lies on the north western edge of Farnsfield and comprises a broadly rectangular site wrapping around the farmhouse and farmyard, which is excluded from the site. The site fronts onto Crockett Lane, a local highway and is accessed currently from this road via a field gate which is located to the north of the access to ash Farm. Adjacent to these accesses is a bus stop and a further bus stop is located on the opposite side of the road. At the southern end of the site the land adjoins the rear gardens of residential properties fronting Mansfield Road. A wooded area adjoins the south-western corner of the site, an ex-quarry. To the north the site extends to the edge of a redundant railway cutting, now designated a bridleway, the Southwell Trail and SINC (local nature reserve). A traditional brick railway bridge enables the road to over-sail the railway cutting. The western site boundary adjoins open countryside and the rear garden of Sandcroft, a dwelling fronting Mansfield Road. There are long views north and eastwards across the site towards the open countryside beyond. The site itself forms a part of this rural landscape and is laid out to pony paddocks. The site’s boundaries, including an internal boundary adjoining the farmhouse comprises field hedges and tree planting, other than the southern boundary has a domestic character. There are a number of trees within the site, which are predominantly located around the farmhouse and farmyard on its southern and northern side. To the east the boundary with Cockett Lane is planted with an established hawthorn hedge. The area adjacent to the farmhouse is tree planted together with a number of trees planted around the northern corner of the site. The site is set back from the edge of the carriageway by a grassed verge which narrows along the site frontage but extends to the junction of Cockett Lane and Mansfield Road. To the east of the site is the modern edge of the village with brick built detached houses and bungalows fronting Cockett Lane, set back behind reasonably sized front gardens with on-plot parking. Two modern culs-de-sacs are located off the lane, Birch Avenue an older group of detached bungalows and Murdock Close a modern development of two storey family sized dwellings in open plan plots. Station Lane is located opposite the northern corner of the application site and extends into the heart of the village and again comprises modern detached brick built two storey dwellings set back in reasonably sized front gardens with on-plot parking. On the eastern side of Cockett Lane between Station Lane and Murdock Close the road has a

7

pavement, which terminates at the junction of Murdock Close and Cockett Lane. This part of the lane has a suburban type character with spacious plots with gaps between dwellings, significant levels of established planting in front gardens and street lighting. There is a recognizable change in character beyond this point both to the south and to the as the lane reverts to a traditional rural character with established boundary planting either side of the carriageway in verges which, in some sections abuts the edge of the carriageway. The western side of Cockett Lane has no pavement. Ash Farm which is located outside the site area comprises an extended brick farmhouse and associated buildings, including a converted brick barn in residential use and agricultural buildings including stables and a ménage. The site includes part of the Ash Farm farmyard and a number of the agricultural buildings would be required to be demolished in association with a development of the site. Ash Farm will be retained. The land is gently sloping rising to the north and west and rises above the adjacent road level towards the north of the site. The western part of the site adjoins a historic long disused quarry. The site lies outside any flood zones, in flood zone 1.

Relevant Planning History

Planning permission has been granted previously for development associated with the agriculture and the conversion of a barn to dwelling adjacent to the farmhouse.

13/SCR/00021 In July 2013, a screening opinion (under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) for a residential development of up to 100 houses and up to 0.5 ha of B1 and B2 employment development together with open space was submitted. The Local Planning Authority has issued a response confirming that an EIA would not be required in this instance.

The Proposal

The proposal is in outline with access only to be determined at this stage. The application is for a development of up to 100 dwellings and 0.5 hectares of B1 and B2 employment land. No indicative details are provided in relation to the employment land. An indicative masterplan layout is provided in respect of the residential element and shows a potential mix of 3, 4 and 5 bed dwellings and 30% affordable housing. Access only is to be determined at this stage provided as a new access to the southern side of Ash Farm. In addition the proposal incorporates open space and a green buffer to the western and northern boundaries.

The masterplan indicates a single access into the site via an adopted road with a series of culs-de-sacs off with houses predominantly fronting the highway with on-plot parking serving the majority of the plots. The employment land is indicated as being located in the north-eastern part of the site. The open space is indicated as being positioned behind Ash Farm. The indicative masterplan shows 94 units including affordable houses. Two and two and a half storey houses are indicated in the Design and Access statement as suggested house types. The affordable houses are indicated to include 2 and 3 bedroom units, both affordable rental and intermediate houses.

A draft S106 Agreement accompanies the planning application.

The planning application is also accompanied by an indicative layout plan, draft masterplan, junction design, Planning Statement, Affordable Housing Statement, Design and Access Statement, Statement of Community Involvement, Transport Assessment, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Phase 1 and 2 Geo-Environmental Investigation and ground stability report., Arboricultural Report, Flood Risk Assessment, Archaeological Report, Extended Phase 1 Ecological Habitat Survey, and Topographical Survey.

8

The proposal constitutes the first of the allocated sites to come forward for decision following the formal adoption of the Site Allocations and Development Plan Document in July 2013. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of 78 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice has been displayed at the site and an advert placed in the local press. Planning Policy Framework The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted 29 March 2011) • Spatial Policy 1 Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2 Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 6 Infrastructure for Growth • Spatial Policy 7 Sustainable Transport • Spatial Policy 9 Site Allocations • Core Policy 1 Affordable Housing Provision • Core Policy 3 Housing Mix, Type, and Density • Core Policy 6 Shaping our Employment Profile • Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design • Core Policy 10 Climate Change • Core Policy 12 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Core Policy 13 Landscape Character • Core Policy 14 Historic Environment Newark and Sherwood Publication Allocations & Development Management DPD • Fa/MU/1 Farnsfield - Mixed Use Site 1 • Policy DM1 Development within Settlements Central to Delivering the Spatial Strategy • Policy DM2 Development on Allocated Sites • Policy DM3 Developer Contributions • Policy DM4 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation • Policy DM5 Design • Policy DM7 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Policy DM9 Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment • Policy DM10 Pollution and Hazardous Materials • Policy DM12 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Newark and Sherwood Affordable Housing SPD (June 2013) Newark and Sherwood Developer Contributions DPD (October 2008) Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework 2012

9

Consultations Farnsfield Parish Council – Objects to proposal. The Parish Council advises that it recognises the Council has a requirement to meet its housing allocations and to ensure such developments blend with the character of the village and do not adversely affect amenities and can create advantages for local trade. Farnsfield has changed from an extended linear village to become a principal settlement and has retained its rural village character and is viewed as a pleasant village to reside in with good facilities. The site lies within the new village envelope and on the western outskirts of the village. Development of the site should not adversely impact on the visual aspect of the village as it will be one of the first sights of the village when viewed from the A614. Currently the view is of a rural village in a valley surrounded by low hillsides. The location of the employment land will need careful management to ensure businesses do not locate on the site which are not compatible with the adjacent residential uses and there is a concern that this could include shops. It is foreseen that the least expensive properties will be located near to this area with the larger and more expensive ones towards Cockett Lane and Mansfield Road. This in itself could present an amenity issue for neighbouring premises. The required masterplan for the development is considered inadequate and does not provide sufficient detail of phasing and infrastructure provision. “A further aspect is the access to the site. Barratt have suggested that footpath provision may be improved along Cockett Lane towards Mansfield Road. Barratt’s state that they have no responsibility for any highway development other than the site access point, and on site. Cockett Lane is the link road from the A617 and Mansfield Road, to the A614 or through the village towards Southwell. It is also a bus route, the road is not too wide and has a blind summit at the bridge over the Southwell Trail, it also is subject to flooding from surface water at Cockett Farm corner. One access point is proposed on to Cockett Lane, there is no apparent provision for a pedestrian route to the school. This will also add to the vehicle movements and further congestion around the school area caused by parents transporting the children to school by car. There are no pedestrian or cycle routes on to the Southwell Trail, no crossing points over Cockett Lane on to Station Lane, where most of the additional traffic will go; another narrow road with parked cars and narrow uneven pavements. Consideration of stability and drainage issues relating to a former quarry on the western boundary have been undertaken by the applicant but the flood risks assessment undertaken by Barratt appear to have been undertaken using different data from that used by Newark & Sherwood DC. The land currently drains without any apparent flooding issues but the dynamics will change with the introduction of 70 to 100 dwellings on the site. Most dwellings now require 5 soakaways of 1 cubic metre not likely to be replicated on a development of this size. The proposed SUDS system must be effective and sustainable. There is history of erosion in the area due to mining and a stream, The Beck ran from the White Post to the Acres, off Cotton Mill Lane, any impact on the water table level could result in the surface water being displaced elsewhere. The current situation in Farnsfield is that under normal circumstances the sewage system can cope, but in storm conditions the mains usually explode at various points on the Main Street discharging raw sewage into nearby properties. A very firm assurance must be provided that any development on this site

10

will not further exacerbate the problem. Raised at a recent public meeting was the issue of sewage/drainage problems resulting from a development on Murdoch Close where some houses were repurchased by the developers, Wilson Homes, major sewage works undertaken and regular visits to the sewage system are made by Severn Trent. The issue of surface water management and sewage disposal is one of the principal issues with this development and again insufficient information has been provided to reassure the Parish Council that this has been addressed satisfactorily. In summary: • There is insufficient detail regarding the types of development and phasing of the proposed

scheme taking into account the infrastructure provision.

• Insufficient information and assurance regarding surface water drainage and sewage provision

• In this application there is little concrete information as to how the developers will meet the requirements of Policy DM5 with specific reference to access, amenity, local distinctiveness and character, flood risk and water management.”

Bilsthorpe Parish Council- No comments received Blidworth Parish Council- No comments received NSDC (Local Plan) Subject to addressing local environmental, highway or amenity impacts an increased number of dwellings on the site above that anticipated in Policy Fa/MU/1 would not be resisted on Policy grounds. The Policy sets out 5 criteria and there are concerns in respect of the development in the western corner of the site adjoining a disused quarry in relation to ground stability and drainage matters. Other constraints should be considered as a part of the assessment of the application and opportunities taken to improve biodiversity and green infrastructure. “In conclusion on the issues of capacity, I consider that providing the greater number of dwellings proposed can be accommodated within the site without generating any detrimental impact on the surrounding area, there is no policy reason to resist the proposal in principle. However, the proposal could benefit from further investigation and possible amendment in light of the more detailed comments above.” Nottinghamshire County Council-Highways The drawings do not tally in relation to the position of the access. The details of the visibility line can be relaxed to 2.4m x 59m although it is necessary to demonstrate that visibility can be achieved factoring in the road gradient to the south. Separate access to the employment land should be considered to segregate residential and commercial traffic. Shared roads within the site may require wider road widths to be achieved. The Transport Assessment does not assess alternative B1 uses such as offices, which would alter the junction capacity calculations. A revised Transport Assessment should be provided.

11

The width of Cockett Lane is queried and appears much narrower than is stated in the Transport Assessment in places and the Assessment should be revisited. Minor carriageway improvements to increase the width of the lane may be required. A full survey of the length of Cockett Lane, south of Murdoch Close will be required for the provision of a footway. Details of a footway on the east side of Cockett Lane south of Murdoch Close and on the west side between Birch Avenue and Murdoch Close are shown on one drawing but are not referenced otherwise in the application. Confirmation is required that they will be provided under a 278 Agreement at a width of 2m. A retaining structure is required on the east side of Cockett Lane due to changing levels. This will allow pedestrian access to Mansfield Road, dropped kerbs should be included. Bus patronage should be encouraged by bus stop enhancements (dropped kerbs and shelters) to the stops in Cockett Lane and two nearby stops on Mansfield Road. The indicative internal road layout does not appear in some cases to comply with the Highway Authority’s design guide and requires further consideration/amendment.

Nottinghamshire County Council-Rights of Way

Comments, that the application site is adjacent to public bridleway No34 the Southwell Trail adjacent to the site’s northern boundary. The bridleway is popular, well used and is managed by the County Council. There is an access point close to the site in Station Lane. There is concern that the development will impact on equestrian users during the construction phase. Additionally the scale of development will place additional pressure on the route and result in increased requirements for maintenance. The applicant is requested to submit proposals to address these concerns and is requested to make a financial contribution towards the potential impact in terms of usage by future residents of the development.

Natural England

The proposal is not considered to fall within the scope of Natural England’s consultations. However, Natural England ‘expects’ the Council to consider the following matters. The impact on protected species and any nearby local nature reserves or priority habitats, the site may offer biodiversity opportunities to enhance green infrastructure as this is an area which would benefit from such an opportunity.

NSDC-Access and Equality Officer

The applicant’s attention is drawn to Part M of the Building Regulations in respect of accessibility requirements within and around buildings and accessibility throughout the development.

Severn Trent Water

No objection subject to drainage details being submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. An update will be made at the Committee meeting regarding sewer and surface water drainage capacity issues.

NSDC- Parks and Amenities

Amenity open space and children’s play space and equipped play area would be best delivered on site. The indicative masterplan indicates such provision although this may be deficient in terms of its size, 20m2 per dwelling and 15m2 per dwelling of amenity open space is required to be provided together with a buffer zone to adjacent properties. Arrangements for long term maintenance will also be required to be secured for these areas. A financial contribution by way of a commuted sum for provision/improvements and maintenance of sports fields in Farnsfield would address this aspect of the developer contribution obligations.

12

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust

The site lies within the 5 km buffer zone of a potential Special Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive (Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) which requires consideration to be given to the impact of development on nightjars and woodlarks in the Sherwood Forest area. The development is considered to potentially impact on these species which have been recorded within 3.2 km of the site, through increased human activity in the locality.

Should the development be approved the Trust seeks assurance that no direct access will be permitted from the site to the SINC and that the boundary of the site and the SINC should be sensitively treated. The east west running hedgerow should, preferably, be retained in accordance with good infrastructure design practice. The new boundary planting will take some time to establish. The eastern and western hedgerows should be sensitively incorporated into and buffered from any development in the long term. It is recommended that the ivy clad hawthorns be surveyed for activity.

The proposed open space should be located so as to provide improved connectivity with the surrounding landscape in the interests of enhancing biodiversity. It is recommended that in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF consideration is given to providing brick boxes for house sparrows, swifts and bats. Bat emergence surveys of the trees are required if they are to be felled and full consideration of the nightjar and woodlark issue should be addressed. Biodiversity enhancements should be built into the development and the layout modified to improve habitat connectivity and retain existing features.

Environment Agency

Outline permission could be granted subject to the following conditions. Surface water drainage should be addressed via a SUDS scheme which should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The applicant will need to provide further information to ensure there will be no increase to flooding in the area from surface water run-off. The site lies above a Source Protection Zone 3. The previous use of the site and proposed use would suggest minimal risk of contamination or pollution providing any contamination found during development shall be subject of an agreed mitigation strategy. During construction a scheme to be agreed to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run-off. Oil and petrol separators shall be installed where HGV vehicles are turned or parked, details to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Severn Trent Water Ltd should be consulted and requested to demonstrate that the sewerage and sewerage disposal systems have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional flows from the development.

NSDC- Emergency and CCTV Planning Co-ordinator

Supports the proposal. The site lies in flood zone 1 and is therefore at low risk of flooding. However, the developer should bear in mind the provision of sewerage drains and surface water.

NSDC- Conservation

Comments that the site is situated away from the Farnsfield Conservation Area and it is anticipated that there will be no significant adverse impact on its setting. Consideration has also been given to other designated heritage assets within the vicinity but these raise no concerns. Cockett Farm, a Grade II listed building is located to the north of the site but is well screened by the railway embankment. Historic buildings at Mill Farm are considered to have a degree of heritage value at the local level and may constitute non-designated heritage assets but their setting is not considered to be harmed by the proposal.

13

Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board No objection subject to ascertaining the suitability of new or existing soakaways. If suitability is not proven the applicant should resubmit proposals for the draining of surface water. If to a watercourse the discharge rate must not exceed 1.4l/s/ha. NSDC- Strategic Housing The scheme will provide 30% affordable houses the tenure mix requirements being 60% social rent and 40% intermediate housing. The housing needs survey identifies that high levels of housing need is for smaller households in the Farnsfield area and demand requirements are for 2 bed houses and bungalows and 3 bed houses. The houses should be pepper-potted through the development and delivery should be achieved before 60% of the market housing is completed. The houses should be indistinguishable from the open market housing and achieve the HCA’s design standards for affordable housing. The houses should be delivered by a Registered Provider and accord with the requirements set down in the Affordable Housing SPD. The affordable houses are to be secured within a S106 agreement. NATS There is no safeguarding objection to the proposal. NSDC- Community Sports and Arts Supports proposal. It will attract a community facility contribution equating to £142,437.85 based on RPI value at May 2013 and would be recalculated at the point of payment due to indexation. The payment would support community projects in Farnsfield including the village hall and sports clubs allocated on a priority basis in consultation with the Parish Council. NSDC- Building Control Supports the proposal. Consideration should be given to possible instability in the ground strata due to identified filled ground conditions. The buildings and foundations should be designed accordingly. A tailored geophysical site investigation is required relative to the type of development and previous use and where there are potential contaminants a combined geotechnical and geo-environmental investigation should be considered. NSDC- Environmental Health A stage 1 and 2 contamination report did not identify contaminants on the site a watching brief condition is therefore recommended to be attached. Nottinghamshire County Council – Education and Libraries No contributions required. The local primary school has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional 21 spaces calculated to be generated from the development. Ramblers No response received.

14

Police Architectural Liaison Officer No response received. Nottinghamshire County Council-Archaeology – No comments received Nottinghamshire County Council-Ecology – No comments received Community Safety No response received. Neighbours/interested parties - Local residents and organisations have been notified of the proposals. 56 letters from local residents have been received objecting to the proposals on the grounds of: • Village services are already at full extent, e.g schools and health centre and the

infrastructure should be improved prior to further houses being permitted. Concern that the additional school places required is incorrect.

• Cockett Lane and Station Lane do not have capacity to accommodate the additional traffic and highway safety issues would arise. Cockett Lane would require widening, it narrows to 4.8 metres in places and there have been accidents on the junction of Cockett Lane and Station Lane. Lights are required either side of the bridge in Station Lane.

• There is no pedestrian walkway along Cockett Lane increasing safety for disabled pedestrians. If provided it would result in stability issues for houses in Murdock Close. Concern that the blind bridge adjacent to the site and child pedestrian safety will be an issue.

• A single access into the site will create congestion on the surrounding roads. • Drivers using Cockett Lane drive too fast to avoid pedestrians and even if traffic calming is

installed it won’t have any effect. The recent speed limit is not adhered to. • The proposed road junction into the development is too close to Murdock Close and will not

provide sufficient visibility as it does not acknowledge the blind rise from Mansfield Road. • Inadequate consideration of sustainable transport options from the site to the centre of the

village, cycling rarely occurs as the lane cannot be used safely. • There is no continuous footway along Mansfield Road into the centre of the village. • The development would exacerbate existing parking problems in the village especially

around the school. • Insufficient parking is provided on the site • Existing buses and heavy agricultural machinery find it difficult to pass each other on Cockett

Lane. • Cockett Lane is subject to flooding and is frequently closed. • The Flood Risk Assessment is questioned as it conflicts with NSDC’s ‘Parish Flood Maps’

information and advises the existing drains are not under pressure, which is disputed. • Concerns over access for emergency vehicles to the site. • The development would alter the character and appearance of the village, there is too much

infilling in the village and the site is too distant from the village centre. • Farnsfield has been dealt a rough hand and been given Cinderella treatment compared to

neighbouring villages. The Allocations Policies for Farnsfield are inconsistent with those applied elsewhere in the District.

15

• The appearance of the development is unacceptable being urban in its style and will result in the creation of a suburb or dormitory and may result in the settlement eventually building up to the edges of adjoining settlements as ribbon development. Garden sizes shown are insufficient for a rural location.

• 2-5 to 3 storey houses are out of character with the bungalows opposite and single storey dwellings only should be permitted on the western site boundary.

• The density of development is too high and does not reflect the locality, the allocation being around 70. 100 houses would be incongruous in scale and does not provide space for planting nor screen planting.

• Overbearing impact on the village envelope. • The dwellings will be highly visible over the hedgerows from White Post Lane and Cockett

Lane as the land is elevated and will be a ‘huge blot on the landscape’. • The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment does not provide appropriate viewpoints and

the site will be clearly visible from A614 and the Southwell Trail further viewpoint assessments should be provided. No details of the houses are provided and therefore it is not possible to assess their visual impact on the landscape. It is believed that the Assessment was done for allocation purposes and not for the specific planning application.

• The development does not have any synergy or link with the existing character and feel of the village and the rural character of this part of the village. It will be one huge cul-de-sac.

• There is no provision for front gardens over much of the development and the four bedroom houses have little parking space and no manoeuvring areas.

• The details propose tall houses on this elevated site on a hill and no bungalows are included for older people or properties for younger people. Materials should be sensitively chosen for the dwellings to reflect the local vernacular. The houses are out of keeping with the architecture of Farnsfield.

• The 2008 Housing Needs Survey highlighted the desire of villagers to “to keep the country setting” which is not achieved by this development and to firstly change to the use of buildings and to provide small development of approximately 10 houses, which the proposal does not achieve.

• The community housing surrounds the commercial area with no softening of landscaping to soften the development.

• The Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands and Sherwood character area guidelines should be respected.

• Existing trees and the high hedges on Cockett Lane should be retained and the boundaries should retain or be planted to integrate the development with the rural landscape.

• The land is the only parcel in the village where ferns grow. • The application does not take into account the findings and recommendations of the

arboriculture, ecology and Visual Impact Assessment. There should be an emphasis on enhancing the hedgerows and tree planting within the site and a 5 metre stand-off provided. There is no provision for new hedging along the southern boundary.

• Detrimental impact on an already overloaded sewerage/surface water drainage system. Will be exacerbated by surface water run-off from hard surfaces on the development. There is concern over capacity of the sewage works at Edingley. No improvements are cited in the application and this should be resolved prior to any permission being granted.

• Severn Trent Water have advised that it has a duty to undertake network reinforcements to ensure the new flows (sewerage) can be accommodated. Their statutory response to the application is questioned as to its relevance to this development proposal. They have advised “Farnsfield village will have potentially a worse situation as a result of this development flooding issues in Farnsfield are well known to us.”

16

• Ecology and wildlife would be destroyed by the development including breeding opportunities for birds in the agricultural buildings and stables. There are lizards and amphibians in surrounding gardens and birds, including Birds of Conservation Concern are seen. Bats are also seen in the locality and may roost on the site during parts of the year.

• The submission details relating to the boundaries of the area around the quarry is inaccurate.

• The Arboricultural Report is inaccurate and omits a section of existing boundary hedgerow entirely which is owned by Sandcroft and is an enclosure hedge which should be retained in accordance with the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment.

• The Archaeology Report is incomplete and precludes a full assessment of potential archaeology.

• Loss of privacy to existing dwellings by virtue of overlooking and overshadowing and increased light pollution.

• Changes in levels between the site and Mansfield Road properties have not been addressed and will result in proposed houses overlooking first floor windows. Additionally the garden of Sandcroft, Mansfield Road will be overlooked as it is lower than the site level. In one case the difference in levels is approximately 4 metres with the site on the higher ground.

• The illustrative layout locates the houses against the rear boundaries of properties in Mansfield Road.

• Boundary treatment and tree planting to address overlooking and loss of privacy may be compromised by small gardens.

• Concern over the lack of information as to the commercial element of the proposal in particular potential commercial traffic generation and the need to go through the residential area to access the commercial area.

• Concern over the relationship of the commercial land and the residential use and its location on the highest part of the site. The use could extend to business and general industrial uses and offices. Outline consent should not be granted until the commercial uses are confirmed.

• Flash flooding in 2013 and also 2007 and 2009 resulted in drains around Mansfield Road lifting and flooding properties with raw sewerage. This would be exacerbated by the development which is on one of the highest points in the village. The County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority should comment on the proposal.

• The proposal suggests soakaways are appropriate, this is disputed as the Environmental Investigation was undertaken when the ground was frozen, especially an issue in respect of the quarry area.

• The gardens are small and may not be of sufficient size to accommodate soakaways of the size required.

• The Flood Risk Assessment contains inaccuracies including the location of the lowest ground level on the site and is at odds with the Parish Flood Map information in relation to the location of an adjoining Flood Zone 3 area, which the Map shows as being closer than the Flood Risk Assessment.

• The Flood Risk Assessment confirms the site level is above the Cockett Lane road level and surface water not contained on the site will flow onto the lane and add to surface water on Cockett Lane. The Assessment advises that drainage details need address the impact if the existing drainage system cannot accommodate the additional surface water run-off.

• An assessment is required of the impact of using soakaways on the properties on Mansfield Road which are at a lower ground level and any impact on the stability of the quarry area.

• There is an old dried up watercourse within 100 metres of the site, this may become active by virtue of surface water run-off from the development and lead to future flooding in the area and springs created on lower lying ground.

• Detrimental impact on the adjacent Southwell Trail.

17

• The proposed open space is inadequate and needs improving. • There is no mention of sustainable development/sustainable living. • Increased pollution, noise and disturbance from the development. • The application should have been submitted as a full application and currently does not

provide details of the exact nature of the development. Different standards are being applied to a large development company than other applicants.

• The development should adhere to Policy Fa/MU/1 requirements and does not currently. It requires an Environmental Impact Assessment.

• There is a conflict with Policy DM5 and Fa/MU/1 including the lack of a masterplan and would use up virtually the whole allocation up to 2026 rather than allowing phased growth.

• There will be significant negative impacts from the development and a lack of consideration to the immediate locality.

• Ground stability and drainage issues relating to the quarry have not been addressed within the technical reports. The quarry has step sides and is 12-20 feet lower than the development site. A hedge along its boundary is critical to stabilising the quarry sides. There is concern that the edges of the quarry are unstable but currently can be accommodated as the adjoining site is grazed and has limited surface water run-off onto the site. The development will alter this position and the use of soakaways and surface water run-off will result in increased water draining through the quarry sides. The projected 60% site coverage by hard surfaces and roofs will create significant levels of surplus water.

• A mini landslide occurred when work was undertaken to part of the sand quarry which adjoins the site. The potential impact of the development on the adjoining properties which have the quarry in their gardens is not assessed in sufficient detail and contingencies put in place to cover insurance claims if the quarry is adversely affected by the development.

• Mansfield Road • Notwithstanding the details submitted the site is considered appropriate for residential

development. • Whilst the commercial element is a positive it needs more information provided. • Whilst new housing is inevitable in Farnsfield, it is important for it to fit well with its rural

surroundings, which has been achieved elsewhere in the village. The development would appear to merge visually due to the density level proposed- as seen at Murdock Close.

• Issues relate to the suggested layout including a road off when entering the development serving 3 dwellings.

• Negative impacts will result including increasing crime and disorder, visual impact and less space for adequate buffering.

• There are existing properties for sale in the village. • Officers and Councillors are invited to view the site from Sandcroft, Mansfield Road, which

borders the site A petition of 593 signatures has also been received opposing the development on the following grounds:- of inadequate proposals for sewage capacity improvements, inadequate consideration of stability and drainage issues, flawed design of a suitable and safe site access and impact on the existing highway infrastructure, detrimental impact of the housing plan on visual impact and the distinctiveness and character of Farnsfield, erosion of green spaces and environmental impacts, inadequate provision to improve local village infrastructure and unspecified information in relation to the industrial area.

18

Comments of the Business Manager - Development Principle of Development The National Planning Policy Framework promotes the principle of a presumption in favour of sustainable development and recognises that it is a duty under the Planning Acts for planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF also refers to the presumption in favour of sustainable development being at the heart of the NPPF and sees sustainable development as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. This is confirmed at the development plan level under Policy DM12 of the Allocations and Development Management DPD. The proposal site is one of two sites in Farnsfield, a Principal Village, allocated for development in the Core Strategy (adopted 2011) under Spatial Policy 1 and Spatial Policy 2 which confirms that the allocated scale of housing growth in Farnsfield over the plan period (to 2016), is 10% with 7-8 hectares of employment land to be delivered over this same period in the Southwell area, including Farnsfield. Ash Farm and its associated buildings were excluded from the site allocation and retained within the farm complex. The proposed development incorporates part of the farmyard and proposes the removal of a number of agricultural buildings. The two existing dwellings at Ash Farm, are, however, retained outside the proposal site area. Whilst this results in a variation to the site allocation boundaries it is considered marginal in terms of land take and having regard to the Village Envelope, which extends around the proposal site there is considered to be no ‘in principle’ objection to the inclusion of part of the Ash Farm complex being incorporated into the proposal site area. The Allocations and Development Management DPD (adopted July 2013) confirms the site as one of the two sites allocated for development under Policy Fa/MU/1. The Policy sets out that the site is allocated for a mixed use development of around 70 dwellings, associated public open space and up to 0.5 hectares of B1 and B2 employment development compatible with established residential development nearby. The Policy set down a list of criteria which a development proposal would be subject to alongside the usual developer contributions and planning obligations. • “A master plan, forming part of any planning application(s) setting out the broad locations

for the different types of development and their phasing, taking into account of infrastructure provision, constraints and the need to ensure that the delivery of the range of uses is not prejudiced;

• Consideration of stability and drainage issues relating to former quarry on the western boundary of site as part of any planning application;

• Appropriately designed access forming part of any planning application, with consideration being given to its location towards the southern part of the sites frontage to Cockett Lane;

• Pre-determination archaeological evaluation submitted as part of any planning application and post-determination mitigation measures secured by condition on any planning consent are likely to be required reflecting the medium to high archaeological potential of the site; and

• Developer funded localised sewer capacity improvements as required.

19

Policy DM1 of the ADMDPD refers to proposals being supported for housing within the Service Centres that are appropriate to the size and location of the settlement, its status in the settlement hierarchy and in accordance with the Core Strategy and other relevant Development Plan Documents. Policy DM2 refers to development within sites allocated in the ADMDPD being supported for the intended use provided that they comply with the relevant Core and Development Management policies relating to site specific issues. Consequently, the principle of mixed use residential and commercial development together with the associated open space is considered appropriate. Policy Fa/MU/1 Criteria- Masterplan requirement The site’s allocation is subject to meeting specified criteria, including the submission of a master plan for the site showing the broad locations for development and their phasing. The development of the current outline proposal has been subject of pre-application discussions with planning officers and agreement has been reached at officer level and the applicant that the indicative layout plan, submitted as part of the application package qualifies under this requirement. The plan, as submitted, laid out the site with 100 dwellings, including affordable housing extending across the width of the site, including open space immediately to the rear of Ash Farm and 0.5 hectares of commercial land (B1 and B2) in the north western corner. It is understood that the commercial development will be dealt with separately and subsequently with the residential development being brought forward first. Following the submission of the layout master plan there has been a modification reducing the proposed number of dwellings to 94 units and some reconfiguration of the indicative position of individual plots and the incorporation of a 5 metre planted buffer zone to the northern and western boundaries (reinforcing the existing enclosure hedging to the western boundary). Whilst there are a number of outstanding issues regarding the site layout itself, which will require further discussion at reserved matters stage, the broad locations for the development in terms of the position of the commercial development, the residential element, the location of the open space and position of the site access indicated on the layout plan is considered acceptable and fulfils the requirements of Policy Fa/MU/1. Stability and Drainage Issues relating to the former quarry The site adjoins, in the south western part of the site, a longstanding redundant sand quarry which is incorporated into adjoining gardens. The quarry is deep, neighbours advising it to be between 12 -20 feet below the application site’s ground level with steep sides. It is planted with established trees and shrubs by occupiers and is understood not to have reinforced sides. Following concerns expressed by the residential occupiers whose gardens include the quarry at Allocations DPD consultation stage a requirement to consider the impact on the stability and drainage issues of development on the adjacent land was included within the Policy criteria. The policy position in relation to unstable land generally is also set out generically under Policy DM5. A Phase 1 Geotechnical Assessment submitted by the applicant notes that the quarry is located off site adjacent to the site and under section 5.1 ‘Stability Issues’ in their report advises that “the former rail cutting and small scale quarrying adjacent to the site may need further assessment if any new build is proposed in the vicinity of these features”.

20

A supporting short technical summary has subsequently been provided by the applicants advising that the quarry and railway embankment on the northern boundary has been inspected and is considered stable. It would be necessary for any plot to be located 5 metres from the quarry edge and for soakaways and the rear garden of the closest plot to the quarry to grade/drain away from the quarry wall. Whilst this is considered to provide a preliminary assessment of the stability of the quarry walls it is understood that the assessment was undertaken from the application site and not from within the quarry itself. Having regard to comments received from the residents whose gardens include the quarry it is considered that a more detailed assessment is required of the stability of the quarry walls, including implications of surface water run-off once the detailed layout of the scheme is fixed. Such a precautionary principle approach would, in conjunction with the Environment Agency’s recommended SUDS condition, satisfactorily address this issue. Access Requirements. Policy Fa/MU/1 confirms that an appropriate access should be designed for the development and should be located towards the southern part of the site frontage. The indicative layout positions the site access to the south of the existing Ash Farm site access which is considered an appropriate location by County Highways. The existing agricultural access to the land will be closed. Revised detailed access details have been provided by the applicant (plan no JN1391-NKW-002) showing a visibility splay line 2.4 x 59 metres in either direction which County Highways consider acceptable. Whilst local concerns regarding highway capacity and road safety are noted County Highways, as was stated throughout the ADMDPD process (and indeed found to be sound by the appointed Inspector) consider the development will be acceptable. This is subject to not only the visibility splays detailed but also providing that Cockett Lane (which currently narrows in several places to 4.8 metres carriageway width) is increased in order to also accommodate larger residential numbers and commercial vehicles associated with the employment land. These upgrading works would be required to be undertaken between the site and the junction of Cockett Lane with Mansfield Road. In addition, whilst there is a short section of pavement opposite the site extending between Murdock Close and Station Lane there is no pavement extending between these points and Mansfield Road. In the interests of improving pedestrian links and encouraging sustainable modes of transport the applicants are agreeable to extend the existing pavement to the Mansfield Road junction. There is sufficient highway land, verges and banks to enable this to be achieved within the public highway and therefore no third parties are required to be party to this requirement. In undertaking the above works there are clearly implications for the visual appearance of this stretch of road, in particular the sections of treed banks to the sides of Cockett Lane which extend between Murdock Close and Mansfield Close and give a rural appearance to the locality. The provision of the lane widening and provision of a pavement would remove much of this planting and will open up views of Murdock Close properties. However, it is considered that in order to meet Spatial Policy 7, Core Policy 9, Development Management Policy DM5 and the NNPF sustainability requirements in relation to sustainable locations for development that the provision of these improvements forms a core requirement to enable a sustainably located development to be provided on this site.

21

The applicant has agreed to improvements to the bus stops outside and opposite the site together with nearby bus stops on Mansfield Road in order to accord with sustainable transport requirements under Spatial Policy 7 and DM5. At the present time these works would be secured either within a Section 106 agreement or by planning condition on an outline planning permission. In relation to the internal road network and parking provision this is shown on an indicative layout and details that the majority of parking will be provided on plot with the smaller dwellings provided with block parking areas. Having regard to the outline nature of the application, which does not seek to establish the layout at this stage it is considered that these issued can be addressed in detail within a reserved matters application. In principle the indicative arrangement of a single internal spine road with cul-de-sacs off is considered an acceptable design approach although there are aspects that would benefit from further consideration, in particular the inclusion of a footpath link to Cockett Lane, towards the northern end of the site. County Highways officers have expressed some concerns over the location of the commercial land in the north-western corner of the site and the arrangement whereby commercial traffic will need to access this area through the residential part of the site. The Policy for the site allows for both B1 and B2 uses. It is accepted by County highways that a B1 use, whilst it would still generate commercial vehicles, is by its very nature often appropriate in a residential context (i.e. via a residential estate road). This stance is supported in terms of compatibility of B1 and residential uses in the Use Classes Order. If B2 were also/alternatively proposed County Highways have suggested that a more appropriate arrangement would be to provide a separate access to this area direct from Cockett Lane. To do so would necessitate providing a second access towards the northern end of the site an arrangement that is not supported by the access location requirement of Policy Fa/MU/1.

Following discussions between Officers, County Highway colleagues, and the applicants it has been agreed that now the detail of the broad areas of employment and residential use is known that this issue is best dealt with by conditioning the permission that the employment land shall comprise B1 use only. This would remain policy compliant.

On this basis County Highways officers have no objection in principle to an internal estate road, which could also serve B1 use. However this internal road will still be required to meet County Highway specifications for a mixed residential and commercial road, a detail which would be fixed at reserved matters stage.

Archaeology Evaluation

Policy FA/MU/1 requires an archaeological evaluation to be undertaken and post mitigation measures included via a planning condition should archaeology be found on the site. A Heritage Statement accompanied the application and concluded that following a desk top study and geophysical survey that the site is of no major archaeological significance nor are any designated heritage assets directly or their setting are directly affected by the proposed development, which is located on the periphery of the settlement.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has raised no objection to the proposal whilst the comments of the County Archaeologist are awaited and an update will be made to the Committee once they have been received. It is anticipated that a scheme of treatment only will be necessary in this case in relation to potential archaeology on the site. Subject to this condition the proposal is therefore considered to raise no issues under Core Policy 14 and Policy DM9.

22

Sewer Capacity Improvements The final criteria under Policy Fa/MU/1 relates to a developer funded requirement for localised sewer improvements to be provided, if required. Development Management Policy DM10, although not directly addressing sewer capacity matters sets out that ground and surface water issues, which have the potential for pollution should be taken account of, and their potential impacts addressed. The Policy goes on to state that proposals should include “necessary mitigation as part of the development or through off site measures where necessary.” Spatial Policy 9, Core Policy 9 and Development Management Policy DM5 require consideration and mitigation to be undertaken where flood risk and water management issues arise. In respect of Ash Farm at Site Allocations stage Severn Trent Water Authority identified to the Council that sewer capacity issues exist currently in the village and that further development of any significant scale would be likely to require this to be addressed in relation to both the Ash Farm allocation and also Farnsfield – Housing Site 1 land to the east of Ridgeway and Greenvale allocated for approximately 35 dwellings. Sewers include foul sewers, storm sewers and combined sewers although in this case it is not known if the existing dwellings in the locality are served from separate foul and storm sewers of a combined sewer. Local anecdotal information confirms that there have been events of foul water surcharged with surface water from heavy rainfall has flooded parts of the village, including the most recent floods this year (2013) with manholes lifting and discharging storm water and sewerage into homes. Severn Trent Water have informally advised that they are aware of this issue which is considered to be due to the sewer pipes being too small to deal with discharge levels in the village. S106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 enables a developer to require a connection to public sewers, notwithstanding any capacity issues. It is incumbent on the provider to ensure that the public mains sewerage system is able to accommodate the additional demand including additional demand in periods of heavy rainfall from surface water run-off which are not dealt with otherwise by, for example soakaways. The applicant has advised that they are in discussions with officials at Severn Trent Water as to the specification that would be required to enable the foul sewers to accommodate the additional demand from foul water (sewerage and waste water) from the development. This would include connecting Ash Farm and the second property, an annexe, to the pubic foul sewer, currently they are connected to cesspits on the development site. In respect of storm water (surface run off and rainwater from roofs) the submitted Flood Risk Assessment confirms that the site lies in a Flood Zone 1 area and calculates that approximately 60% of the site will be laid to hardstanding or roof area (generating an impermeable area of 2.12 hectares). The Assessment advises that it will be “necessary to manage the increase in runoff rate and volume generated by the development of the site, not only to protect the development, but also to reduce the potential for flood risk downstream.” The Flood Risk Assessment recommends that ground conditions are suitable for infiltration drainage to address surface water run-off needs. Infiltration drainage is a technique of returning water directly to the ground via infiltration which range from permeable pavements, infiltration basins and trenches through to storm water storage crates, deep bore soakaways and swales.

23

Such an approach forms a core element of a Sustainable Drainage System as required by Core Policy 9 and Development Management Policy DM2 and DM5. The Assessment recommends that private soakaways to each plot would be suitable to address surface water and discharge from individual roofs whilst surface water run-off from the highway would be appropriately addressed by a single soakaway located under an area of allocated open space at a low point on the site (i.e a sub-ground sump) or other SUDS techniques alongside soakaways. Alternatively private soakaways and ground profiling to provide a 1:100 flood storage area would be appropriate. Defra, in October 2012 issued a Statement of Obligations ‘Information for Water and Sewerage Undertakers and Regulators on Statutory Environmental and Drinking water provisions Applicable to the water Sector in England.’ The document acknowledged that not all drainage networks are currently able to cope with extreme rainfall or to keep surface and groundwater out of sewers. Water Authorities are now required to have regard to the relevant local flood risk management strategy developed by Lead Local Flood Authorities under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The proposed use of soakaways and a single soakaway to mitigate surface water run-off from the internal road network would potentially address this issue. The Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board has raised no objection to the proposal subject to ascertaining the suitability of new or existing soakaways and has commented that if suitability is not proven the applicant should resubmit proposals for the draining of surface. Similarly the Environment Agency have advised that there is no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System being designed and approved to serve the development. There is clearly a commitment by the applicant to addressing this issue and a preliminary layout plan accompanying the Flood Risk Assessment showed a larger area of open space proposed than in the current indicative layout accommodating sub-ground storm water storage crates soakaway serving the internal estate road whilst accommodating around 94 dwellings on the site, which reflects the numbers currently proposed by the applicant. It is concluded therefore that the applicant considers that such an approach would be suitable for rain fall run off disposal on this site. It is considered that a further detailed and specified engineered drainage assessment informed from the existing Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement should be submitted alongside any relevant reserved matters application and should include a full assessment of the implications of soakaways in relation to the quarry walls and railway embankment. Subject to this, which can be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition, the proposal is acceptable in this regard. Density, Mix and Affordability Policy Fa/MU/1 suggests the site could accommodate around 70 dwellings together with 0.5 hectares of employment land. The site extends to around 3.9 hectares including the employment land and when the housing density is calculated (i.e. net off the 0.5 hectares of employment land) it provides a residential density of 34 per hectare which accords with Core Policy 3, which advises residential densities of 30 dwellings per hectare or more should be sought on the allocations sites.

24

Local objections received have commented that the site was allocated for 70 dwellings whilst the proposal seeks a higher figure of up to 100. It is accepted that this is a higher delivery level than the broad figure proposed in Policy Fa/MU/1 however Allocations Policies are not intended to set a maximum delivery figure for each site but to provide an indication of the scale of development that might be brought forward, subject to amongst other things, acceptable detail such as layout, design, scale, and drainage. Paragraph 1.28 of the Allocations and Development Plan Document DPD (recommended included by the Examinations Inspector) advises that “As a part of the determination of planning allocations on these allocated sites it is possible that both higher and lower densities may be achieved on sites as part of the design process.”

The indicative layout and Design and Access Statement confirms that the site will be developed with a mix of three, four and five bedroom open market houses properties and predominantly smaller two and three bedroom dwellings for the affordable properties. The indicative layout whilst being deficient in terms of open space provision and having limited areas of public realm landscaping does indicate that up to 100 dwellings can be achieved on the site.

It is acknowledged that at this proposed delivery level the 10% Principle Village Growth set out under Spatial Policy 2 will be achieved on this single allocation (105 dwellings was set out in the Allocation DPD) this figure was not intended to set a maximum limit for the Plan period and as such the proposal does not prejudice the housing growth strategy for the settlement. Farnsfield has been identified as a Principle Village which is assessed as sustainable and suitable for accommodating the housing requirements of the district and it is considered that, subject to offsetting the impacts of the development through planning obligations and CIL that a development of the scale proposed would be appropriate.

In relation to the indicative layout there are considered to be number of unresolved issues which require further consideration at reserved matters stage. In particular, and as set out above, the internal estate road requires assessment as to its suitability to enable commercial vehicles to access the employment land, and to explore the provision of a pedestrian link from properties at the northern end of the site to Station Lane which is a pedestrian route into the village and provides access to the adjacent Southwell Trail.

As part of any reserved matters application for layout and landscaping public open space, including an equipped LEAP will be sought on site based on the formula set out in the Developer Contributions SPD (20m2 per dwelling (LEAP) and 15m2 per dwelling (AOS)). The majority of open space will be sought on-site, including the LEAP, albeit it is accepted that depending on overall housing numbers the level of open space required on site may reduce. Should there be any shortfall in size terms on the above formula it will be secured via an off-site contribution in lieu of on site provision. This form part of the S106 Heads of Terms detailed below.

The location of open space(s) clearly falls to be determined at reserved matters stage, albeit indiciative plans consistently show this immediate behind Ash Farm and the residential annexe. The space replaces the farmyard buildings and menage and is currently planted with established trees and a field hedge which extends to the western site boundary which are retained in part. The location of the open space and LEAP therefore would be positioned in an already planted part of the site. A proximity issue has however been identified in respect of the LEAP and the existing properties at Ash Farm, in particular the annexe accommodation and the closest plots. A buffer zone of 30 metres is required between a children’s equipped play area and adjacent properties and this will need to be factored in or addressed by the applicant at reserved matters stage. In terms of the long term management of these public areas the applicant has confirmed that they will be managed by a management company established by the applicant which is considered acceptable and in compliance with Policy DM3.

25

In respect of the overall residential layout the Design and Access Statement advises that 2 and 2.5 storey houses will be provided and although not specified it would appear from the suggested location of dwellings on their plots in the indicative layout that the site will be laid out on an open plan arrangement with limited opportunities for public realm landscaping. Tree planting to the northern and western boundaries will enhance the existing hedgerow planting and the existing planting to the front (eastern) boundary is shown reinforced with a shared drives located immediately behind. A further assessment of the relationship of the proposed dwellings on the plots backing onto the adjacent Mansfield Road properties will need to be undertaken at reserved matters stage in order to ensure that appropriate distances are achieved in order to ensure unacceptable overlooking does not occur between existing and proposed properties in accordance with Policy DM5 requirements. Similarly consideration will be required to be given to potential overlooking between proposed properties fronting Cockett Lane and existing dwellings south of Murdock Close as existing planting along this section of road may be required to be thinned or removed to enable the pavement to be installed. In terms of the mix of houses, in accordance with Core Policy 3 family sized properties are proposed ranging from 3 to 5 bedrooms with smaller units proposed for the affordable houses, which comprise affordable rental and shared ownership properties. In accordance with Core Policy 1 and the Affordable Housing SPD 30% affordable housing is proposed in a range of house sizes and tenures which accords with the Housing Needs assessment. These dwellings will be secured within a S106 agreement. In relation to design matters the Design and Access Statement sets out a design strategy for the site and confirms the house sizes and number of storeys, a maximum of 2.5 which is considered acceptable having regard to the location of the site on the edge of the village in close proximity to modern development, including bungalow opposite. These matters will, however, be considered in more detail at reserved matters stage, although it is appropriate at outline stage to set out what is required to assess the reserved matters of layout and scale. This should include full existing and prosed site levels, cross sections and street scene elevations, and final details of slab levels of the properties. Impact on the Wider Landscape including Tree Planting The site lies on the outskirts of the village on land which, although having a shallow slope is on higher ground than the surrounding landscape. It will be clearly visible from a number of vantage points including Mansfield Road when travelling from the White Post Farm roundabout towards the village, within Cockett Lane and also from the adjacent Southwell Trail. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Arboriculture Report accompanies the application and assesses the potential impact on the wider landscape in accordance with Core Policy 13, DM5 and DM9 (in respect of historic landscapes). The wider landscape beyond the site is gently undulating and open, interspersed with areas of woodland and arable fields bounded by hedges. The site forms part of this wider field pattern. The village proper is located to the east of the site nestling on lower ground whilst the site is elevated above the adjacent Mansfield Road properties and SINC, which are located within an ex-railway cutting.

26

The site allocation accords with the existing field pattern around Ash Farm and will utilise two fields which are separated by a hedgerow. Established enclosure field hedging extends along the western site boundary (and for a section is on third party land). The southern boundary is fenced and tree planted around the edge of the quarry whilst the northern and eastern site boundaries are planted with overgrown hedges. Within the site and adjacent to the Ash Farm buildings the landowner has undertaken a reasonable level of tree planting in association with his own properties. The agricultural buildings on the site, which are largely modern will be largely removed as a part of the development with the red brick dwelling and annexe retained by the current owner. The proposal seeks the removal of the existing hedge dividing the two fields although this has now been amended to retain a section adjacent to the open space whilst the external field boundaries are proposed to be reinforced along the northern and western edges with additional planting in the form of a 5 metre planted buffer zone. It is considered that from long views this will assist in softening the development. It will be necessary at the reserved matters stage to ensure that the development is delivered to a high quality with appropriate landscaping to give the development an appropriate setting. Ecology and impact on the Southwell Trail SINC Ecology Sherwood Special Protection Area (SPA) Notts Wildlife Trust would like to draw attention to the fact that in the context of the Public Inquiry into Veolia’s application for planning permission for an Energy Recovery Facility at Rufford, an issue has arisen as to whether the substantial population of Nightjar and Woodlark in the Sherwood Forest area justify its classification as an Special Protection Area (‘SPA’) under the EU Birds Directive, or at least its identification as a potential SPA (‘pSPA’). If Sherwood is to be treated as a pSPA, then it is Government policy that the potential site should be treated as if it had already been classified. This would have the result, in the case of applications in the vicinity of the pSPA, including but not limited to Veolia’s application, that the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (formerly the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994) would have to be applied. In the case of the proposed Rufford ERF, the Inspector and Secretary of State have agreed that the principal criterion for SPA designation (that of population size in a national context) has been met, and that it is appropriate to treat the area as if it were a pSPA, until such time as JNCC publish the results of the current SPA review. Thus it is NWT’s view that the Sherwood area is at least a pSPA, and we are therefore bound to advise any LPA to that effect. There is a 5km buffer zone around the combined Indicative Core Area (ICA) and proposed Important Bird Area (IBA), as agreed by Natural England, within which we believe the possible adverse effects of any development should be properly considered. The application that is the subject of this consultation response falls within that area. In this case it is for the Council, as Competent Authority, to decide whether or not you agree with NWT’s view that the Sherwood Area is to be regarded as a pSPA, but clearly the Secretary of State’s decision must be borne in mind in this context. If so (since this is clearly not a proposal directly connected with or necessary to the management of the pSPA) the initial question arising under Reg 61(1) of the 2010 Regulations is whether the proposed development is likely to have a

27

significant effect on the pSPA (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects). This is a precautionary regime, and the European Court has held that a likely significant effect is one where there is a risk of it occurring which cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information. There are records of breeding Nightjar and Woodlark within 3.2km and 3.8km from the development site. Notts Wildlife Trust’s advice in the present case is that the proposed development would have a likely significant effect on the Sherwood pSPA both alone and in combination with other proposed development in the area including the previously approved applications 08/01746/FULM and 09/00837/OUTM. This position is also based on the reasons listed below: 1. Higher number of people in the area which would result in increased disturbance from

walkers, dogs etc. on breeding nightjar that nest in the area. 2. Increased vehicle movements in the area leading to increased disturbance of breeding,

feeding and roosting woodlark and nightjar. 3. Increased emissions of nitrous oxides from the additional vehicle movements, plus

construction emissions, resulting in further degradation of the heathland habitats upon which Nightjar and Woodlark depend.

4. In combination effects from nearby development proposals. In the case of the Rufford PI, the Secretary of State’s determination on the pSPA issue has confirmed that it is appropriate under these circumstances to undertake a ‘shadow’ appropriate assessment of any development where potential Likely Significant Effects have been identified. It is noted that this site was allocated and that the Wildlife Trust were engaged in this process, offering no objection in this regard. Nevertheless, the precautionary approach advocated is being taken on board and the applicants are undertaking further work on this issue, the details of which are not available at the time of print. On this basis a full update will be provided in advance of the Committee. It remains for the Council, as Competent Authority, to satisfy ourselves that the planning application contains sufficient objective information to ensure that all potential impacts on the breeding Nightjar and Woodlark populations have been adequately avoided or minimised as far as is possible using appropriate measures and safeguards. In relation to site specific ecology matters the submitted Ecology Report does not identify any protected species on the site and the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust raises no objection to the proposal subject then ensuring bats and breeding birds are not affected by the development as whilst the site survey did not identify bat roosts the land could form part of the foraging area. The Wildlife Trust has recommended that bat surveys should be undertaken if trees are to be felled and ecological enhancements included such as brick bat boxes and improvements required to the planting, hedgerows and new planting to increase biodiversity and enhance wildlife corridors in accordance with Core Policy 12 and Policies DM5 and DM12. The site also adjoins the Southwell Trail and SINC. The trail is well used by local residents, cyclists and horse riders and concerns have been raised by the Rights of way Officer that the development will result in additional usage of the Trail necessitating a financial contribution to its management. Such a provision is not considered to be supportable and is recommended not be included as a planning obligations within the S106.

28

In respect of the potential impact on the SINC the Wildlife Trust and Natural England have not expressed concerns in this respect and the County Ecologist’s comments are awaited and an update will be made at the Committee meeting. The proposal incorporates a planted buffer zone which will provide a bio diverse separation of the development from the SINC and further consideration can be given to the impact of soakaways once the detailed specification has been submitted as a part of the reserved matters application. Land Contamination The site has been in longstanding agricultural use and the submitted Phase 1 and 2 ground conditions survey does not indicate contaminants are present. It is however recommended that an appropriately worded condition is attached at outline application stage to require the site to be monitored and further assessment undertaken, including mitigation should contaminants be found once the commencement of development in accordance with Policy DM10. Planning Obligations and CIL Given the outline nature of the application whilst it is clear that CIL does apply, the level of the contribution can only be fixed at reserved matters stage once floorspace has been fixed. Turning to the S106 again some contributions cannot be fixed until overall numbers are known. The S106 will therefore be set out, where relevant, as a series of formulas to be applied to each separate obligation dependant on details submitted in the reserved matters stage. The details are set out below: Contribution Formula (if required) • Affordable housing (affordable rental and shared ownership)

30%

• Off site financial contribution to sports pitches in the locality 40m2 per unit (if the proposal relates

to 100 units) • On site POS

amenity open space (15m2 per dwelling)

• Off site POS in lieu of full on-site provision

Formula to be agreed for payment per m2

shortfall for capital and maintenance

contribution • LEAP to be provided on site subject to agreement as to the

equipment to be provided

children’s playing space (20m2 per dwelling). Design

detail to be agreed • Off site financial contribution to community facilities in the

locality £1424.37 per dwelling

Trigger points to be agreed.

• Off site highway improvement works including upgrading of the bus stops (these may however be secured by planning condition.

29

Other works including those relating to the sewerage improvements are recommended be secured by planning condition Conclusion The site is allocated for mixed use development under Policy Fa/MU/1 and therefore the substantive matter for consideration under this outline application is the level of compliance achieved with the policy requirements, core strategy and development plan policies. The proposal indicates that up to 100 dwellings could be achieved on this site in compliance with the Council’s adopted policies in relation to ensuring high quality sustainable development is delivered in the District. Notwithstanding this it is necessary, based on the indicative masterplans provided, to control and ensure at this outline stage that any future reserved matter(s) applications address a number of issues. This is to be secured by conditions. RECOMMENDATION Approve, subject to conditions which will be provided in advance of Committee. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application Case File For further information, please contact Karen Tate on Ext 5841 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

30

31

32

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 Application No: (1) 13/00506/VAR106 & (2) 13/01235/FUL Proposal: (1) Variation of S106 to reduce the number of affordable units from

10 to 8 (2) Change of approved plan of planning permission 10/01158/FULM

to plot 8 from one 3 bed house to two bed x 1 bed apartments with increased floor area.

Location: Pitomy Farm, Low Street, Collingham, Newark, Nottinghamshire Applicant: C T Sheldon Ltd Registered: (1) 24/04/13 Target Date: 19/05/13 (2) 29/08/13 Target Date: 25/10/13 Introduction Members will recall that an application for 30 dwellings at Pitomy Farm was approved by Planning Committee in December 2010 subject to signing and sealing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure a range of developer contributions. This was eventually executed in May 2011. The applicant is due to commence part of the development, which will now be undertaken as a phased scheme, and is seeking to amend the scheme to convert one of the affordable housing plots (plot 8) from a single dwelling to two 1 bedroom flats under planning application 13/01235/FUL. In association some limited minor amendments have been sought. In addition the applicant is now asserting that the scheme as currently approved is unviable and consequently is separately requesting that the Council consider varying the Section 106 Agreement to reduce the total number of affordable houses provided together with the house sizes and tenures. The two proposals are not inter-dependent and should be assessed independently of each other, although for ease of understanding they are included within this single Committee Report. The Site The site lies on the north-western edge of Collingham on the western side of Low Street within the Conservation Area. The site comprises 1.4 hectares of previously developed land having been in use as an established farmyard and haulage operation which have been relocated and the site prepared for development. This has included addressing ground stability issues in one part of the site which is made up ground. The land is adjoined by

33

housing to either side of the entrance and farmland behind. There is a narrow frontage to Low Street, sufficient to accommodate the approved road serving the site whilst the developable area of the site lies to the north-west of the approved site access. Vehicular access is from Low Street by way of a new adopted road which is adjoined by residential properties. Adjacent and served from the permitted access is a Grade II Listed barn, currently subject of a conversion scheme together with a separate cart shed, converted to offices. The site is bounded by the River Fleet and tree planting along its western boundary. The Scaffold Drain extends across the north of the site whilst a public footpath ruins immediately adjacent to the eastern site boundary linking to a footbridge which crosses the watercourse to the north and provides access to adjacent agricultural land. Planning permission was granted in 2011 for a development of 30 dwellings, including 10 affordable houses and open space in a development of 1 bed, 2 bed, 3 bed and 4 bed dwellings on the site. Of these 10 were confirmed, via a S106 agreement, to be affordable houses, both social rental and shared ownership. Other planning obligations secured within the S106 agreement included financial contributions to community facilities, libraries, open space and play space maintenance and integrated transport. These other planning obligations remain as set out in the original S106. The Proposal (1) Variation of S106 to reduce the number of affordable units from 10 to 8. (2) Change of approved plan of planning permission 10/01158/FULM to plot 8 from one 3

bed house to two bed x 1 bed apartments with increased floor area. This plot is proposed to accommodate two of the affordable housing units and comes forward following discussions between the applicant and the RSL’s as to the affordable housing needs in the area.

Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure (1) Occupiers of ten neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A

site notice has also been displayed at the site and the application advertised in the local press.

(2) Occupiers of ten neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. The consultation period has not yet expired and therefore a late update will be provided to the Planning Committee advising of any third party comments received. A site notice has also been displayed at the site and the application advertised in the local press.

Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011):

34

• Spatial Policy 1: Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2: Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 6: Infrastructure for Growth • Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 1: Affordable Housing Provision • Core Policy 3: Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14: Historic Environment

Newark and Sherwood Publication Allocations & Development Management DPD (adopted July 2013):

• Policy DM1: Development within Settlements Central to Delivering the Spatial Strategy

• Policy DM3: Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations • Policy DM5 : Design • Policy DM9: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment • Policy DM10: Pollution and Hazardous Materials • Policy DM12: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Newark and Sherwood Affordable Housing SPD (June 2013) Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Consultations Collingham Parish Council objects to both proposals as follows: (1) “Collingham Parish Council does not support this application by majority. More

affordable housing is needed within the village, this is the reason the application cannot be supported.”

(2) Collingham Parish Council does not support this application as the proposal will reduce

the parking and amenity land. The proposal will increase parking demand and traffic generated which will affect highway safety. The Parish Council refers to the previous planning decision. The proposal is part of piecemeal changes to the approval and there are concerns that the application is not being looked at in relation to the whole of the Pitomy Farm development.

Nottinghamshire County Council Highways (1) The Highway Authority was not consulted in respect of this application. (2) The highway Authority has not commented on this application. Environment Agency (1) The Environment Agency was not consulted in respect of this application.

35

(2) Providing the LPA do not see any conflict with the Sequential Test process then the site has extant planning permission and we have no objections to the change of form of Plot 8 house to apartments.

Newark and Sherwood District Council (Access and Equalities Officer) (1) The Access and Equalities Officer was not consulted in respect of this application. (2) It is recommended that that the developer be advised to give consideration to inclusive

access and facilities for all, with particular reference to disabled people as part of the development and be Part M compliant. It is recommended that the developer be mindful of the requirements of the Equality Act.

Newark and Sherwood District Council (Environmental Health) (1) Environment Health was not consulted in respect of this application. (2) Regarding the above application, there is currently a contaminated land condition in

place on 10/01158/FULM which includes this plot. Newark and Sherwood District Council (Conservation) (1) Conservation was not consulted in respect of this application. (2) No objection provided the materials accord with those approved for the terrace under

10/01158/FULM, which includes this plot. Newark and Sherwood District Council (Strategic Housing) (1) Assessing viability figures submitted the provision of 10 affordable houses would result

in the development becoming unviable. On reduction of the affordable housing quota to 8 units the scheme would become marginal in terms of its viability. As a result and as there is only 1 unit below the policy requirement the reduced quota is considered reasonable. In addition support would be given to a mix of shared ownership and affordable rent or wholly affordable rent depending on the requirements of a Registered Provider.

(2) Strategic Housing was not consulted on this application. Newark and Sherwood District Council (Growth Point Manager) (1) Initial comments that the scheme including 10 affordable houses would be unviable.

Final comments are awaited. Neighbours/Interested Parties (1) No comments have been received. (2) No comments have been received at the time of the drafting of this Report. Any

comments received subsequently will be updated on the late items report. Comments of the Business Manager, Development (1) S106 Variation of S106 to reduce the number of affordable units from 10 to 8

36

Planning permission 10/01158/FULM secured the provision of 10 affordable houses on the site, a slightly higher figure than required under Core Policy 1, which required 9 to be provided. The scheme therefore offered 1 additional affordable dwelling in excess of the policy requirement in recognition that (at the time of submission) part of the application site was outside of the settlement boundary. The additional unit was effectively offered as a further material consideration against the policy position which presumed against development in such locations. The scheme that was approved was preceded by lengthy pre-application negotiations dating from 2006 when the economy and housing market was peaking. Given that Collingham is a popular and attractive village the applicant anticipated that market conditions would recover and although a developer has been secured taking into account the current housing market position and unexpected costs associated with the preparation of the site and the relocation of the existing business on the site the development is assessed by the applicant as unviable. This has been supported by a Viability Appraisal. In order to improve viability for the scheme the landowner is seeking to achieve a competitive return that will help recoup some of the significant costs incurred in relocating the farming/haulage operation from Pitomy Farm to Wheatley Farm, so that this site could be brought to the market for development (those costs not only included site clearance, but provision of replacement buildings at Wheatley Farm). All other aspects of the S106 would remain as originally agreed and 30 dwellings would be delivered in total through the development. The Viability Appraisal has been assessed by the Strategic Housing officer who has confirmed that the reduction of two units would enable the development to become marginal in terms of its viability. The scheme, however, originally offered one unit more than would have been required under Core Policy 1 at the time of the granting of the planning permission in 2011. This was in part to offset the fact that part of the site was located outside of the Village Envelope. Since that date there has been a change in the planning policy position with the adoption of the Allocations and Development Management DPD (July 2013) and the Affordable Housing SPD (June 2013). Previously the site lied partly outside the Village Envelope. The Site Allocations and Development Management DPD has amended the Village Envelope around Collingham and the site is now fully included within the settlement. Map 4 of the DPD identifies the site as having the benefit of an outstanding planning permission although no specific policy is included in respect of the site. The additional dwelling offered previously to offset the Village Envelope scenario is therefore no longer applicable and would not provide a justification for more than 9 affordable houses to be provided on this site. The Council have also adopted an up to date Affordable Housing SPD which accords with Core Policy 1 requirements. The proposal is marginally below the 30% requirement set by Core Policy 1 and Policy DM3 at just under 27% equating to a shortfall of 1 dwelling over that required to be provided.

37

The affordable housing provision remains a mix of shared ownership and affordable rental on a 50:50 split. Whilst this does not fall within Core Policy 1 requirements for a 60:40 split (social rental: intermediate housing) required in the original S106, providing 4 shared ownership and 6 social rental the proposal now seeks to provide 4 shared ownership and 4 social rental, which the Housing Strategy officer considered, on balance acceptable. A mix of unit sizes will be provided although this has altered from that previously agreed, namely a reduction of two x 2 bed affordable dwellings. Otherwise the mix remains 1 bed, two bed and three bed affordable rental or shared ownership houses to be offered to a Registered Provider, and expressions of interest have already come forward from housing associations in the units. The individual plots proposed as affordable houses has also been revisited and revised by the applicant although the range of house sizes remains 1, 2 and 3 bed units. In addition, and whilst the Affordable Housing SPD advocates pepper-potting affordable housing units through the site the original S106 grouped the units in blocks, albeit interspersed with open market dwellings. The proposed variation seeks to locate the dwellings in a similar location to those previously agreed but to locate them entirely within two terraced blocks in broadly the same position as originally agreed. On balance, this is considered acceptable having regard to the relatively small scale nature of the whole development and the physical relationship of the affordable houses to the market housing, which will enable them to be fully integrated within the finished development. Additionally the affordable houses are designed externally to be indistinguishable from the open market housing and provided with off-street parking adjacent to the dwellings. Having regard to these matters it is considered that, in this case, the grouping of the units in two blocks is an acceptable arrangement. The Parish Council have raised an objection to the proposed variation on the grounds that the variation would reduce the number of affordable houses provided in the village. Whilst it is agreed that there would be a loss of 2 affordable dwellings the scheme previously provided a higher percentage than was required by Core Policy 1 and therefore the reduction in affordable houses offered is in real terms only one less than that required under the Policy. Core Policy 1 advises that viability is a material consideration to the level of affordable housing required to be provided on a housing site and that where viability is an issue it will be incumbent on the developer to demonstrate that the site cannot achieve the 30% provision. S106A (4) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 precludes the modification or discharge of a planning obligation within 5 years of the date on which the obligation is entered into. The obligation is therefore within the relevant period. However, in April a new section was inserted into the Act under Section 106BA (via the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013) which introduced a new facility for variation applications to be made in relation to affordable housing obligations only within the 5 year period, on viability grounds only. The application has therefore been assessed having regard to this. All other obligations contained within the original agreement will remain in place.

38

The Parish Council’s concerns are acknowledged, however, DCLG guidance is very clear that reviewing schemes where viability is cited as a constraint to achieving development on the ground “will result in more housing and more affordable housing than would otherwise be the case..” being achieved. The current S106 variation seeks a modification to the number of units provided rather than a deletion of this obligation entirely and it is with regard to this, and to the tenure mix and range of house types proposed that the proposal is considered supportable in this case. (2) Change of approved plan of planning permission 10/01158/FULM to plot 8 from one 3

bed house to two bed x 1 bed apartments with increased floor area Since the granting of planning permission for the development a number of non-material amendments have been agreed to the scheme which have been dealt with under officer’s delegated powers. The current proposal seeks to convert plot 8, the end dwelling on a terrace of 3 to two one bed flats. This will substitute for the original scheme which positioned two 1 bed affordable flats over garages on adjacent plots in a coach-house type arrangement. We are advised that this arrangement is not one that the Registered Providers had not been fully supportive of as the garages would be associated with other properties on the site and privately owned. The developer therefore has amended the development to locate the one bed affordable flats within one of the terraced blocks. The associated changes to the terrace comprising an enlargement of the footprint of the building, the insertion of a front door on the side elevation and the subdivision of the rear garden to create two private amenity spaces. A single dedicated parking space is proposed for each flat adjacent to the flats. Principle of Development The application is located on a permitted housing site, reference 10/01158/FULM which is now fully included within the Collingham Village Envelope, a Principal Village under Spatial Policy 1 and DM1. The proposal seeks to convert a single dwelling to two flats although the total number of dwellings to be provided on the site will remain at 30, the permitted number. The principle of development therefore is accepted. Flood Risk Part of the site lies within the floodplain and therefore the original planning application to be subject of both a flood risk assessment and sequential test. Conditions were attached to planning permission 10/01158/FULM relating to flood prevention measures and although the current application was accompanied by a flood risk assessment, as the plot adjoins the River Fleet it is considered that the overarching planning permission 10/01158/FULM is sufficiently robust, in terms of the attached conditions to address flooding issues. It is therefore considered that the proposal raises no further issues in respect of flooding matters. Design and Character The change to the appearance and footprint of the terrace is limited to a marginal increase in the footprint of the dwelling to provide floorspace measuring 48 and 52sq m respectively.

39

The overall design of the terrace is not adversely affected by the proposed amendments and the inclusion of a side door to the ground floor flat is considered acceptable and designed to match the front doors on the main front elevation of the terrace. This is not an uncommon arrangement in flatted units and has the added benefit of providing an active frontage to the side elevation. The positioning of the door on the side has no ‘designing out crime’ implications being positioned adjacent to the parking area and therefore providing opportunities for overlooking of this area. Window details accord with the window designs shown on the adjacent houses in the terrace and from the public domain the external appearance of the flats will be indistinguishable from the remainder of the terrace. Externally, private amenity space is provided for each flat to the rear and this will sufficient to permit bin storage in the rear gardens. The Conservation Officer has advised that provided the external appearance of the building matches the remainder of the terrace in terms of brick type and window details the proposal will have no adverse impact on either the character and appearance of the Conservation Area nor the setting of the adjacent Listed barn. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Core Policy 14 and DM Policies 5 and 9. The Parish Council have raised an objection to the proposal on the grounds that it forms part of a number of incremental changes taking place to the development proposal. It is accepted that the elements of the scheme have been modified including minor alterations to the design details and layout. However these have been assessed as sufficiently minor to enable them to be agreed as non-material amendments and do not impact on the fundamental design approach permitted under planning permission 10/01158/FULM. The current proposal alters the appearance of this terraced block only in respect of the side elevation and rear garden and therefore is very limited in terms of its overall impact on the permitted development. Highways and Parking The Parish Council have expressed objections to the proposal on the grounds that it will increase traffic and parking on the site and will therefore is in conflict with Spatial Policy 7 and DM7. However, the proposal does not increase the total number of houses provided on this site and the substitution of the one bed flats from nearby plots to plot 8 will be offset by an adjustment, at a later date, to the layout to retain the overall development at 30 units. A single parking space is provided for each flat and this is considered an appropriate provision for single occupancy units of this nature. Affordable Housing, Developer Contributions and CIL The proposal will provide two single occupancy affordable houses in accordance with the S106 requirements under Core Policy 1, Policy DM3 and the Affordable Housing SPD and does not impact on the assessed housing need for the settlement or on the range of house sizes required to be provided. The proposal is fundamentally to relocate the approved single occupancy affordable housing within the site.

40

In relation to other contributions the proposal amends planning permission 10/01158/FULM and the developer contributions attached to this permission, under which the site will be built out, is overlaid by the current proposal. As such no further planning obligations are triggered by the application, although CIL will be applied as the proposal post-dates the adoption of CIL by the Council and Collingham is a CIL rated settlement. Impact on Neighbours Consideration has been given to the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, in particular the adjacent dwelling. Whilst there would be some degree of overlooking of the adjacent rear garden from the first floor flat it is considered that the internal layout is designed to reduce direct overlooking of the adjacent rear garden by positioning the main living room window approximately 3.8m from the common boundary thereby precluding direct overlooking of the private rear space immediately behind the next door house, which is generally considered to be the most sensitive to overlooking in terms of individual private amenity space. Contamination The Environmental Health officer has commented that there is an existing contamination condition attached to planning permission 10/01158/FULM and as the proposal will be implemented as an amendment to 10/01158/FULM and will therefore have the benefit of the mitigation required under 10/01158/FULM. However, it is recommended by the Council’s solicitor on a ‘belt and braces’ basis that the condition is reaffirmed in this case in the interests of certainty and on the understanding that the mitigation strategy for the remainder of the site will also be applicable to this site but will require explicit submission and discharge. Conclusion In conclusion, and in respect of the S106 variation it is considered that the reduced number of affordable houses proposed is acceptable having regard to the viability assessment submitted by the applicant’s. Whilst the loss of two affordable houses is regrettable the whole development has been shown to be unviable with this level of provision. The reduction does, however, enable a viable development to be achieved and will therefore enable eight affordable houses to be supplied to the village as an integral part of the development proposal. Furthermore, the previously agreed provision exceeded that required under Core Policy 1 by one dwelling and this is a material consideration to the variation application. The variation will also offer an opportunity to amend the S106 content to reflect current national guidance on the wording of affordable housing requirements within the S106 variation. In relation to the planning application for the change of one unit to two one bed flats the impact of the proposal, in terms of impact on the development is considered limited and can be readily accommodated within the existing development layout. The inclusion of the flats within an existing terrace is considered acceptable and will have the added benefit of integrating these smaller units into the wider development more readily than if retained as a separate block. There is no assessed conflict with either the Core Strategy policies nor the Allocations and Development Management DPD to warrant refusing the application.

41

RECOMMENDATION (1) S106 Variation (13/00506/VAR106) To agree the variation of S106 associated with 10/01158/FULM to reduce the number of affordable houses to be provided on site from 10 to 8 and to redefine the plot numbers to be delivered as affordable housing together with a revision to element of the affordable housing wording within the S106 agreement to accord with current social housing requirements. (2) Planning Application (13/01235/FUL) Approve, subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans, reference 252-A-006 Rev C, 252-A-004 Rev A, 252-A-M-101, 252-A-M-102, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission. 03 No development, other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation, shall be commenced until Parts A to D of this condition have been complied with, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until Part D has been complied with in relation to contamination.

42

Part A: Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: • human health; • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland

and service lines and pipes; • adjoining land; • ground waters and surface waters; • ecological systems; • archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’. Part B: Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. Part C: Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

43

Part D: Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Part A, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part B, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Part C. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. 04 No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the existing and proposed ground and finished floor level of the site and approved building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out thereafter in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity. 05 The development shall be carried out in strictly accordance with following details which have been prior agreed with the local planning unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Facing materials: Ibstock Commercial Red or Ibstock Northern Buff to match the remainder of the terraced block approved under 10/01158/FULM Roofing tiles: Sandtoft Natural red clay pantile, non-interlocking version to match the remainder of the terraced block approved under 10/01158/FULM Tiles to canopies: Rosemary clay plain tiles to match the remainder of the terraced block approved under 10/01158/FULM Coursing and Bond, Mortar Mix and Pointing: Front elevation - English Garden Wall bond and natural lime –hydraulic lime (NHL 3.5 or 5) with mix of both washed sand and sharp sand (50% of each sand type). Pointing to be flush with skipple finish using a brush. To match the remainder of the terraced block approved under 10/01158/FULM. Cill and headers: reconstructred stone to match the remainder of the terrace approved under 10/01158/FULM

44

Rainwater goods; black upvc to match the remainder of the terrace approved under 10/01158/FULM Reason: In order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. 06 No development shall be commenced in respect of the features identified below, until details of the design, specification, fixing and finish in the form of drawings and sections at a scale of not less than 1:10 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. External windows including roof windows, doors and their immediate surroundings, including details of glazing and glazing bars Coping Extractor vents Flues Meter boxes Airbricks Soil and vent pipes Reason: In order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. 07 No development shall be commenced until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved and before any part of the development is occupied or in accordance with the programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include: A schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of trees, shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species. An implementation and phasing programme. Existing trees, which are to be retained pending approval of a detailed scheme, together with measures for protection during construction.

45

Proposed finished ground level; Hard porous surfacing materials to be used on the parking spaces and footpath within the site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation. 08 All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details specified in condition 07 above. The works shall be carried out before any part of the development is occupied or in accordance with a programme agreed with the local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted die, are removed or seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter properly maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation. 09 No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without the prior consent in writing of the local planning authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges which die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of being planted, shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedge plants in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the existing trees, shrubs and or hedges are retained and thereafter properly maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation. 10 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the parking spaces are provided in accordance with the approved plan. The parking spaces shall not be used for any purpose other than parking. Reason: To ensure that adequate off-street parking provision is made to reduce the possibilities of the proposed development leading to on-street parking in the area. 11 The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated August 2010 complied by Clive Mason and shall include the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

46

Limiting the surface water run-off generated by the 1 in 100 year flood event with an allowance for climate change critical storm so that it will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and not increase the risk of flooding off-site. 1. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 9.27 AOD. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants. 12 No part of the development shall be brought into use until details of the boundary treatments proposed including types, height, design and materials, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved boundary treatment shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the first flat and shall then be retained in full for a minimum period of 5 years unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity and preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area. 13 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2008 (and any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), other than development expressly authorised by this permission, there shall be no development under Part 1 of the Order in respect of: Or Part 2: Class A: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure. Class B: Means of access. Or Part 40 of the Order in respect of: Class A: The installation, alteration or replacement of solar PV or solar thermal equipment. Class B: The installation, alteration or replacement of standalone solar within the curtilage of a dwelling house. Class C: The installation, alteration or replacement of a ground source heat pump within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Class E: The installation, alteration or replacement of a flue, forming part of a biomass heating system, on a dwellinghouse. Class F: The installation, alteration or replacement of a flue, forming part of a combined heat and power system, on a dwellinghouse. Unless consent has firstly be granted in the form of a separate planning permission.

47

Reason: To ensure that any proposed further alterations or extensions are sympathetic to the original design and layout in this sensitive location. Informatives 1 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council’s web site at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL is payable on the development hereby approved as is detailed below:

A B C Dev Types Proposed

floorspace (GIA in Sq. M) 100sq m

Less existing (Demolition or Change of Use) (GIA in Sq. M) inc % splits

Net Area (GIA in Sq. M) 100 sq m

CIL Rate £45

Indexation at date of permission (220 at date of charging schedule) 222

CIL Charge

Total £4,540.00 CIL Rate (45) x Chargeable Floor Area (100) x C (BCIS Tender Price Index(222)

220 (CIS Tender Price Index at Date of Charging Schedule) However, the flats are to be offered for affordable housing designation and therefore would qualify for an exemption from CIL once confirmed as such. 2 The applicant’s attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 3 Trees in Conservation Areas are afforded special protection by legislation. Should you wish to lop, top or fell any tree on this site, you may require the prior consent in writing of Newark and Sherwood District Council and are advised to contact the Development Control Service of the Council on 01636 650000 to discuss the matter. 4 The planning permission hereby granted should be read in conjunction with planning permission 10/01158/FULM which relates to the wider development site. This permission seeks to amend details specifically relating to plot 8 and does not revise or amend the approved details relating to the remainder of the site notwithstanding the details included on the submitted drawings related to the adjoining land.

48

5 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with the requirements of the Town and County Planning (Development Management procedure) Order 2010 (as amended), Reasons for Approval REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2003 In the opinion of the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues identified that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy 2011 • Spatial Policy 1: Settlement Hierarchy • Spatial Policy 2: Spatial Distribution of Growth • Spatial Policy 6: Infrastructure for Growth • Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport • Core Policy 1: Affordable Housing Provision • Core Policy 3: Housing Mix, Type and Density • Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14: Historic Environment

Newark and Sherwood Publication Allocations & Development Management DPD (adopted July 2013): • Policy DM1: Development within Settlements Central to Delivering the Spatial

Strategy • Policy DM3: Developer Contributions and Planning Obligations • Policy DM5 : Design • Policy DM9: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment • Policy DM10: Pollution and Hazardous Materials • Policy DM12: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Karen Tate on Ext 5841 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

49

50

PLANNING COMMITTEE- 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7

Application No: 13/01114/FUL

Proposal: Householder application for the erection of a 2metre high boundary fence (resubmission of 12/01481/FUL)

Location: Westbury, The Spinney, Winthorpe, Newark

Applicant: Mr Roger King

Registered: 13.08.2013 Target Date: 08.10.2013

The Site The application site comprises of a single storey detached dwelling located within the residential built up area of Winthorpe and adjacent to the conservation area. There is a large and substantial hedge approximately 3m high adjoining the public footpath and highway to the south-east and south-western boundaries of the site, and a 1m high (approximate) timber fence to the eastern boundary. There is an existing vehicular access to the site from The Spinney to the south-east of the site leading to an attached double garage. Relevant Planning History 12/01481/FUL - Householder application for removal of leylandii hedge and replace with 2m close boarded timber fence – Refused 18.12.2012 Refusal Reason By virtue of the combined height, length, design and siting of the boundary treatment directly abutting the public highway and located on this prominent corner plot, the proposal would result in a visually intrusive and dominating feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of the street scene and the setting of Winthorpe Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) and Core Policy 14 (Historic Environment) of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (adopted 2011), and Policy C1 (Development in conservation areas) of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (Adopted 1999). The proposal also fails to accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 which is a material planning consideration.

11/00493/FUL - Householder application for the erection of attached brick and tile covered garage – Approved 17.05.2011

The Proposal

Full planning permission is sought for the removal of an existing substantial hedge adjoining the public footpath and replacement with a 2metre high timber fence along the south western boundary adjoining The Spinney.

51

Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of 6 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter, a site notice has been displayed near the site and a press notice has been displayed in the newspaper. Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application: • Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14 – Historic Environment Allocations and Development Management DPD (adopted July 2013) Policies relevant to this application: • DM5 – Design • DM6 – Householder Development Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Consultations Winthorpe Parish Council – No comments received at time of writing the report.

Neighbours/Interested Parties

One neighbour has submitted a letter raising no objection to the proposal.

Comments of the Business Manager, Development

The main planning considerations in the assessment of this application are; 1) the design and impact upon character of the surrounding area (including the conservation area).

Principle of development

The site is located within the main built up residential area of Winthorpe where the principle of alterations to existing residential properties and within their defined curtilage are acceptable providing they adhere to the character of the area and do not cause any significant detrimental impacts upon neighbour amenity.

Design and Impact on the Character of the Surrounding Area and Streetscene

The proposal is for a resubmission of a previously refused scheme (12/01481/FUL) for the erection of a close boarded panel fence approximately 1.8m high along the back edge of the public footpath. The proposed fencing is such that it would be 2m high (approximate) and have 25mm gaps between the 75mm timber planks to allow planting from within the existing garden to penetrate through, with the intention to soften the appearance of the fencing.

52

The application site is located on a prominent corner plot adjacent to the Winthorpe Conservation Area. There is an existing substantial Leylandii hedge along the south western boundary approximately 3m high, which appears in good visual condition. The applicant has stated the hedge has become too deep for the size of their garden and due to the species of hedge it is not an option to reduce the depth. On entering The Spinney it is evident that the area is characterised by soft landscaping with trees and hedges with many forming boundary treatments to the public highway. The siting of the proposed fence I consider due to its highly visible corner location, height (approximately 2m), the length, the position set hard up against the back of the footpath, would present a dominating visual appearance within the streetscene which would be detrimental to the appearance of the setting of the conservation area and the public realm. The fence would be located on two boundaries of the application site and would be highly visible in three directions, two from The Spinney and one from Gainsborough Road. Gainsborough Road is the main road which travels north to south through Winthorpe and is located within the conservation area where it joins The Spinney. The intention of the applicant to erect a fence to allow planting to penetrate through is not considered to significantly mitigate for the loss of the substantial hedge which contributes positively to the character of the area. The intermittent plants which would protrude through the gaps in the fence would only seek to provide a sporadic and minimal effect and would not ensure sufficient mitigation against the impact of the fencing. The NPPF states “Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people” and “Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.” I consider that the proposal fundamentally fails to accord with the foundations of the NPPF in that it fails to improve the appearance of the public realm and fails to improve the character of the area. I appreciate there are timber fence boundary treatments within the vicinity but I am unable to find any with a direct comparison and therefore Members should assess the application on its own merits. The applicant has engaged in positive pre application advice with the local planning authority where a compromise was sought to step in the fencing from the boundary and subsequently plant in front of this between the fence and the public highway. This would provide for more of a mitigation impact against the appearance of the fence. However, the applicant has chosen not to submit this design and therefore Members have to determine the application before them. I am mindful that in fall back terms the applicant could remove the hedge without the need for any planning permission. They have confirmed their intention to do this irrespective of the current application given that it is becoming a maintance issue for the occupants. I am also mindful that a 1 metre fence could be erected along the back edge of the footpath. Despite these issues I am required to offer a view the application before me. In my view a 2 metre hight fence, on the back edge of footpath, would injure the visual amenities of the area. Policy CP9 of the Core Strategy states new development should be of an appropriate “form and scale to its context complementing the existing built and landscape environments.” In addition policy DM6 of the ADMDPD states development should “respect the character of the surrounding area.” On the basis of the above information it is not considered that the proposal, due to the design, height and siting would complement the surrounding built environment or respect the character of the area.

53

Furthermore, given the proximity of the application site to the conservation area, I consider that the proposal would affect the setting of the conservation area and for the reasons previously explained, would fail to preserve or enhance its character or appearance. Residential Amenity Due to the nature of the development it is considered that the impact upon neighbour amenity is minimal and this is not disputed by the local planning authority. Conclusion I have taken in to consideration all the issues I consider that the revised proposal has failed to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and fails to complement the surrounding area. Each material planning consideration has been discussed in detail above and I conclude that the proposal fails to accord with National Planning Policy Framework, Core Policy 9 and 14 of the Adopted NSDC Core Strategy and DM5 and DM6 of the ADMDPD and I therefore recommend that the application be refused planning permission. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is refused. 01 By virtue of the combined height, length, design and siting of the boundary treatment directly abutting the public highway and located on this prominent corner plot, the proposal would result in a visually intrusive and dominating feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of the street scene and the setting of Winthorpe Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) and Core Policy 14 (Historic Environment) of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (adopted 2011), and Policy DM5 and DM6 of the Newark and Sherwood Allocation and Development Management DPD (Adopted 2013). The proposal also fails to accord with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 which is a material planning consideration. Note to Applicant 01 The application is clearly contrary to the Development Plan and other material planning considerations, as detailed in the above reason(s) for refusal. Working positively and proactively with the applicants would not have afforded the opportunity to overcome these problems, giving a false sense of hope and potentially incurring the applicants further unnecessary time and/or expense. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Lynsey Tomlin on 01636 655840

54

All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

55

56

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8

The Site The application site contains a two storey detached dwelling with integral garage located on the west side of Kirkby Close within the settlement of Southwell. Its external surfaces comprise a concrete tile roof and brick walls. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with dwellings immediately to the north and south of the application site. Relevant Planning History 09/00216/FUL Proposed first floor extension to provide en-suite shower room and rear patio glazed canopy – permission March 2009 08/01071/FUL First floor extension and conservatory – permission July 2008 08/00539/FUL First floor extension to rear of house to enlarge existing bedrooms and provide en-suite facility – withdrawn May 2008 98/51726/FUL Garage and dining room extension with pitched roof over – permission September 1998

The Proposal

The application is for full planning permission for the construction of a first floor rear extension. The pitch of the rear roof slope would be continued to form an en-suite and bedroom extension over the existing ground floor of the property. It would measure 8.7 metres by 2.45 metres with two pitched roof dormer windows inserted. Two velux windows would also be inserted between the two dormer windows.

Public Advertisement Procedure

4 neighbours have been notified individually by letter.

Planning Policy Framework

The Development Plan

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011) Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design Core Policy 10 Climate Change SoAP1 Role and Setting of Southwell

Application No: 13/01103/FUL

Proposal: Householder application for the erection of first floor rear extension

Location: 19 Kirkby Close, Southwell, NG25 0DG

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Hearn

Registered: 12.08.2013 Target Date: 07.10.2013

57

Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD) Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework Adopted (NPPF) March 2012 Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005 Consultations Southwell Town Council – object on the following grounds: • Over intensification • Potential Future Flooding Risk Southwell Civic Society – no objection Environment Agency – no objection standing advice applies. Severn Trent Water – no objection Lead Local Flood Authority (NCC) - no objection. Neighbours/Interested Parties - One letter of representation received. In general, this letter supports the proposal provided that the overall height of the extension is kept to the minimum possible to ensure no adverse impact on the array of solar panels on the adjacent roof. Comments of the Business Manager - Development Principle of Development The proposal relates to a householder development which is accepted in principle by Policy DM6 of the DPD subject to an assessment against a number of site specific criteria including the impact of the proposal on visual and residential amenity. Impact on Visual Amenity Policy DM6 of the DPD states that planning permission will be granted for householder development provided that the proposal reflects the character of the area and existing dwelling in terms of design and materials. The proposed extension would be located to the rear of the property and would not be visible in the street scene. The size of the proposed extension would also be in proportion with the scale of the existing dwelling. As such, the proposed extension would be subordinate to the original dwelling and would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD.

58

Impact on Residential Amenity The NPPF seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy DM6 of the DPD state planning permission will be granted for householder development provided it would not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining premises, in terms of loss of privacy or overshadowing. The first floor of the adjacent dwellings are set deeper into the site than the first floor of the application dwelling. This means that only a small proportion of the 2.45 metre first floor extension would project beyond the rear elevations of No.s 17 and 21. These dwellings are already overlooked by the first floor rear windows of the application property, As such, it is not considered that the proposed dormer and velux windows would result in any increased levels of overlooking. The proposed extension represents a continuation of the existing pitched roof of the dwelling. As such, the highest part of the extension would be 2 metres lower in height than the dwellings main ridgeline and no higher than the eaves of No. 21 which contains an array of solar panels on its south facing roof slope. As such, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in any material increase in levels of overshadowing to the detriment of the adjacent solar panels or occupiers of adjacent dwellings. Overall, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD. Impact on Flood Risk and Drainage Core Policy 10 (which is in line with the NPPF) states that through its approach to development, the Local Development Framework will seek to, amongst other criteria; locate development in order to avoid both present and future flood risk. Policy DM5 of the DPD states that development proposals should wherever possible include measures to pro-actively manage surface water. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 according to the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps is therefore at low probability of flooding from river and coastal sources. This does not however assess risk from other sources, such as surface water flooding. However, the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water raise no objection to the application. The proposed development is at first floor only and would provide an enlargement to existing bedrooms and the addition of an en-suite bathroom. As such, there would be no increase in impermeable surfaces within the curtilage of the dwelling as a direct result of development proposed. As an existing dwelling, the proposal would not result in the intensification of the use of the site. In addition, the proposed development would not affect existing surface water drainage arrangements or in result in any increased levels of flood risk in accordance with Core Policy 10 and Policy DM5 of the DPD. Conclusion Overall, it is not considered that the proposed development would have any adverse impact upon visual amenity, residential amenity or result in any increased risk of flooding. Subject to conditions I recommend that planning permission is granted.

59

RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is approved subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with the following amended plans, reference numbers: Location Plan 1:1250 MH538/02 Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations MH538/01 Existing Floor Plans and Elevations unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission and for the avoidance of doubt following the submission of amended plans. 03 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture, size, profile and bonding pattern unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy DM5 Design of the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD). Informatives 1 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres.

60

2 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission without unnecessary delay the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 3 REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011): Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design Core Policy 10 Climate Change SoAP1 Role and Setting of Southwell From the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document: Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development National Planning Policy Framework Adopted March 2012 Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005 BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Helen Marriott on Ext 5793 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

61

62

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9

Application No: 13/01156/FUL and 13/01157/LBC

Proposal: Householder Application for Proposed Extension and Garage

Location: 37 Easthorpe, Southwell, NG25 0HY

Applicant: Mr J Templeman

Registered: 23.08.2013 Target Date: 18.10.2013

The Site The application site is a large plot which lies within the built up area and Conservation Area of Southwell. The site comprises of a detached two storey residential dwelling which is a Grade II Listed Building and has 3 associated outbuildings, one of which is attached to the main dwelling. The rear garden of the site is currently surfaced with concrete and is overgrown with vegetation in places. The boundaries to the rear of the site are relatively open; the boundary to the East has a brick wall approximately 1.5m in height whilst the boundary to the West has a brick wall approximately 2m in height. Dwellings are situated either side of these boundaries, all of which are two-storey with windows overlooking the application site. Relevant Planning History The site has been subject to a number of approvals and refusals for alterations and extensions but the most relevant site history is the application under 13/00215/FUL and 13/00216/LBC which were withdrawn pending further discussion regarding proposals for a two storey extension and garage. The Proposal The proposal seeks permission for two separate elements, the first being a two-storey extension, with a single storey element, at the rear of the dwelling. This would extend from the North-Western corner of the existing dwelling and replace an existing attached outbuilding; a total of 125m³ of the Listed Building, and other buildings within its curtilage, will be demolished as part of the scheme. The design of the extension is modern with glazed detailing on the rear elevation and glazed screens along the Eastern side elevation; it is proposed to be finished externally with white render, brickwork, lead roofing and clay roof tiles. Secondly the proposal outlines the erection of a detached garage North of the dwelling, replacing an existing outbuilding. The garage will have a footprint of 50.4m² and will include a games room on the first floor. It is proposed that this will be constructed of brick with a clay tile roof which will have 6 rooflights installed, 3 on each roof slope. A new access will also be created for this garage including the demolition of part of the boundary wall forward of the garage doors and a new driveway. The application also proposes some minor alterations to the existing dwelling which will include the replacement of a window with double doors to the rear elevation at ground floor level. The

63

application as submitted also proposed rooflights in the rear elevation of the main dwelling but after concerns were raised by the Conservation Officer, these were omitted from the scheme. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of eight neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. Relevant Planning Policies The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application: • Core Policy 9 : Sustainable Design • Core Policy 14: Historic Environment Newark and Sherwood Publication Allocations & Development Management DPD Policies relevant to this application: • Policy DM5: Design • Policy DM6: Householder Development • Policy DM9: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 Consultations: Southwell Town Council: Southwell Town Council Planning Committee considered this application at its meeting and resolved to object to this application on the following grounds; • Over Intensification • Potential Future Flooding Risk The application has been called to Committee by Councillor Harris on the basis of the above consultation response. NCC Highways: No objection. NCC Lead Local Flood Risk Authority: No objection Environment Agency: Standing advice for extensions can be applied to this application. Internal Drainage Board: No objection.

64

Severn Trent Water: No objection. Southwell Civic Society: No objection. Neighbours/Interested Parties One letter of representation has been received to date stating objection for the application on the basis of impact upon the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and overlooking. Comments of the Business Manager, Development Impact of the Design on the Character of the Dwelling and Surrounding Area It is noted that the proposed two-storey extension is large in size in comparison to the main dwelling. However, given the minimal level of accommodation currently offered by the dwelling, it is thought that the number of rooms proposed is not disproportionate for a detached dwelling given the small size of the existing property and also the fact that the site lies within the Settlement Boundary. The scheme proposes that the extension will have a lower ridge height and width than the main dwelling, and combined with the modern design, the extension is considered to clearly illustrate an addition to the dwelling. This is further emphasised by the lightweight single storey link proposed from the existing dwelling to the proposed extension. In terms of its design, it contrasts with the traditional principal dwelling in such a way that it complements the historic building because it shows a clear difference in the historic and modern architectural features, whilst it does not appear to dominate the main dwelling by remaining subservient. In terms of the surrounding area, the scale of the development is not dissimilar to other additions along the street, the most obvious being the adjacent property to the West which has a service wing of a similar height and width, albeit shorter in length. Furthermore, the proposal does not extend beyond the rear building line of this neighbour and therefore is not considered to be out of character within the built environment and is unlikely to result in significant harm upon the Conservation Area. With regards to the proposed garage, the footprint of the addition is large but when put into context with the size of the plot, it is not thought to result in overdevelopment, particularly because of the site’s location within a built up area. In terms of its design, the materials are proposed to be in-keeping with the character of the area and will remain subservient to both the main dwelling and the extension and as such, the concerns over the large footprint are not great enough to substantiate a refusal. Whilst the proposed extension and garage are to the rear of the dwelling, given the open boundaries of the site and the access track to the East, they are likely to be seen from the main street. However, as it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in terms of design it is concluded that the scheme is unlikely to have an adverse impact upon the street scene. Furthermore, the Conversation Officer has raised no objection to the scheme and as such it is considered that the proposals are unlikely to be of detriment to the appearance or historical interest of the Listed Building.

65

The Impact Upon Neighbours The proposals are located close to the Western boundary and as such it is likely that the scheme will impact upon the neighbour adjacent to the boundary; this neighbour has objected to the proposal in terms of the impact upon their amenity. Both the garage and the extension have been designed in such a way that there will be no windows on the Western elevation, with the exception of rooflights; this significantly reduces the ability to overlook the neighbour and as such it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to unduly impact upon the neighbour in this respect. In terms of light amenity for this neighbour, the proposed two-storey element will be a minimum of 6m from the side elevation of the neighbouring dwelling; it is thought that this distance is sufficient and given that the proposal is to the East of this neighbour, the extension will only reduce light availability until late morning. In terms of the garage, whilst there will be some overshadowing during the morning, the neighbouring garden is relatively large and therefore it is considered that the garage will only affect a small proportion of the rear garden. In terms of the neighbours to the East, they are situated some 14m from the proposed extension, and further from the garage, and as such, there is no significant issue in terms of light amenity. There are various windows proposed on the Eastern elevation of the extension which will result in further overlooking from that of the principal dwelling but given the separation distance, it is thought unlikely that the proposals will adversely impact upon neighbour amenity. Impact upon Flood Risk The site is located within Flood Zone 2 as identified by the Environment Agency maps. The application was accompanied by a flood risk assessment in which it is stated that the threshold floor levels will be set high and will be consistent with the existing dwelling. Additionally, whilst Southwell Parish Council have objected to the proposal because of potential future flood risk, the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and the Internal Drainage Board have raised no objection to the proposal. Conclusion The proposed two-storey extension and garage are thought to be acceptable in terms of design, scale and mass in relation to the principal dwelling and are considered unlikely to be of detriment to the integrity of the Listed Building and Conservation Area. In terms of neighbour amenity, it is noted that the proposal is likely to have some impact upon the adjacent properties but on balance it is concluded that the scheme is unlikely to result in significant harm upon the neighbours. RECOMMENDATION Approve planning permission and grant Listed Building Consent, subject to the following condition(s) 13/01156/FUL Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of

this permission.

66

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance

with the following approved plans reference

• 11/1811/201 received 19/08/2013 • 11/1811/205 received 19/08/2013 • 11/1811/206 Rev.A received 07/10/2013 • 11/1811/207 received 19/08/2013 • 11/1811/208 Rev.A received 07/10/2013 • 11/1811/209 received 19/08/2013

Reason: So as to define the permission. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the material details

submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A and C of part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that order) (with or without modification), there shall be no addition window or other opening constructed at first floor level or above in the Western Elevation of the development or the enlargement or alteration of existing or permitted openings hereby approved with the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 5. The garage hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment

of the dwelling house and not for any commercial, industrial or business purpose. Informative 1. The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December

2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres.

67

2. The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant.

13/01157/LBC Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans reference • 11/1811/201 received 19/08/2013 • 11/1811/205 received 19/08/2013 • 11/1811/206 Rev.A received 07/10/2013 • 11/1811/207 received 19/08/2013 • 11/1811/208 Rev.A received 07/10/2013 • 11/1811/209 received 19/08/2013

Reason: So as to define the permission. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the material details

submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A and C of part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that order) (with or without modification), there shall be no addition window or other opening constructed at first floor level or above in the Western Elevation of the development or the enlargement or alteration of existing or permitted openings hereby approved with the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 5. The garage hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment

of the dwelling house and not for any commercial, industrial or business purpose. Informative

68

1. The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council’s website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk

The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council’s view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres.

2. The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission the District Planning

Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Nicolla Ellis on 01636 655533. All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

69

70

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10

The Site The application site contains a two storey detached dwelling with attached garage to the rear located on the west side of Farthingdate Close within the settlement of Southwell. Its external surfaces comprise a tiled roof and part rendered brick walls. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with dwellings located immediately to the north, west and south of the application site.

Relevant Planning History

No relevant planning history.

The Proposal

The application is for full planning permission for the erection of:

• a first floor rear extension over the existing flat roof garage. It would measure 3.1 metres by 4.9 metres and have a gabled roof;

• a single storey rear extension projecting 2.85 from the rear of the dwelling and measuring 6.5 metres wide with a lean-to style pitched roof;

• a single storey porch extension on the front elevation measuring 1.1 metres by 3.6 metres with a lean-to style pitched roof.

• the existing driveway to the side of the dwelling would be turfed and a new block paved driveway to the front of the dwelling would be created.

Amended plans were received on 07.10.2013 deleting the proposed window on the west facing elevation of the proposed first floor rear extension and relocating it in the form of a velux window on the south facing roof slope of the first floor rear extension.

Public Advertisement Procedure

12 neighbours have been notified individually by letter.

Planning Policy Framework

The Development Plan

Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011)

Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design Core Policy 10 Climate Change SoAP1 Role and Setting of Southwell

Application No: 13/01283/FUL

Proposal: Householder Application for Proposed Single Storey Rear Extension, First Floor Bedroom/ En-suite bathroom, Front Porch and New Vehicle Access

Location: 4 Farthingate Close, Southwell, NG25 0HU

Applicant: Mr Daniel Vout

Registered: 13.09.2013 Target Date: 08.11.2013

71

Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD) Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework Adopted (NPPF) March 2012 Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005 Consultations Southwell Town Council – object on the following grounds: • Visual Impact • Overbearing to neighbouring properties • Loss of daylight • Loss of privacy • Cumulative impact Southwell Civic Society – – no comments received. Environment Agency – low risk no comment. Severn Trent Water – no comments received. Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board – no comment as the site is outside of the Board’s area. Lead Local Flood Authority (NCC) - no objection. Neighbours/Interested Parties - Four letters of representation received prior to amendment of the application on 07.10.2013. Main issues raised include: • The proposed first floor bedroom window would look towards the rear of a number of

dwellings and result in overlooking/loss of privacy. Frosting this window may help when the window is closed but would not negate the impacts when it is open particularly during the summer or prevent light intrusion whenever it is dark;

• The height and bulk of the proposed first floor extension would be overbearing, obscure the skyline, result in overshadowing, loss of amenity, and loss of light;

• The height of the proposed extension would lead to an increased sense of enclosure when viewed from properties to the rear accentuated by increased noise transmission;

• The loss of the tree should be resisted; • The proposed first floor extension would be out of keeping with the rear building line of

other dwellings on Farthingate Close; • The proposed single storey extension would be closer to and clearly visible from properties

to the rear.

72

Four further letters of representation was received following amendment of the application retaining their objection to the application on the following grounds: • Visual impact; • Overbearing effect; • Loss of light; • Gradient differences between dwellings exacerbate the above issues. Comments of the Business Manager - Development Principle of Development The proposal relates to a householder development which is accepted in principle by Policy DM6 of the DPD subject to an assessment against a number of site specific criteria including the impact of the proposal on visual and residential amenity. Impact on Visual Amenity Policy DM6 of the DPD states that planning permission will be granted for householder development provided that the proposal reflects the character of the area and existing dwelling in terms of design and materials. The proposed single storey rear extension would not be highly visible in the street scene. Whilst the side of the proposed first floor rear extension would be visible in the street scene, the bulk of the extension is located to the rear and would also be screened from view by the existing dwelling. The proposal includes the replacement of an existing flat roof garage which is of little aesthetic value. The gable ends of the proposed extension would match the existing gable features within the existing dwelling and its design and scale would be in keeping with the scale and design of the original dwelling overall. The proposed porch extension on the front elevation would be highly visible in the street scene. The pitch of its lean to style roof would be in keeping with the roof pitches of the original dwelling and its scale and size is considered to be in proportion with the dwelling overall. No trees require removal as a result of the proposed development. It is not considered that the creation of the new driveway would have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity particularly as the existing driveway would be reinstated to grass. Overall, the proposed development is considered to be subordinate to the original dwelling. The proposed roof pitches and materials would complement the existing dwelling and the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and original dwelling in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD. Impact on Residential Amenity The NPPF seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy DM6 of the DPD state planning permission will be granted for householder development provided it would not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining premises, in terms of loss of privacy or overshadowing.

73

Three dwellings along Farthingate share their rear boundary with the application dwelling. In particular, the rear of No. 13 Farthingate is located immediately opposite the rear of the application dwelling with its rear boundary which comprises a 1.8 metre high (approximate) close boarded fence located 4.2 metres away from the edge of the proposed first floor rear extension. The rear elevation of the application dwelling already contains an obscurely glazed window which faces towards No. 13. Amended Plans were received on 07.10.2013 removing the first floor window from the rear facing elevation of the proposed first floor extension. I consider this amendment removes any potential overlooking and loss of privacy issues raised in the letters of representation received from neighbours. A condition is recommended to remove permitted development rights for the insertion of new windows within the proposed extension in the future. It is not considered that any other proposed windows would result in any adverse overlooking impact. In terms of potential overbearing impacts, the blank rear wall of the proposed first floor rear extension would be located 16 metres away from the rear elevation of No. 13 at its closest point. Whilst the proposal would bring the first floor of the proposed dwelling close to the three dwellings along Farthingate, this proposed first floor extension occupies less than half of the rear elevation overall. All but a 1.1 metre section of the first floor extension would be set against the backdrop of the existing dwelling. As such, it is not considered that the proposed first floor extension would result in such an impact by reason of overbearing or overshadowing such that would warrant refusal. It is not considered that the single storey rear extension, porch extension or driveway by virtue of their scale and size would give rise to any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjacent occupiers. Overall, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD. Impact on Highway Safety Policy DM6 of the DPD states that planning permission will be granted for house extensions provided that provision for safe and inclusive access and parking provision can be achieved and there is no adverse impact on the highway network as a result of the proposal. The proposed plans indicate that a new driveway would be created to the front of the dwelling and the existing driveway to the side of the dwelling would be reinstated back to grass. As an unclassified road, the proposed access alterations are similar to highway alterations which can be undertaken under permitted development rights (Class B, Part 2 The Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008). Whilst the existing garage space would be lost as a result of the development proposed, adequate off street parking can still be achieved as part of the proposed development. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any adverse impact upon highway safety in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD. Impact on Flood Risk and Drainage Core Policy 10 (which is in line with the NPPF) states that through its approach to development, the Local Development Framework will seek to, amongst other criteria; locate development in order to avoid both present and future flood risk. Policy DM5 of the DPD states that development proposals should wherever possible include measures to pro-actively manage surface water.

74

The site is located within Flood Zone 1 according to the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps and is therefore at low probability of flooding from river and coastal sources. This does not however assess risk from other sources, such as surface water flooding. However, the Environment Agency raise no objection to the application. The application proposes a net increase of 22.5 square metres (approx.) of floorspace within the curtilage of the dwelling. However, the majority of this would be on existing areas of hardstanding and it is proposed to reinstate the existing tarmac driveway to grass. As such, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in a material increase in flood risk. In addition, the proposed driveway would be constructed from porous materials and is similar to the provision of hardsurfaces within the curtilage of dwellinghouses which can be undertaken under permitted development rights (Class F, Part 1 The Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2008). As an existing dwelling, the proposal would not result in the intensification of the use of the site. Overall, the proposed development would not result in any material increased risk of flooding in accordance with Core Policy 10 and Policy DM5 of the DPD. Conclusion Overall, it is not considered that the proposed development would have any adverse impact upon visual amenity, residential amenity, highway safety or result in any increased risk of flooding. Subject to conditions I recommend that planning permission is granted. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is approved subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with the following amended plans, reference numbers: V0913.01 Proposed Plans and Elevation (Amended Plan received 07.10.2013) V0913.BP Block Plan V0913.SP Site Location Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission and for the avoidance of doubt following the submission of amended plans.

75

03 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture, size, profile and bonding pattern unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies DM5 and DM6 of the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD). 04 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows including dormer or velux windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed on the west elevation of the first floor rear extension hereby permitted. Reason: To safeguard against the overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DM6 of the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD). Informatives

Note to Applicant 1 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres. 2 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission without unnecessary delay the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 3 REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011):

76

Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design Core Policy 10 Climate Change SoAP1 Role and Setting of Southwell From the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document: Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development National Planning Policy Framework Adopted March 2012 Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005 BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Helen Marriott on Ext 5793 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

77

78

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11

The Site The application site contains a two storey detached dwelling with attached garage located on the north side of The Paddocks which is a cul-de-sac located on the north side of Westgate within the settlement of Southwell. Its external surfaces comprise a tiled roof and brick walls. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with dwellings located on all sides of the application site. Relevant Planning History 08/00186/FUL Extension to form utility, study, dining and garden room with bedroom over – permission April 2008 (not implemented). The Proposal The application is for full planning permission for the erection of a part first and part two storey side extension over the existing flat roof garage and a single storey front extension. The front extension would project 2.5 metres forward of the existing front elevation of the dwelling and form a porch and extension to the living room and the existing garage space would be retained. The first floor elements of the proposed side extension would measure 4.7 metres wide and 9.85 metres long and form an additional bedroom with en-suite. Public Advertisement Procedure 5 neighbours have been notified individually by letter. Planning Policy Framework The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011) Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design Core Policy 10 Climate Change SoAP1 Role and Setting of Southwell

Application No: 13/01113/FUL

Proposal: Householder application for erection of an extension to existing dwelling

Location: 3 The Paddocks, Southwell, NG25 0NR

Applicant: Mr Justin Thornton

Registered: 14.08.2013 Target Date: 09.10.2013

79

Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD) Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework Adopted (NPPF) March 2012 Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005 Consultations Southwell Town Council – object on the following grounds: • Over intensification • Potential Future Flooding Risk Southwell Civic Society – no objection Environment Agency – no objection standing advice applies. Severn Trent Water – no objection Lead Local Flood Authority (NCC) - no objection Neighbours/Interested Parties - One letter of representation received raising no objection to the proposal. Comments of Business Manager - Development Principle of Development The proposal relates to a householder development which is accepted in principle by Policy DM6 of the DPD subject to an assessment against a number of site specific criteria including the impact of the proposal on visual and residential amenity. Impact on Visual Amenity Policy DM6 of the DPD states that planning permission will be granted for householder development provided that the proposal reflects the character of the area and existing dwelling in terms of design and materials. The proposed extension would be located to the side and front of the property and would be visible from The Paddocks. The proposal includes the replacement of an existing flat roof garage which is of little aesthetic value. The ridgeline of the proposed first floor/two storey side extension would be set 0.8 metres lower than the dwellings main ridgeline. In addition, the side extension would be less than half of the main frontage of the dwelling. As such, the proposed development is considered to be subordinate to the original dwelling. The proposed roof pitches and materials would match the existing dwelling.

80

Overall, the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and original dwelling in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD. Impact on Residential Amenity The NPPF seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy DM6 of the DPD state planning permission will be granted for householder development provided it would not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining premises, in terms of loss of privacy or overshadowing. The first floor west facing elevation of the proposed first/two storey side extension which faces towards the front and side of the Vicarage would contain no windows. The extension would be located approximately 8 metres away from the side elevation of The Vicarage which is also separated by a mature tree which is located within the front garden area of The Vicarage. The height of the proposed extension would increase gradually away from The Vicarage and would not project any further forward than the existing built development on site. As such, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in any material increase in levels of overshadowing or overbearing impact to the detriment of the occupiers of the Vicarage. Two additional windows in the first floor north facing elevation and one additional window in the first floor south facing elevation would be created. However, the rear windows would be no closer to the dwellings to the rear of the application site than the existing first floor windows on the rear elevation of the application dwelling. The first floor window on the front elevation would face towards the shared driveway serving The Paddocks. As such, it is not considered that the proposed first floor windows would result in any increased levels of overlooking. Overall, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy DM6 of the DPD. Impact on Flood Risk and Drainage Core Policy 10 (which is in line with the NPPF) states that through its approach to development, the Local Development Framework will seek to, amongst other criteria; locate development in order to avoid both present and future flood risk. Policy DM5 of the DPD states that development proposals should wherever possible include measures to pro-actively manage surface water. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 according to the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps is therefore at low probability of flooding from river and coastal sources. This does not however assess risk from other sources, such as surface water flooding. However, the Environment Agency, the Lead Local Flood Authority and Severn Trent Water raise no objection to the application. The application proposes a net increase of 24 square metres (approx.) of floorspace within the curtilage of the dwelling. These proposed extensions are located on existing areas of hardstanding. As such, the proposed development would not result in a material increase in the amount of impermeable surface within the curtilage of the dwelling. As an existing dwelling, the proposal would not result in the intensification of the use of the site. Overall, the proposed development would not result in any material increased risk of flooding in accordance with Core Policy 10 and Policy DM5 of the DPD.

81

Conclusion Overall, it is not considered that the proposed development would have any adverse impact upon visual amenity, residential amenity or result in any increased risk of flooding. Subject to conditions I recommend that planning permission is granted. RECOMMENDATION That full planning permission is approved subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with the following amended plans, reference numbers: (02)02 Plans and Sections As Existing (02)03 Elevations As Existing (08)01 Site Location Plan and Site Plan As Proposed (08)02 Plans and Section As Proposed (08)03 Elevations As Proposed (02)01 Site Location Plan and Site Plan As Existing unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission and for the avoidance of doubt following the submission of amended plans. 03 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building in terms of type, colour and texture, size, profile and bonding pattern unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy DM5 Design of the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD).

82

Informatives Note to Applicant 1 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development hereby approved as the gross internal area of new build is less 100 square metres. 2 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission without unnecessary delay the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 3 REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March 2011): Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design Core Policy 10 Climate Change SoAP1 Role and Setting of Southwell From the Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document: Policy DM5: Design Policy DM6: Householder Development National Planning Policy Framework Adopted March 2012 Supplementary Planning Document ‘Extensions to Dwellings’ Adopted 2005 BACKGROUND PAPERS - Application case file.

For further information, please contact Matt Lamb ext 5842.

K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

83

84

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12

Application No: 12/01075/FUL

Proposal: Erection of wind turbine 500kW) with a hub height of 50 metres and a tip height of 78 metres.

Location: Lockwell Hill Farm, Kirklington Road, Farnsfield

Applicant: Mr. & Mrs R. & K. Kerr

Registered: 25.07.2012 Target Date: 19.09.2012

Members will recall that this application has been deferred on 2 no. occasions previously. The first occasion, in August, was due to local traffic problems following a road traffic accident which affected Members ability to properly assess the proposal from a number of vantage points. The second deferral followed the September Committee. For completeness I refer to the minutes of the meeting below:

A vote was taken that the application be refused on the grounds of cumulative impact; the vote was a tie with 7 votes for and 7 votes against. The Chairman elected not to use the casting vote. Given that the issues to be considered were closely related to 2 no. pending appeals a further vote was taken to defer until such time as the appeals, which are expected imminently, are received.

AGREED (unanimously) that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the two outstanding appeals at Carlton on Trent and Little Carlton which were considered to be material to this matter in terms of the similarity of context.

Members will be aware that when the decision to defer was taken that it was fully expected that the appeal decisions referred to would have been determined. The agent has been in communication following the deferral seeking regular updates as to whether these decisions have been released. Unfortunately, despite the said appeals having been with the inspectorate since 27th Feb 2013 (Carlton-on-Trent) and 9th July 2013 (Little Carlton) they remain pending. On this basis the applicant feels that they can no longer wait for the decisions and have therefore asked for the applications to be determined. I re-present this item to Committee on this basis, in order to ensure no further delay to any decision.

As discussed at both the August and September meetings revised planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy has been released. This does not materially affect the recommendation detailed below in so far as the applicant has provided detailed landscape, noise, and other supporting information, as one remains required to do. The applicant has provided some greater detail on how the 2 no. pending appeal schemes should not be taken to cumulative effect this current proposal however I consider that this is a misunderstanding of the Committees reason for deferral, which was more about the 2 no. pending appeals testing similar issues in the overall planning balance as opposed to direct visual impacts of one scheme upon another.

In terms of the recommendation this remains unchanged. Any visual impact is not in my view so significant that it would outweigh the Government’s continuing clear planning policy objectives for tackling climate by promoting renewable energy. I therefore recommend that the application should be approved, subject to conditions.

85

The Site The site comprises part of an arable field in the open countryside south of the A617 Kirklington Road and west of the Lockwell Hill roundabout that crosses the A614 Old Rufford Road. The site lies within the parish of Rufford although it is approximately 2.2km from Farnsfield and approximately 1.6km from Rainworth, the nearest settlements. There are several Conservation Areas within the vicinity of the site including Farnsfield, Eakring, Bilsthorpe, Edwinstowe, Ollerton, Wellow and Kneesall. The application site lies to the west of Lockwell Hill farm complex which lies on the A617/A614 roundabout, some 5 fields along the A617. This application site itself would be located centrally within this field. The site is elevated land contour of c100) and is bound by native hedgerows. Located in an area of gently undulating topography (Oxton Village Farmlands S PZ 7) the height range is generally between 70 and 90m peaking at 104m at Rufford Forest Farm. The majority of land use is intensive arable farming for the production of cereals and sugar beet. There are a concentration of leisure activities to the south including White Post Farm and little woodland in the area. Built features tend to be isolated farms. The red line of the application site is drawn in a circular shape, does not reflect any features on the ground and spans 56 metres in diameter. The red line also includes the access track - (a length of approximately 260 metres) to the turbine site from the A617. A line of telegraph poles runs alongside the road edge east to west. The nearest public right of ways is c900m to the west and 1.6km to the north-east and not near any bridleways. The nearest residential properties are: • Rufford Forest Farm is c670m to the north-west; • Cottage Farm is c820m to the north-east; • Lockwell Hill Farm is c760m to the east; • Allamoor Farm is c860m to the south-west • Forest Farm is c670m to the south. Relevant Site History 10/SCR/00007 In September 2010, a screening opinion (under the Environmental Impact

Assessment Regulations) for a wind turbine comprising 1 turbine, 44 metres to tip, 3 fields to the east of this site. The Local Planning Authority has issued a response confirming that an EIA would not be required in this instance.

The Proposal This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single, three bladed turbine mounted on a tapering cylindrical tubular steel tower. It would have a hub height of 50 metres and rotor diameter of 56 metres, giving a maximum height of 78 metres to blade tip. The base of the turbine would measure 2.7 in width, tapering to 1.1 metres at the hub. The finish and colour of the turbine is likely to be light grey. No candidate turbine has been specified but the applicant confirms the parameters specified would be the maximum. The turbine would have an energy output of 500kw.

86

A concrete foundation will be required to support the turbine which according to the block plan would measure approximately 15 metres in diameter. The applicant has advised that no formal crane hard standing would be required but rather a temporary hard standing would be created during construction and following this would be reinstated to agriculture. The proposal utilises an existing farm access and the applicant has confirmed that this would be widened. It is suggested that formal tracks will not be required as construction will be in the summer months when the ground is firm enough to support delivery vehicles. A light grey transformer kiosk would be located adjacent to the turbine set on a 0.85m high concrete plinth. This would measure 3m in length by 2m in width and 2m in height. With an output of 500kw, the applicant estimates that the development has the potential to produce 1200MWh of electricity per year. The turbine will meet the energy needs of the farm (in the region of 150MWh) with the remainder being fed into the national grid via the 11kV power line to the north by underground cabling. In addition to the standard submission requirements, the application is accompanied by a supporting statement assessing a range of environmental matters including noise, ecology, aviation, landscape and heritage impacts. The application has been screened and it has been established that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required in this instance. Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure Occupiers of fourteen properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice has been displayed at the site and an advert placed in the local press. Relevant Planning Policies Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (DPD) (adopted March 2011) Policies relevant to this application: • Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design • Core Policy 10: Climate Change • Core Policy 12: Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Core Policy 13: Landscape Character • Core Policy 14: Historic Environment • Spatial Policy 3: Rural Areas • Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport Allocations and Development Management DPD The ADMDPD was adopted at Full Council on 16th July 2013 with the following policies being of relevance, which in any event are consistent with the now fallen Local Plan and the NPPF: • Policy DM4: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation • Policy DM5: Design

87

• Policy DM7: Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure • Policy DM8: Development in the Open Countryside • Policy DM9: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment Local Plan – following adoption of the ADMDPD the Local Plan has fallen. However it is noted that the ADMDPD remains within the judicial challenge period. In this particular case the policies of the ADMDPD are consistent in any event with the now fallen Local Plan and NPPF. On this basis I do not address Local Plan policies. Other Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy The Government’s energy policy is set out in the UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 which states that the UK is committed to sourcing 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and aims to reduce the UK’s emissions of carbon dioxide by over 750 million tonnes between now and 2030. In the Government's Energy Review, which was published in July 2006, the Government announced its intention to give greater clarity to strategic issues relating to renewables. Annex D of the Energy Review seeks to renew the commitment of the Government to renewables and clarifies the role of the planning system in realising renewable projects. Annex D states that: “New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but they provide crucial national benefits. Individual renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of low carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through reduced emissions and more diverse supplies of energy, which helps the reliability of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the planning system should give significant weight when considering renewable proposals.” Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy July 1999 The Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was prepared under the previous development plan system in 1999. Whilst the SPG forms a material consideration and should be used in assessment of the application, it should also be recognised that it was prepared thirteen years ago and, therefore, some of its provisions may be superseded by newer development plan policies, as well as national planning policy. The policies in the SPG are supplementary to the Development Plan and, therefore, cannot be used in themselves as stand-alone reasons for refusal. The document contains research, using a Department of Trade and Industry database, which found that the windiest parts of the District are to the west. The guide sets out a number of policies for the consideration of proposals for wind turbines within the Newark and Sherwood District. Policy W1: Wind Turbines in the Countryside

Policy W2: The Impact of Wind Turbines on Wildlife and Human Heritage Designations

Policy W3: Wind Turbines associated with existing or proposed Employment Development

88

Written Ministerial Statement by Eric Pickles on local planning and onshore wind (6/6/13) “The coalition agreement pledged to decentralise power to local people and give local people far more ability to shape the places in which they live. Through a series of reforms, this coalition government is making the planning process more accessible to local communities, because planning works best when communities themselves have the opportunity to influence the decisions that affect their lives. However, current planning decisions on onshore wind are not always reflecting a locally-led planning system. Much of this stems from planning changes made by the last administration, which is why we introduced the National Planning Policy Framework and abolished the last government’s top-down regional strategies through the Localism Act. Following a wide range of representations, including the letter of January 2012 to the Prime Minister from 100 Hon Members, and in light of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s call for evidence, it has become clear that action is needed to deliver the balance expected by the National Planning Policy Framework on onshore wind. We need to ensure that protecting the local environment is properly considered alongside the broader issues of protecting the global environment. Greater Community Consultation We have set out clearly in the National Planning Policy Framework the importance of early and meaningful engagement with local communities. The submissions to the call for evidence have highlighted the benefits of good quality pre-application discussion for onshore wind development and the improved outcomes it can have for local communities. We will amend secondary legislation to make pre-application consultation with local communities compulsory for the more significant onshore wind applications. This will ensure that community engagement takes place at an earlier stage in more cases and may assist in improving the quality of proposed onshore wind development. This will also complement the community benefits proposals announced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change today. New Planning Practice Guidance The National Planning Policy Framework includes strong protections for the natural and historic environment. Yet, some local communities have genuine concerns that when it comes to wind farms insufficient weight is being given to environmental considerations like landscape, heritage and local amenity. We need to ensure decisions do get the environmental balance right in line with the framework and, as expected by the framework, any adverse impact from a wind farm development is addressed satisfactorily. We have been equally clear that this means facilitating sustainable development in suitable locations. Meeting our energy goals should not be used to justify the wrong development in the wrong location.

89

We are looking to local councils to include in their local plans policies which ensure that adverse impacts from wind farms developments, including cumulative landscape and visual impact, are addressed satisfactorily. Where councils have identified areas suitable for onshore wind, they should not feel they have to give permission for speculative applications outside those areas when they judge the impact to be unacceptable. To help ensure planning decisions reflect the balance in the framework, my department will issue new planning practice guidance shortly to assist local councils, and planning inspectors in their consideration of local plans and individual planning applications. This will set out clearly that: • the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and

the planning concerns of local communities • decisions should take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines and properly reflect

the increasing impact on (a) the landscape and (b) local amenity as the number of turbines in the area increases

• local topography should be a factor in assessing whether wind turbines have a damaging impact on the landscape (i.e. recognise that the impact on predominantly flat landscapes can be as great or greater than as on hilly or mountainous ones)

• great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting

I am writing to Sir Michael Pitt, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate to ask him to draw this statement to the attention of planning inspectors in their current and future appeals. I will inform colleagues in local government to assist them in their forthcoming decision-making.” Consultations Rufford Parish Council – “Object on the grounds that the structure will have an adverse visual impact on motorists travelling on the A617. The visual impact assessment states the structure will be wholly visible from the principle viewpoint 2 which is in close proximity to the A617. The structure is also on the edge of green belt land.” Farnsfield Parish Council - Support the proposal. Eakring Parish Council – Object on the following grounds: • They would like to point out the large number of turbines granted permission in this small

area of the county and question the cumulative effect.-Enough is enough • In addition as tourism is one of the few remaining assets left in Nottinghamshire more

turbines on the A614 corridor to tourist hotspots such as Sherwood Forest should be discouraged

• Furthermore recent Press coverage would suggest that turbines are not cost effective Bilsthorpe Parish Council – No response Rainworth Parish Council - Support the proposal. Kings Clipstone Parish Council - No response Edwinstowe Parish Council – Comment that it’s not their area.

90

Ollerton and Boughton Parish Council – Support the proposal. Wellow Parish Council - No response Ompton Parish Council – No objections Kneesall Parish Council - No response Nottinghamshire County Council – Highways Authority – In response to addition information the following comments are made: Although this is an existing agricultural access, visibility to the right for vehicles emerging from the access is severely restricted by the vegetation fronting the site, which appears to be within the applicant’s control. This is required to be cut back and maintained so as to provide 2.4m x 215m visibility splays. The applicant has confirmed that 10 HGVs will visit the site during construction phase and 14 vehicles, twice per year, will visit for routine maintenance of the turbine. Subject to the informative note to the applicant and two conditions being imposed (see recommended Conditions 14 and 15 at end of this report) they raise no highway objections. It should be noted that the suggested highway conditions have been amended to comply with the tests set out in the NPPF in terms of making these reasonable and fit for purpose. Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way Officer – No response Nottinghamshire County Council (Archaeologist) - No response. English Heritage – Recommend that the application is determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of our own specialist conservation advice. Natural England – Refer to standing advice. Ministry of Defence Safeguarding – States: “I am writing to tell you that the MOD has no objection to the proposal. The application is for 1 turbine at 78 metres to blade tip. This has been assessed using the grid references below as submitted in your pro-forma. Turbine 100km Square The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the progression of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence interests. If planning permission is granted we would like to be advised of the following:

91

• the date construction starts and ends; • the maximum height of construction equipment; • the latitude and longitude of every turbine. This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area. If the application is altered in any way we must be consulted again as even the slightest change could unacceptably affect us. I hope this adequately explains our position on the matter. If you require further information or would like to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me. Any queries regarding this letter should be addressed to the Case Officer using the above contact details. Further information about the effects of wind turbines on MOD interests can be obtained from the following websites: MOD: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DIO/WhatWeDo/Operations/ModSafeguarding.htm Civil Aviation Authority – States: “There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation. Should the Council be minded to grant consent to an application despite an objection from one of the bodies listed in the circular, then the requisite notifications should be made. In addition, consultation should be undertaken with any aerodrome particularly if it has lodged an unofficial safeguarding map with the Council, including local emergency service Air Support Units (e.g. Police Helicopter or Air Ambulance). There is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet (91.4 metres)* or more to be charted on aeronautical charts. • Any structure of 150 metres* or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order

and should be appropriately marked. Smaller structures may also be required to be lit by aviation stakeholders particularly if they fall under Section 47 of the Aviation Act.

• Cumulative effects of turbines may lead to unacceptable impacts in certain geographic areas. The Ministry of Defence will advise on all matters affecting military aviation.

92

Should the Council still have a specific query about a particular aspect of this application the CAA will help in the clarification of aviation matters and regulatory requirements. Site operators remain responsible for providing expert testimony as to any impact on their operations and the lack of a statement of objection or support from the CAA should not be taken to mean that there are no aviation issues, or that a comment from an operator lacks weight. Guidance relating to the impact of wind turbines upon aviation can be found at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Cap764.pdf. More generic comment relating to the CAA involvement in the planning process is described at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/DAP_GuidanceOnCAAPlanningConsultationRequirements.pdf.” National Air Traffic Services – following previous objections NATS have now withdrawn their formal objection on 1st July 2013 as follows: ‘NATS (En-Route) PLC (NATS) has objected to the proposed development as it believes the development will cause an adverse impact on Claxby and associated air traffic operations of NATS without suitable mitigation. An agreement has been entered into between NATS and Fisher German LLP dated 28th June 2013 for the design and implementation of an identified and defined mitigation solution in relation to the development that will be completed under agreement. NATS (En Route) PLC NATS is therefore prepared to withdrawn its objection to the proposed development.’ Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – Comment as follows: Protection of Nesting Birds Should the application be approved we would expect to see a condition attached to secure the advice in paragraph 4.3.1 of the ecology report: “To minimise any potential impact or disturbance to protected breeding birds, if any vegetation clearance is required to facilitate the construction of the turbine, this should be undertaken outside the bird breeding season, i.e. from late-August and be completed by late February. If breeding birds were found within an area of potential disturbance, then an ecologist should be consulted and it is likely that work will have to stop in that area”. Barn Owl We would like to query whether the ecologist carried out a search for barn owl box locations – we don’t see any evidence that this has been considered in the ecology report. Mr. Gordon Ellis holds a register of barn owl box locations in Nottinghamshire (email contact: g7ellis@googlemail.com). Should barn owl box(es) be located close to the proposed turbine then it might be necessary to reposition boxes if impacts on foraging barn owl are considered possible. Bats Natural England TIN 051 cites, “it is incorrect to measure 50 m from the turbine base to habitat feature at ground level as this would bring the blade tips very close to the canopy of a tall hedgerow tree and potentially put bat populations at risk”. The guidance note provides a formula for calculating the distance between the edge of the feature and the centre of the tower. We

93

don’t see any evidence that the calculation has been made and we would wish to be assured that the 50m standoff distance will therefore be adhered to. Note also that the ecological states, “if the proposed turbine location is changed and must be closer than the recommended 50m distance from the nearest hedgerow, it would be necessary to ascertain whether or not the hedgerow is used by bats as a commuting route and this would require a minimum of two transect bat surveys at dusk and/or dawn”. Note that the report also states “This will need to be undertaken during the optimum period of June – August and comprise a minimum of two transect surveys”. We would wish to point out that TIN051 states, “Standardised surveying/monitoring pre and post installation should be required in most high risk situations and welcomed everywhere. Detailed monitoring is required in sites where impacts are predicted. Such methods could include installation of remote detectors at height to record activity, and corpse searching. Such data can make a valuable contribution to the evidence base and help set the risk in context.” We therefore recommend a condition should be attached to for a program of post installation monitoring, should the application be approved. Badgers We would wish to see a condition to secure the advice from paragraph 3.3.3, should the application be approved: “…General good working practices should be adhered to during the work, with any trenches dug covered over at night and any pipes over 200mm in diameter capped off at night “. Nightjar and Woodlark Assessment (appendix E) We welcome that consideration has been given to impacts on woodlark and nightjar in the context of a potential future Sherwood SPA in appendix E of the report. The assessment notes, “The proposed turbine location, at Lockwell Hill Farm, is located approximately 1.3 km east of the Natural England ICA at its nearest point. It is considered unlikely that either species would travel this distance from their breeding territories to forage, particularly given that the habitat between is all arable fields, which is not considered to be suitable habitat for either of these species during the breeding season”. We would like to highlight the following, which we pointed out in our response to an application for a nearby wind turbine at Rufford Forest Farm (ref 10/0501), that nightjar have been recorded feeding over ripening arable crops in this part of Sherwood, suggesting that birds behave differently locally compared to other areas studied in detail, such as Thetford and Dorset. Appendix E refers to information submitted in support of the Baulker Farm application (12/00716). We are aware that SLR consultancy submitted a bat and nightjar survey of Watch Hill out a survey in relation to the nearby Rufford Forest Farm application (which we understand has been withdrawn). It would have been useful to consider this work in the report because a major weakness of the assessment is that it does not include any actual bird records. The ecologists may also find it helpful to talk to Birklands Ringing Group with regard to woodlark and nightjar records (Andy Lowe on 07884 431582) as the group has carried out extensive surveys of both species in the county.

94

Cumulative Impacts Having viewed the application details, we cannot a see cumulative impact assessment. We are strongly of the view that a cumulative impact assessment is required in relation to ecology and other environmental matters. As mentioned above, there is a nearby approved wind turbine at Baulker Farm and the approved application within the same parish at Combs Farm. We would wish to see the above points considered, and further information submitted where appropriate, prior to determination. We would be grateful if you could keep us informed about the progress of this application.” Further information was subsequently provided and on 13/12/12 NWF commented: “Thanks for the additional information. We are pleased our observations have been considered and wish to make no additional comments.” British Horse Society – Comment as follows: “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on behalf of the British Horse Society with regards to the above planning application. Having reviewed the plans and application details, I feel that as the proposed turbine is not to be situated near a public bridleway, it will not present a public safety issue to users of bridleways. The British Horse Society recommends that turbines should be situated at least 200m from a public right of way and according to the plans, the proposed location of the turbine will not be in conflict with this guideline. Therefore there is no objection on public safety grounds from the British Horse Society.” Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland Air Ambulance – No comments have been received at the time of writing this report. Nottingham East Midlands Airport – No comments have been received at the time of writing this report. North Midlands Helicopter Support Unit – No comments have been received at the time of writing this report. Newark & Sherwood District Council – Environmental Health Officer – In response to an updated noise report the following comments were made on 14/12/12 “The report for this application finds that noise levels for some of the receptors will exceed the ETSU criteria. Noting that, the report references the background noise date produced for the Rufford Farm application to justify the predicted noise levels. Interestingly the background noise levels were found to largely influenced by road traffic not wind speed. Overall, on the basis of the submitted reports and the information contained therein, I do not think that the proposed turbine will have a significant detrimental effect on the nearby receptors.” Neighbours/Interested Parties – One neighbouring property has comments to say they have no objections whatsoever.

95

Comments of Director - Growth Having regard to the provisions of all relevant planning policies, the nature of the proposed development and the representations received, there are a range of issues which need to be considered in the determination of this application. These are discussed below. Planning Policy Context A reasonable starting point for consideration of this application is the Government’s commitment to electricity generation by renewable sources set out in the Renewable Energy Strategy and in particular the target that 15% of national electricity production should be derived from renewable sources by 2020. This target has been maintained under the coalition Government. The NPPF makes clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The environmental role relates to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, including using natural resources prudently and minimising pollution and is highly relevant to renewable energy development. It sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The core planning principles support the transition to a low carbon future, including by encouraging the use of renewable resources, citing specifically the development of renewable energy. The principles also support sustainable economic growth; a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of different areas; encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas; and conserve heritage assets appropriate in a manner appropriate for their significance. It goes on to say that planning has a key role in both securing “radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” and “supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure” . The District Council’s commitment to tackling climate change is set out in Core Policy 10 and Policy DM4 of the recently adopted ADMDPD. This provides that we will encourage the provision of renewable and low carbon energy generation within new development and states that permission will be granted where benefits are not outweighed by detrimental impacts to the environment. In determining this application, I therefore consider it is necessary to balance the strong policy presumption in favour of wind turbines against the site specific impacts. Landscape and Visual (including Cumulative Impacts) The impact upon the landscape is a key consideration for this scheme. This is a medium scale turbine at 78m to tip which will clearly be visible in the wider landscape given that it is set on elevated land in a gently undulating landscape. The significance of this impact has been carefully considered in assessing this application. The application is accompanied by a Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by ‘Influence’. I consider that this is an adequate tool to inform the proposal in question. There are no special landscape designations within the immediate vicinity of the site. The site lies within the Sherwood Oxton Village Farmlands character area SPZ7 with a policy action of Conserve and Create, according to Core Policy 13.

96

It is an area of gently undulating topography and as such the views tend to be medium to long distance, aside from where vegetation and topography limits them giving a generally moderate and intermittent visibility value. The majority of land use is dedicated to intensive arable agriculture. In the Landscape Character Appraisal, the landscape condition is described as moderate that has a coherent pattern mainly large geometric arable fields with only small area of woodland, none within the vicinity of the site. There are some detracting features including the busy A617 and A614 and telegraph poles running alongside the A617. Overall this gives a visually coherent area. The landscape sensitivity is defined as moderate. This proposal for a single turbine will clearly be visible in the wider landscape and given there are other single turbines of a similar height in the area, there is potential for cumulative visual impacts. The application does provide some images which seek to demonstrate these impacts although it has been necessary for me to assess this further as this assessment is not as robust as it might have been. Taking into account other single turbines in the area (both erected and committed), the moderate landscape condition and its moderate sensitivity, I still do not consider that this would be so harmful that it would cause significant harm to the landscape to warrant a reason for refusal. The cumulative impact of turbines in this area has also been considered, noting the group of 5 large turbines at Rainworth, two individual turbines (approx. 70m heights) to the south and southeast of the proposal site, as well as the group of large turbines built at Stonish Hill near Bilsthorpe/Eakring. However, it is felt in this case that the additional turbine at this height and in this location will not significantly harm the landscape setting through intervisibility with other turbines. I therefore consider that this application is acceptable. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Priorities for conserving the historic environment is set out in Section 12 of the NPPF, Core Strategy Policy CP14 and Policy DM9 of the ADMDPD. Advice on considering the setting of heritage assets is contained within English Heritage guidance (2011). Lockwell Hill is located on the A617 at the junction with the A614. The turbine will be located to the west of Lockwell Hill, south of the Kirklington Road in an open area of agricultural land. The general landscape in this area is of gentle undulating hills associated with agriculture and industry, and is predominantly of low to medium sensitivity (using the Notts Landscape Character Assessment). The impact upon the surrounding conservation villages has been carefully considered. Whilst the turbine would be visible from some locations, mainly the fringes of the settlements as the settlements themselves tend to be well enclosed, given the distances involved and the land contours, it would be no more visible relatively than a telegraph pole and less prominent that the pylons in the landscape. As such the impact upon the setting of these settlements is considered to be acceptable and would not in my view cause any significant harm that would warrant a reason for refusal. The nearest designated heritage assets are the Conservation Areas at Blidworth, Farnsfield and Bilsthorpe, as well as a handful of significant landmark buildings (such as churches). It is considered that the turbine will not have an adverse impact on the setting of these assets taking into account the height of the turbine and distance to specific assets. Whilst there are other heritage assets in the wider area, there are no heritage assets immediately within the vicinity of the turbine considered to be adversely affected by the proposal.

97

The impact on other heritage assets (such as listed buildings) has also been considered. Given the distances involved and that it is for a single turbine, no significant harm has been identified. It is considered that the archaeological potential on this site, a green field agricultural field in the countryside, is low and mitigation would not be required. Due to the distances involved and the design of the turbine I do not consider there would be any harmful impacts upon any scheduled ancient monuments or Registered Parks and Gardens. In respect of heritage, I do not consider that the addition of a turbine to this area will have cause significant harm and it accords with the Development Plan and the NPPF. Noise Further noise information has been provided during the course of the application and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has now advised that this is unlikely to cause any adverse issues to the environment. No neighbours have raised noise this as a concern and based on the submitted information I consider that the proposal is acceptable. Highway Issues No bridleways or rights of way would be adversely affected by this proposal by virtue of the considerable distances involved. The majority of traffic associated with this development would be at construction phase, which would typically last for around 4 months. The applicant has clarified that there would be 10 HGV movements during construction with the abnormal load route being from an English port onto M1, exiting at the M1 at Junction 34 then taking the A1 to the A614, to the A617. The site access is on the south side of the A617 c800m west of the junction with the A614 and will include improved visibility splays. Once operational, only routine maintenance and servicing traffic would be required which would likely be twice a year. The Highways Authority have now confirmed that there are no highway concerns with this scheme, subject to securing appropriate visibility splays and surfacing arrangements for construction traffic. The proposal is therefore in compliance with SP7 of the Development Plan. Ecology and Nature Conservation The turbine is sited within an arable field. The most sensitive ecological features are the trees and hedgerows surrounding the field and the proposed siting maintains a minimum 50 metre buffer zone from these. This approach follows Natural England’s guidance for other wind farm developments and in this case they offer their standard comment. The scheme would involve the trimming back of a small section of hedgerow to for essential site access which would widen the existing access point. Whilst the Wildlife Trust initially raised concerns about the proposal (mainly due to lack of information), since further information has been provided they have stated that are satisfied with the scheme. Natural England have not commented on the scheme but refer the LPA to standing advice which I conclude has been followed. Having considered the impacts on ecology, it has been concluded that there are no significant risks. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies CP12 and DM7 of the Development Plan.

98

Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is an effect that under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off. It only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening. It is noted that some residents have raised this issue and its impact on health and epileptic sufferers as a concern. In respect of this, the Companion Guide to PPS22 is clear that the effects from shadow flicker are on residential amenity rather than having the potential to affect the health and wellbeing of residents. The Companion Guide to PPS22 also confirms that flicker can only occur within 130 degrees either side of north relative to the turbines’ position, as turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side. Advice is that this is most likely to occur within 10 rotor diameters of a wind turbine. In this case 10 rotor diameters equates to 560m. There are no properties within this proximity and I are satisfied that this matter does not require any further assessment. Aviation Safety Various organisations have been consulted with regard to aviation safety. NATS initially raised safeguarding concerns. However, a way of mitigating this has been established. Whilst it was put to NATS that this mitigation could be controlled by planning condition, NATS have been insistent on the applicant entering into a binding legal agreement direct with them which has now taken place. NATS have withdrawn their objection and have not requested that any conditions. However it is standard practice to secure an aviation warning light to be secured by condition, which is recommended. Climate Change The developer states the proposal is anticipated to create 1,200 MWh of energy per year and therefore has the potential to provide the energy needs for 250 homes per year, based on average consumption as well as providing for the energy needs of the farm itself. Whilst this is small amount this is still significant as advocated by the NPPF. This positive environmental benefit would be in accordance with the Council’s commitment to helping to tackle climate change as set out in Core Policy 10 and DM4. Other Matters Despite the postal address being within Farnsfield, the site lies within the Parish of Rufford and Rufford Parish Council have objected on visual grounds. Consequently the application is before Members for determination. It should also be noted that Eakring Parish Council also objects. Five neighbouring Parish Councils have chosen not to comment at all and thee Parishes (including Farnsfield) support the scheme with no interested parties or neighbours having objected to the application. The recent Ministerial Statement June 2013, which is a material consideration to the determination of planning applications, outlines amongst other things that the coalition agreement pledged to decentralize power to people and give more ability to shape the places in which they live. This Statement does go on to say that more detailed Government Guidance will be produced, albeit at the current time this has yet to materialise.

99

Conclusion I have taken into account all comments and for the reasons set out above, I conclude that, on balance, the visual harm is not so significant that it would outweigh the Government’s clear planning policy objectives for tackling climate by promoting renewable energy. I therefore recommend that the application should be approved. RECOMMENDATION Approve, subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 02 No development shall be commenced until full details of the turbine specifications including its make, model, power rating, external dimensions, colour and finish have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall comprise a three bladed turbine no larger than the maximum dimensions submitted as part of the application. No part of the structure shall carry any logo or lettering other than as required for health and safety reasons. The development shall be carried out in accordance with such details as approved. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 03 No development shall be commenced until precise details of the types and colours of materials to be used on the external elevations of the transformer cabinet have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the development has a satisfactory appearance by virtue of the materials used. 04 At least 6 weeks prior to the start of construction, the applicant/developer shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence (MOD), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Local Planning Authority: i. Location of turbine (latitude and longitude) ii. Height of turbine (maximum height to blade tip) iii. Lighting status of the feature/structure iv. The estimated and actual dates of construction (when it will start and end) v. The maximum height of any construction equipment to be used

100

In the event that the anticipated date of completion of the construction varies from that which has been notified to the MOD and CAA, an update shall be provided in writing to both parties prior to construction extending beyond the date of which they have been notified. Reason: In the interests of air traffic safety. 05 No development shall be commenced until details of an aviation warning light to be fitted to highest practicable point (25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimized flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration) of the turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The light shall thereafter be installed as approved. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety. 06

The turbine shall not produce an audible tone requiring a correction as set out in "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" - ETSU-R-97 and the Sound Power Level produced by the turbine shall not exceed 100dB (A), measured at a wind speed of 10m/s, at any time.

Reason: To ensure that the noise levels predicted for the candidate turbine are adhered to in order to safeguard residential amenity.

07

The noise emitted from the wind turbine subject to this consent, when measured or calculated in free field conditions at noise sensitive properties (in existence at the time of this consent) as measured in accordance with the ETSU R 97 requirements shall not exceed:

i) During Night Time hours, the greater of the night hours background noise level plus 5dB(A) or 43 dB(A) at wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second, at 10 metres above ground level. Night time (23:00 - 07:00);

and at all other times:

ii) The greater of the quiet waking hours LA90 background noise level plus 5 dB(A) or 40dB(A) at wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second. Quiet daytime (weekday evenings 18:00 - 23:00, Saturday 13:00 - 18:00 and Sunday 07:00- 18:00).

(The noise levels relate to the wind speeds measured on site and referenced to a height of 10 metres above ground level. Where it is necessary to convert between measured wind speeds and the wind speed and noise levels at 10 metre height, this conversion shall be undertaken using a methodology to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority).

At the request of, and following a complaint to the Local Planning Authority, the operator of the development shall measure and assess the level of noise from the wind turbine generator at one or more specified locations in accordance with the procedures stated above and shall provide the results to the Local Planning Authority within a timescale. The operator of the development shall agree all such measurement locations with the Local Planning Authority prior to such measurement and assessment. Guidance within the document ETSU-R-97 shall be used to agree such measurement locations.

101

Reason: To ensure that residential amenities are safeguarded. 08 The peak to trough sound modulation produced by the wind turbine shall not exceed 2-3dB(A) above background levels when measured at noise sensitive properties. Reason: To ensure that residential amenities are safeguarded. 09 The Sound Power Level produced by the turbine shall be no greater than 102.7dB (A) at wind speed of 10m/s. Reason: To ensure that the sound power levels predicted for the candidate turbine are adhered to in order to safeguard residential amenity. 010 Prior to the commencement of any development a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out the protocol for the assessment of TV interference during construction and operational phases in the event of any complaint, including the remedial measures to be taken. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved protocol. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of surrounding residents. 011 Not later than six months before the date on which the planning permission hereby granted expires, the wind turbine and external housing shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land reinstated to it former condition in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to the commencement of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall include the dismantling and removal of the turbine and external housing above existing ground levels and the removal of the turbine base and foundations. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 012 If the wind turbine hereby permitted ceases to operate for a continuous period of 12 months then a scheme for the decommissioning and removal of the wind turbine and ancillary external housing shall be submitted within six months of the end of the cessation period to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

102

013 During the construction phase, any pipes over 200mm in diameter should be capped off at night (at the end of each construction day) and any trenches should be left with a sloping end or incorporate a temporary ramp to allow badgers and any other mammals or amphibians that may fall into the excavated area a means of escape. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and in line with the Ecologist Report that accompanies the planning application. 014 No development (including construction) shall commence until the access is surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 15m rear of the highway boundary in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 015 No development (including construction) shall commence until visibility splays of 2.4m x 215m are provided in accordance with details to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The area within the visibility splays referred to in this condition shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions, structures or erections exceeding 0.6m in height during construction and decommissioning. Reason: To provide and maintain the appropriate visibility of splays during construction and decommissioning in the interests of general highways safety. 016 No hedge or tree that is to be removed as part of the development hereby permitted shall be lopped, topped, felled or otherwise removed during the bird nesting period (beginning of March to end of August inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of nesting birds on site. 017 All electrical cabling between the turbine and the sub-station shall be located underground unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 018 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans, Location and Site Plans K27.2.001, Site Location MCLA_N0112_PL01 and Turbine and Kiosk Details K27-2-002 all dated July 2012 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: So as to define this permission.

103

019 The planning permission hereby granted shall be for a temporary period only to expire 30 years after the date of the commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of the date of commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority within one month after the event. Reason: The proposal is not suitable for a permanent permission and in accordance with the applicants expressed intent. Note to Applicant 01 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 02 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk /cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development given that the development comprises a structure(s) and/or buildings that people only enter for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery. 03 The applicant's attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should be discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised. 04 Nottinghamshire County Council Highways Authority advise you of the following. The existing access is unmade and will require improvements i.e. widening and hard surfacing. The HGV routing has been confirmed as the A614-A617 which is acceptable. The applicant should contact Malcolm Goodhall, NCC Abnormal Load Officer on 0115 977 4490 for approval prior to any works commencing on-site. In order to carry out the off-site works required (access improvements) you will be undertaking work in the public highway which is land subject to the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and therefore land over which you have no control. In order to undertake the works you may need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act. Please contact Dave Albans (01623) 520735 for details. REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010

104

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Spatial Policy 3: Rural Areas Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design Core Policy 10: Climate Change Core Policy 12 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Core Policy 13: Landscape Character Core Policy 14: Historic Environment Newark and Sherwood Allocations & Development Management DPD Policy DM4: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation Policy DM5: Design Policy DM7: Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Policy DM8: Development in the Open Countryside Policy DM9: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Clare Walker on Ext: 01636 655841 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

105

106

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13

The Site The application site is an agricultural field presently accessed behind Rufford Forest Farm by an existing unmade track which runs parallel to the west of the field and exits from the A617. The farm is arable and operates 650 acres. The track access to the west also forms part of a Public Right Of Way which continues north past the entry to this field. The siting of the proposed turbine is approximately 280m north of the farm complex and would be positioned slightly to the east of the farm complex when viewed from the A617. In a wider context the turbine is located well outside of any designated settlement, lying approximately 1km to the east (NEE) of Rainworth village and approximately 3km from Bilsthorpe. The turbines which comprise the Lindhurst wind farm are visible from adjacent to the site and more so from the approach along the A617 facing Rainworth. Description of Proposal This application seeks consent to erect a medium height turbine on land to the rear of an existing farm complex within an open agricultural field. The previously approved Vergnet two-bladed wind turbine and associated infrastructure would be decommissioned and removed from the site as part of the proposals. The proposed turbine would provide renewable energy to offset the carbon usage on the farm and contribute to the supply of renewable energy to the national grid. The proposed turbine is three-bladed and has a maximum height of 77.9m to the blade tip (therefore 6.9m higher than the existing turbine at Rufford Forest Farm) forming from a tower that is 50.9m tall with a 54.0m rotor diameter. The mast would be galvanized steel in a colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The blades would be made from glass reinforced epoxy. The proposed turbine has a rated output of approximately 500kW. The application includes a micro-siting allowance of 4.0m. The new access track would sit to the western boundary of the field to which the turbine is proposed to be erected and would follow the line of the existing Public Right Of Way from the access point from the A617 for approximately 380m with a width of 5.0m to the point where the access heads east to enter the field. The wind turbine would be set in approximately 70m from the western field boundary.

Application No: 13/00952/FUL

Proposal:

Proposed Erection of 1 No. Wind Turbine and Associated Works and Infrastructure and the Decommissioning and Removal of a Previously Approved Vergnet Wind Turbine and Associated Infrastructure

Location: Rufford Forest Farm, Centenary Avenue, Rufford

Applicant: King Renewables

Registered: 23/08/2013 Target Date: 18/10/2013

107

Additional works proposed include a concrete foundation to support the turbine measuring approximately 13.0m x 13.0m, a crane pad measuring approximately 15.0m x 35.0m constructed out of compressed hardcore and the installation of a substation building and cable route from the turbine to external transformer housing. The substation would be located within the turbine swept area and would have dimensions of 9.44m width x 4.49m depth x 3.4m height. The previously implemented two-bladed turbine with structural ties (consisting of cabling to the ground at four anchor points by 8 steel guyed ropes) and associated equipment (consisting of a substation and transformer) would be removed as part of the proposals. The planning application is supported by; • Planning Statement • Phase 1 Ecology (walkover) study (November 2010) • Nightjar and Bat Survey (July 2011) • NIA (Noise Impact assessment) (October 2013) • LVIA (Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment) (July 2013) • Heads of terms for a Unilateral Agreement relating to the decommissioning and removal of

the previously approved wind turbine and associated infrastructure. Relevant Site History 10/01112/FUL - Installation of a single 275kW wind turbine and substation - Withdrawn 10/1501/FUL - Erection of 275kW single wind turbine including ancillary buildings – Withdrawn 11/01371/FUL – Erection of single wind turbine with hub height of 55m and blade tip height of 71m - Permitted 12/00014/FUL – Variation of condition 02 of planning permission 11/01371/FUL (Erection of single wind turbine with hub height of 55m and blade tip height of 71m) to revise siting of turbine - Permitted Publicity Press Notice: Published 04.09.2013 Site Notice: Posted 05.09.2013 Earliest Decision Date 27.09.2013 Representations No written representations have been received Consultations Rufford Parish Council – Object on the grounds that the height of the turbine is excessive and would add to the already congested skyline in Rufford. Rainworth Parish – Support the proposal

108

Farnsfield Parish Council – Support the proposal Bilsthorpe Parish Council – No comments received Eakring Parish Council – Object to this scheme as it is larger than the structure it replaces and the cumulative effect i.e. the number of wind turbines in this local area both in position and proposed has reached unacceptable levels Kneesal Parish Council – No comments received Ompton Parish Council – No comments received Wellow Parish Council – No comments received Ollerton (& Boughton) Town Council – Support the proposal Edwinstowe Parish Council – Support the proposal Clipstone Parish Council – Support the proposal

Kings Clipstone Parish Council – No comments received

Notts County Council (Rights of Way) – The existing wind turbine causes no issues regarding users of the nearby public footpath. The proposed site access follows the route of the public footpath, however this is a wide sand & gravel farm track, with evidence of regular farm vehicle use. There is sufficient room on the verge at the side of the track for pedestrians to stand safely whilst vehicles pass or to walk around a stopped vehicle.

The Rights of Way officer recommends that the access traffic adheres to a safe speed limit (10mph) on site, gives way to users of the public footpath, puts a warning of site traffic sign at either end of the section being used for access, and should any damage to the surface of the path occur (ie deep ruts) that these are repaired once the works are complete.

Natural England – Do not consider that this application poses any likely or significant risk to those features of the natural environment for which they would otherwise provide a more detailed consultation response and so does not wish to make specific comment on the details of this consultation. Natural England would expect the Local Planning Authority to assess the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites (including consideration of the likely impacts from this development on breeding nightjar and woodlark within the Sherwood Forest Area), and whether there is an opportunity for biodiversity and landscape enhancements.

Ramblers Association – No comments received

NSDC Environmental Health Officer – On the basis of the information provided the turbine should not have a significant noise impact.

Notts County Council (Highways) – This proposal is for a replacement wind turbine, using an existing access track from the A617. This access point is a ‘field access’, unmade and in a poor condition due to the use by vehicles in connection with the operation of the existing approved wind turbine. Therefore, to prevent further deterioration, improvements to the surfacing are required to protect the structural integrity of the highway.

109

Subject to a condition being attached to any consent requiring specification of a vehicular crossing suitable for this development being submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, there are no highway objections to this proposal. A note should also be attached to any consent to advise the applicant to contact the Highway Authority to arrange for any works to create a vehicular crossing. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – The Trust advised as follows: • The Trust note that section 7.1.0.4 of the planning statement suggests the 50 metre standoff

distance (between blade tip and linear feature) recommend in Natural England’s Technical Information note on bats will be achieved and we wish to be assured this will be the case.

• The Trust also wish to point out that ecological information needs to be up to date (Natural

England Standing Advice suggests reports should be no more than 2-3 years old). Therefore, the Trust consider the 2010 ecological survey is just within the time period considered as being up to date.

• The Trust note submission of the 2011 combined nightjar (bird) and bat survey. This

information is useful in considering issues in relation to Natural England’s Advice Note to Local Planning Authorities regarding the consideration of effects on the breeding population of nightjar and woodlark in the Sherwood Forest region (11 July 2011).

• Although the Trust would find it difficult to sustain an individual objection on this basis, the

Trust wish to express concern regarding the number of single turbine proposals (both permitted, consented and in planning) in the Sherwood area. This is in the context of potential bird mortality of EC Birds Directive Annex 1 species (particularly nightjar) and possible cumulative impacts. The Trust would like to see further consideration of cumulative ecological impacts and, furthermore, would like to see detailed research and monitoring secured ideally through the planning system in order to assess whether cumulative impacts on nightjar are likely in the Sherwood Forest area. This is important in relation to the issue that the Sherwood Forest area supports more than 1% of the national populations of these birds, which is the threshold for qualification as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under EC legislation. The Trust would also welcome a strategic approach to identification of sites suitable for wind power generation in the Newark and Sherwood local authority area. This is something the Trust would be happy to contribute to.

NSDC Conservation Officer – No comment Notts County Council (Archaeology) – The proposed development is partially located within a field which contains a complex of cropmarks identified by the National Mapping Programme (NMP). In general terms, cropmarks derive from the complex interplay of a range of factors, including the differential growth of vegetation, particularly cereal crops, over buried features such as walls or ditches. Only larger or deeper buried features will tend to show as cropmarks, so it is likely that, in addition to the known cropmarks within this area, there will be other archaeological features that are otherwise unknown to us. Although cropmarks are typically difficult to date and interpret. The cropmarks that exist within the vicinity the development site most probably represent field boundaries, trackways and enclosures that were set out and used during the Iron Age and Roman periods and are therefore of significant value.

110

The Archaeologist has an additional concern about this and a number of other current turbine proposals from the area, in that singly there may be only limited impacts on the settings of surrounding heritage assets, but cumulatively, the impacts may be significant, and negative. Obviously, landscape and settings issues are a feature of wind farm applications, where Environmental Statements will attempt to address the impacts objectively. However, a series of one or two turbines within a relatively compact area can have just as great or a greater impact. As a consultee on these applications, it is difficult to assess the impacts involved on the information provided; it would be extremely useful to have an overall landscape strategy for such development, one which has a clear understanding of the historic landscape and the setting of the heritage assets it contains, rather than trying to deal with cumulative impacts in a piecemeal case by case fashion. The proposed development will involve a significant level of ground disturbance, which may include stripping of topsoil over the entire area of the proposed site, together with car parking areas, access roads, services, etc. These works are very likely to damage or destroy any surviving archaeological features. Due to the archaeological interest of this area, as well as the nature and extent of the proposed development the Archaeologist recommends that if planning permission is to be granted this should be conditional upon two things. Firstly, upon the applicants submitting for the District Council’s approval and prior to development commencing details of an archaeological scheme of mitigation of the site and secondly, upon the subsequent implementation of that scheme to the District Council’s satisfaction. A condition such as the following may be appropriate: "No development shall take place within the application site until details of an archaeological scheme of mitigation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority." "Thereafter, the scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details." This scheme should be drawn up and implemented by a professional archaeologist or archaeological organisation. This scheme should ensure that all phases of ground disturbance at this site are archaeologically monitored in circumstances that will allow archaeological features to be recorded. The Archaeologist would prefer to see a ‘strip, map and sample’ exercise undertaken at this site whereby the topsoil is stripped under archaeological supervision and any archaeological features are identified, recorded and sampled accordingly. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – No specific comments, clarification of consultation procedures NATS (NERL Safeguarding) – No safeguarding objection to the proposal Ministry of Defence – No objection North Midlands Helicopter Support Unit – Neither supports or objects to the construction or siting of the proposed turbine. However, given its total height of 255ft is 55ft higher than our legal minimum daytime operating height and only 245ft less than our legal minimum night operating height, we strongly recommend that it should be fitted with a visible spectrum aviation warning light. Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland Air Ambulance – No comments received

111

Lincs and Notts Air Ambulance Charitable Trust – No comments received Nottinghamshire Police Helicopter Division – No comments received Midlands Air Ambulance – No comments received Mansfield District Council – No objection Planning Policy Framework The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Spatial Policy 3: Rural Areas Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design Core Policy 10: Climate Change Core Policy 12 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Core Policy 13: Landscape Character Core Policy 14: Historic Environment Allocations & Development Management DPD Policy DM4 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation Policy DM5 – Design Policy DM7 – Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Policy DM9 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment Policy DM12 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy (July 1999) Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (July 2013) Comments of Business Manager - Development Principle of Development The UK Government is committed to meeting binding targets set by the EU Renewable Energy Directive (15% by 2020). The Government, in 2009, published its Renewable Energy Strategy which in turn envisages an energy mix from renewables required to meet its own prescribed targets. These targets have been maintained under the coalition Government. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements, circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 22 ‘Renewable Energy’ (PPS22) and Planning Policy Statement 5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ (PPS5). Although the thrust of the previous policy in these documents has been carried forward into the Framework, the wording is more condensed and there have been some changes in policy. The Noise Policy Statement for England (DEFRA -2011) also remains in effect and is cross referenced in the Framework in a footnote to Paragraph 124.

112

A core principle of the NPPF is that planning should, ‘Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate …and encourage the use of renewable resources.’ The NPPF policy on renewable and low carbon energy is set out in section 10 of the document. NPPF paragraph 93 indicates that, ‘Planning plays a key role in helping to shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the effects of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development’. NPPF paragraph 94 states that, ‘Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change’ in line with the objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.

NPPF paragraph 97 includes that local planning authorities should ‘recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources’; ‘have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources’; ‘design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts’; and ‘consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of such sources’.

NPPF paragraph 98 concerning the determination of planning applications includes provisions that Local Planning Authorities should, in summary, not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

The District Council’s commitment to mitigating climate change is set out by Core Strategy Core Policy 10 and Policy DM4 of the Allocations & Development Management DPD. The policy indicates that the District Council will encourage the provision of renewable and low carbon energy generation within new development and recognises that the support for renewable and low carbon development is key to meeting the challenge of climate change.

In determining this application it is necessary to balance any recognised positive or negative effects against the strong presumption in favour of promoting renewable energy provision and the views of the local community. The wider environmental and economic benefits of the proposal, notwithstanding its small scale, are a material consideration to be given significant weight in this decision.

Impact on Character of Area (design, layout, etc) The District Council has undertaken a Landscape Character Assessment (February 2010) to assist decision makers in understanding the potential impact of the proposed development on the character of the landscape. A Visual Impact Assessment was submitted with the application. The applicant has appraised the landscape character using seven viewpoints which provide a useful mechanism to understand the potential impact of the proposed development. The level of study is considered to be proportionate to the scale of the scheme and landscape sensitivity as there are no local, national or international landscape designations affected.

Landscape Impacts

Core Strategy Core Policy 13 addresses issues of landscape character. A Landscape Character Appraisal (LCA) has been prepared to inform the policy approach identified within Core Strategy Core Policy 13. The LCA provides an objective methodology for assessing the varied landscape within the District and contains information about the character, condition and sensitivity of the landscape. The LCA has recognised a series of Policy Zones across the 5 Landscape Character types represented across the District.

113

The proposed turbine is located within the Sherwood character area, which has been divided into twenty two Policy Zones. The two nearest Policy Zones to the application site are Vicar Water and Rainworth Heath Wooded Estatelands which the site itself falls within, and Oxton Village Farmlands which the buildings comprising the existing farm complex sit within. The landscape condition of the Rainworth Heath Wooded Estatelands is defined as ‘very poor’. The area has an incoherent pattern of elements with many detracting features such as mineral extraction sites and industrial estates. Visual unity is significantly interrupted. Rainworth Heath is a SSSI and there are many SINCs and heathland register sites however the application site is not located within these sites with the nearest being a SINC some 300m to the north of the site. Ecological integrity is strong, there are good wildlife corridors within the policy zone and linking to adjacent areas. Areas of unrestored colliery workings and recently restored areas are considered to have moderate ecological value. Cultural integrity is poor. The historic pattern of unenclosed heathland landscape has largely been destroyed by mineral activity. Overall a significantly interrupted area with a coherent functional integrity / habitat for wildlife gives a very poor landscape condition. The landscape sensitivity of the Rainworth Heath Wooded Estatelands is defined as ‘moderate’. The historic unenclosed heathland has largely been disturbed, but heathland has successfully established itself on some restored mineral sites. Overall the features are characteristic of Sherwood with an historic time depth (post 1600) and the area has a moderate sense of place. An open panoramic view is possible from the top of the spoil tip to the west of Vicar Pond. Views within the policy zone are enclosed by landform andwoodland. The apparent landform and intermittent tree cover give moderate visibility within the zone. Core Policy 13 of the Core Strategy indicates that development proposals should positively address the implications of the Landscape Policy Zones in which the proposals lie and demonstrate that such development would contribute towards meeting the Landscape Conservation and Enhancement Aims for the area. The Policy Action for this area is to ‘Create’ which the LCA defines as ‘actions that create new features or areas where existing elements are lost or are in poor condition.’ In terms of landscape features, these are specifically to: • Create heathland habitats with Oak / Birch woodland and open acid grassland / heathland • Create natural rolling landforms in keeping with the Sherwood region when restoring

mineral and quarry sites – avoid unnatural, engineered landforms • Create woodland to help restore unity to the landscape – medium to large scale planting

would be appropriate in this area • Conserve existing heathland habitats For this site the landscape rises away from the road (A617) to the north before dropping away slightly. The site comprises a very large open field that is not itself visible from views taken on the highway or from (ground level) high points looking back from the entrance to Rainworth village. This is because the land also rises to the west of the field masking the lower parts of the turbine and screening ancillary provisions like the substation. The proposed turbine would require minimal land take to allow for its footing and associated works to be developed, when considered in relation to the wider landscape. The proposed turbine would not significantly transform the character of the landscape in that, no barriers or new boundaries would be created, communication routes would not be severed, field systems would not be disassociated and no pre-existing boundaries would be eliminated, or vegetation patterns changed.

114

The impact of siting a turbine in this location would not in my view have a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the landscape being particularly mindful that a wind turbine already exists on the site and that this would be decommissioned and removed. I note that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application states that blade tips may be more apparent or visible where they were previously screened. However, the existing utilitarian structure will be replaced by one that may be considered more visually refined with a slower blade rotation that is less visually distracting. The proposed development would result in there being a limited magnitude of change, as a consequence of there already being a wind turbine on the site, the presence of extensive screening which restricts visibility from a number of receptors, and the distances involved when viewing the turbine from some landscape character receptors.

Visual Impacts

The proposed development would comprise the installation of a 500kW wind turbine measuring 77.9m forming from a tower that is 50.9m tall with a 54.0m rotor diameter. The design and height of the proposed turbine is therefore known and can help assess its visual impact.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and associated viewpoints indicate that no significant impacts are expected for residential receptors with the presence of the existing turbine reducing the sensitivity of properties very close to the site such as at Rufford Forest Farm. Views from more distant properties are frequently oblique or screened. Road receptor points include the A614 and A617 which are busy roads which the LVIA notes have limited scenic value and relatively low sensitivity. The view from the adjacent Public Right of Way is already dominated by the existing turbine and views from other recreational routes are more limited. The LVIA states that whilst the replacement turbine might be marginally more visible from short sections of the Robin Hood Way the impact would be slight-moderate adverse. No significant impacts are expected for visitor destination receptors with a slight adverse impact expected for Rainworth Water Local Nature Reserve and impacts to Rufford Country Park, Sherwood Pines Visitor Centre and Sherwood Forest Centre Parcs considered to be negligible.

Cumulative Impacts

Most notably there are already clearly discernible (large scale) wind turbines in the landscape which are much larger that proposed on this site, at the ‘Lindhurst’ wind farm. Lindhurst comprises 5 turbines measuring 120m approx. to blade tip that are visible above the skyline topping the village of Rainworth to the west of this site. They are discernible in various view instances along the A617 approaching from the east which are discussed further below in considering cumulative impacts. There is also a wind farm consisting of 5 turbines at Eakring to the north east of the site measuring 103.5m to the tip. The impact of a wind turbine on the application site when viewed cumulatively with those at Eakring and Lindhurst was considered in the report relating to planning reference 11/01371/FUL. The officer’s report at that time noted that these nearby wind farms were not closely visually related to the proposal in terms of location or scale. The turbines at Lindhurst and Eakring are much larger, stand more prominently in their localised landscape context, are well separated in distance from the application site and with regards to the turbines at Eakring the cumulative effect was considered negligible/slight given the main viewpoints are masked owing to the surrounding topography. Whilst the Lindhurst turbines are a highly prominent feature in the landscape, the much smaller visible scale of the turbine proposed at Rufford Farm combined with the distance between it and Lindhurst are such that this scheme like the previously approved wind turbine at Rufford Farm will only play a very minor role within the landscape by comparison. The previous Officer’s report noted that in some sense a smaller scale turbine at Rufford Forest Farm, may in some ways soften the magnitude of landscape change perceptible with the Lindhurst scheme. It is more likely that the presence of the two schemes of larger turbines would in reality distract viewers’ focus away from the medium sized turbine proposed at Rufford Forest Farm and I concur with this view.

115

Just prior to the original consent at Rufford Forest Farm a single turbine measuring 77.0m to the tip was granted at Baulker Poultry Farm (ref.11/00873/FUL) and a wind turbine measuring 67.0m to the tip has also been approved and implemented at Combs Farm, Farnsfield (ref.11/01156/FUL) to the south and south west of the site respectively. The photomontages include a viewpoint from Robin Hood Way which indicates that given the distance between these implemented turbines and the scale of the proposed wind turbine at Rufford Forest Farm, there would be no significant cumulative impact. Overall, whilst there will be some cumulative visual impact caused by the proposal, I consider the magnitude of any such visual impact will be of slight significance causing little material harm. Having regard to the quality of the landscape (discussed above), that a wind turbine of similar scale already exists at Rufford Forest Farm and factors of visual relationship and siting and that there may be possible complementary effects the impact is likely to be closer to neutral. Noting the above comments about landscape character and capacity and the individual impact of the scheme it is considered that there will not be any unacceptable cumulative harm from this turbine.

Impacts to Heritage Assets The LVIA accompanying the application considers impact on designated landscapes and heritage assets. No significant impacts are expected. The scheme is viewed generally remotely from other development and settlements with the exception of the east edge of Rainworth. The siting of the turbine is highly visually remote from any designated heritage assets and therefore should views be available they are from a significant distance and would be negligible in terms of any effect on ‘settings’.

I note the comments received from the County Council’s Archaeologist in respect of the cropmarks that exist within the vicinity the development site and that these most probably represent field boundaries, trackways and enclosures that were set out and used during the Iron Age and Roman periods and are therefore of significant value. I consider it would be reasonable to attach the suggested condition should a favourable decision be forthcoming.

Impact on Amenity (neighbours and proposed occupiers)

Noise

NPPF paragraph 123 states that, ‘planning policies and decisions should aim to:

• Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;

• Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;

• Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and

• Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.’

In respect of renewable energy and low carbon energy development, it is stated in a footnote to Paragraph 97 that, ‘in assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development when identifying suitable areas, and in determining planning applications for such development, planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure.’

116

The ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ replaced the PPS22 Companion Guide and advises that the recommended good practice for controlling noise from wind turbines is set out in ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) and that this provides a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours. Following the initial concerns of the Environmental Health Officer in respect of the level of detail provided with the application to assess noise, a noise assessment was submitted. Environmental Health have considered the submitted report and consider the turbine should not have a significant noise impact. In light of this, it is considered that the proposed turbine would not have a detrimental impact in respect of noise and as such the proposals would accord with Policy DM4 of the Allocations & Development Management DPD, the NPPF and guidance outlined in ETSU 97. Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is the common name for the effect that can be caused inside a property when a shadow cast from a wind turbine crosses a window of that property. As detailed within the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) and the ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’, only properties located 130 degrees either side of north and within 10 rotor diameters of a wind turbine (in this case 540m) may be affected by shadow flicker. No properties are located within 540 metres 130 degrees either side of north of the proposed turbine location and therefore shadow flicker would not have a detrimental effect on amenity. Impact on Highways The Highway Authority note that the proposal is for a replacement wind turbine, using an existing access track from the A617. No objections have been raised but the unmade and poor condition of the proposed access is noted. The suggested condition requiring specification of a vehicular crossing to be approved and subsequently implemented can be attached as part of any consent. Public Rights of Way I note the comments received from the Rights of Way officer and that no objections are raised to the use of the existing track, which forms part of a Public Right of Way, for access to the proposed wind turbine. I consider it would be appropriate to attach a condition requiring any damage to the surface of the path to repaired once site works are complete and an informative note with regards to the recommendations for speed limits and signage. Telecommunications/Safeguarding The Ministry of Defence, National Air Traffic Services, Civil Aviation Authority and North Midlands Helicopter Support Unit have responded with regards to aviation safety and raise no objections to the proposed scheme. No concerns have been received on interference grounds. The Civil Aviation Authority has requested that information be provided to the Defence Geographic Centre at least six weeks prior to the start of construction, to allow for the appropriate notification of the relevant aviation communities to take place. This can be conditioned accordingly. North Midlands Helicopter Support Unit have requested that the wind turbine is fitted with a visible spectrum aviation warning light. I consider an aviation warning light is not required in respect of this application as the height to tip of the turbine is less than 150 metres (the height at which structures must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order) and no other aviation stakeholder has requested that one is provided.

117

Impact on Ecology An ‘Ecological Walkover’ Report originally submitted as part of the previously approved turbine on the site was submitted with the current planning application. The planning statement submitted also includes a section on ‘Ecology and Nature Conservation’ and a nightjar and bat survey has been provided. The Trust ask for assurance that there is a 50 metre standoff distance (between blade tip and linear feature) and I am satisfied this is the case. I consider a condition attached to any consent, similar to that attached to the consent for the existing wind turbine on the site, to prevent any new tree and hedge planting encroaching into the 50 metre standoff would be appropriate. The Trust also consider the 2011 combined nightjar (bird) and bat survey useful in considering issues in the consideration of effects on the breeding population of nightjar and woodlark in the Sherwood Forest region no objections are raised in this respect. I note the concern raised regarding the number of single turbine proposals (both permitted, consented and in planning) in the Sherwood area and the potential cumulative impacts on bird mortality. This is a strategic issue for the Local Planning Authority and given no specific sites are allocated for wind farms applications, individual applications and their potential impact on ecology have to be considered on their own merits. Having considered the comments received from Notts. Wildlife Trust and Natural England and having assessed the supporting ecological survey work I am satisfied the proposal poses no significant risk to ecology. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Core Policy 12 of the Core Strategy, Policy DM7 of the Allocations & Development Management DPD and the NPPF in respect of ecological matters. Conclusion The application is considered to comply with the relevant development plan policies and is strongly supported by national policy. Rufford and Eakring Parish Councils have objected to the scale of the proposal and its potential cumulative effect. In light of there being no significant environmental, social or economic impacts arising from the proposal and the low volume of local opposition to the scheme, it is recommended that the application is approved subject to conditions. Recommendation Minded to approve subject to the applicant entering into a Unilateral Agreement for the previously approved wind turbine on the site to be removed and decommissioned and previous permissions on the site not to be implemented should the development under application no.13/00952/FUL be commenced and subject to the following conditions: 01 The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

118

02 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the following approved plans; Red Line Plan (KIN02) Site Layout Plan (KIN03) 1000900 (Turbine Elevations) Exxx-21-01 (Substation Elevations) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority through the approval of a non-material amendment to the permission. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in order to define the permission. 03 The turbine installed on site shall comprise a “EWT W 54 (500kW)” wind turbine (as described in the Noise Impact Assessment dated 17th October 2013 and shown on drawing number 1000900) which shall be no larger than the maximum dimensions submitted as part of the application and no part of the structures shall carry any logo or lettering other than as required for health and safety reasons. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 04 Before development is commenced precise details of the colour/finish to the nacelle, blades and tower of the wind turbine and details of the materials to be used for the construction of the sub-station shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved in writing the wind turbine and sub-station shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 05 Before development is commenced, precise details of the means of surfacing to the proposed access track crane pad shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be completed in accordance with these details. Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 06 No development shall be commenced until the operator of the wind turbine has provided written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence and Civil Aviation Authority:

119

i) Proposed date of Commencement of Development ii) The maximum extension height of any construction equipment. Within 14 days of the date on which electricity is first exported from the development, the operator of the wind turbine shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence (MOD), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Local Planning Authority: i) Earliest possible date of completion of construction ii) The height above ground level of the highest potential obstacle iii) The position of that structure in latitude and longitude In the event that the anticipated date of completion of construction varies from that which has been notified to the MOD and CAA, an update shall be provided in writing to both parties prior to construction extending beyond the date of which they have been notified. Reason: In the interests of air traffic safety. 07 The turbine shall not produce an audible tone requiring a correction as set out in "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" - ETSU-R-97. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties. 08 All electrical cabling between the turbine and the sub-station shall be located underground unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 09 No new tree or hedge planting should be undertaken within 60.5 metres of the turbine base, to avoid future encroachment of the 50 metre standoff distance (between blade tip and linear feature). Reason: In order to comply with Natural England Guidance and to ensure the protection and enhancement of natural habitat on the application site, in the interests of nature conservation and in line with Core Policy 12 of the adopted Core Strategy. 10 All excavations shall be either covered or provided with egress boards during the night to prevent mammals and amphibians from either falling in or getting trapped. Reason: In order to afford appropriate species protection.

120

11 If the wind turbine hereby permitted ceases to operate for a continuous period of 12 months then a scheme for the decommissioning and removal of the wind turbine and ancillary external housing shall be submitted within six months of the end of the cessation period to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 012 The planning permission hereby granted shall be for a temporary period only, to expire 25 years after the date of the commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of the date of commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority within one month after the event. Reason: The proposal is not suitable for a permanent permission and in accordance with the applicants expressed intent. 013 Not later than six months before the date on which the planning permission hereby granted expires, the wind turbine and external housing shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land reinstated to its former condition in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to the commencement of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall include the dismantling and removal of the turbine and external housing above existing ground levels and the removal of the turbine base and foundations. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 014 No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until a vehicular crossing suitable for this development is available for use and constructed in accordance with the Highway Authority’s specification to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the structural integrity of the highway and to allow for future maintenance. 015 No development shall take place within the application site until details of an archaeological scheme of mitigation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should be drawn up and implemented by a professional archaeologist or archaeological organisation and should ensure that all phases of ground disturbance at the site are archaeologically monitored in circumstances that will allow archaeological features to be recorded. Once the scheme has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.

121

016 Should any damage occur to the surface of the Public Right of Way (which follows the line of the proposed access) during construction of the wind turbine hereby approved (ie deep ruts), the Public Right of Way shall be repaired and returned to its original state within 56 days of the wind turbine first coming in to operation. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory development Note to Applicant 01 The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or after the 1st December 2011 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website at www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/cil/ The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development given that the development comprises a structure(s) and/or buildings that people only enter for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery. 02 The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission without unnecessary delay the District Planning Authority is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant. This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended). 03 The applicant must contact Malcolm Goodall, Abnormal Load Officer at Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways) on tel. 0115 977 4490, prior to any works commencing. 04 The development makes it necessary to construct a vehicular crossing over a verge of the public highway. These works shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. You are, therefore, required to contact the County Council’s Highways Area Office tel. (01623) 520738 to arrange for these works to be carried out. 05 Your attention is drawn to the attached comments of Nottinghamshire County Council’s Archaeological Officer which should be read in conjunction with Condition 15 of this consent. 06 The Rights of Way officer recommends that access traffic adheres to a safe speed limit (10mph) on site, gives way to users of the public footpath and that a warning of site traffic sign is placed at either end of the section being used for access.

122

07 REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010 In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan. Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Spatial Policy 3: Rural Areas Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design Core Policy 10: Climate Change Core Policy 12 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Core Policy 13: Landscape Character Core Policy 14: Historic Environment Allocations & Development Management DPD Policy DM4 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation Policy DM5 – Design Policy DM7 – Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Policy DM9 – Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment Policy DM12 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development National Planning Policy Framework BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Martin Russell on 01636 655837

All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

123

124

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 14

The Site The application site is located on the Northern side of Tolney Lane. The majority of the site lies within the Newark Urban Area, as defined as within the Allocations and Development Management DPD. The site is closely located to the town and its centre and is relatively sustainable as a result. The site is located within Zone 3b of the floodplain and is also located within Newark’s designated Conservation Area. Comprising just under 0.6ha the site and remaining building formerly hosted an abattoir. The abattoir building is a single storey structure which remains, oriented gable end on and adjacent to Tolney Lane. Otherwise the site is now cleared and is relatively flat. Access to the site is taken at two points off Tolney lane, though main access to the proposals would use the central access point. The north the site abuts the main railway line linking Nottingham and Lincoln. To the south on the opposite side of Tolney lane is open amenity land adjacent to the River Trent. To the east is a local authority operated public car park, while finally to the west would remain a buffer of undeveloped land and an adjacent Gypsy and Traveller site. The southern boundary is walled, at a height of 1.5m, as approved under 10/00889/FUL. Palisade fencing and trees siting outside the application site are situated to the rear boundary. Other boundaries treatments consist of vertical timber boarding (NE) and timber post and rail fencing (SW). Description of Proposal The application proposes a change of use of the former abattoir site and paddock to a gypsy and traveller caravan site. The abattoir building would be converted as part of the scheme to an amenity block. The scheme includes 15 pitches. The 15 plots are laid out around a circular shaped open space contained within a circular 5.0m wide vehicular access route. The side of each pitch would be defined by a 0.9m high timber fence. The former abattoir building is positioned some 0.6m above ground level. A new access ramp would be constructed to the north east side of the amenity block with the foot of the ramp in close proximity to the vehicle turning facility. A topographical survey and flood risk assessment have been submitted as part of the application.

Application No: 13/01167/FUL

Proposal: Change of use of former abattoir site and paddock to gypsy and traveller caravan site

Location: Bowers Caravan Park, Tolney Lane, Newark On Trent

Applicant: Mr H W Bower

Registered: 21/08/2013 Target Date: 16/10/2013

125

Relevant Site History Reference Proposal and Decision

10/00245/FUL Erection of a front boundary wall with two gateways to paddock and

hardstanding. Refused

10/00889/FUL Erection of front boundary wall with two gateways (revised design). Permitted

11/01509/FUL Change of use of former abattoir site and paddock to form site for touring caravans. Refused and subsequently dismissed at Appeal

Publicity Press Notice: Published 05.09.2013 Site Notice: Posted 05.09.2013 Earliest Decision Date 27.09.2013 Representations No written representations have been received Consultations Newark Town Council - No Objection was raised to this application provided it complies with the NSDC Allocations Policy. Local Plans – Comments included within appraisal below. Access and Equalities Officer – Recommends that the developer be advised to give consideration of access to and use of the proposals with attention drawn to some advisory notes in this respect. A Building Regulation application is required for the amenities block and the developer is advised to be mindful of the requirements of the Equalities Act. Notts County Council (Highways) – Tolney Lane has been subject to a number of similar planning applications over recent years, all of which have contributed to the ever increasing traffic intensification. There are already 193 pitches and other premises served by Tolney Lane, which is a very long cul-de-sac. If a single planning application for this number of pitches off Tolney Lane had been received at the start of matters, the Highway Authority would recommend refusal on the grounds that there is only a single point of vehicular access. Notts CC highway guidance recommends that no more than 150 dwellings should be served by a single point of access. In addition, the cul-de-sac is over one kilometre in length (much of this off a private drive). This means that if there were to be any incident e.g. traffic accident, or road closure at the eastern end of Tolney Lane, emergency service access to any of the pitches/properties will be prevented, or at least seriously compromised. As you will be aware, traffic congestion in the Great North Road/Tolney Lane area regularly occurs (not helped by the level crossing), and any additional traffic will add to this congestion. However, without further information, it is difficult to object to this application as a stand-alone submission, unless considered in the local context that raises concerns about access.

126

At the request of Newark and Sherwood DC traffic surveys relating to developments on Tolney Lane are taking place this month (unfortunately they were delayed from September). These will inform both Councils about actual traffic conditions and will enable a more robust assessment of whether or not an objection on the grounds of highway capacity/congestion is reasonable/ justified. Whilst I remain concerned that access to this site is inadequate I would recommend that a decision on this application be delayed until the results of the traffic surveys are known and have been assessed. Environmental Health – No comments to make other than a Caravan Site Licence would be required should the application be approved. Conservation Officer – The above site is located within the Newark Conservation Area (CA). The positive elements of the CA in this area include the Trent River corridor, attractive parkland (associated with the castle) and the substantial landmark standing remains of Newark Castle (Grade I listed; also a Scheduled Ancient Monument). Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the ‘Act’) provides the basis for considering development proposals within the setting of listed buildings. Section 72 of the Act provides the legal basis for considering impact on the special character and appearance of conservation areas. CP14 and DM9 of the Council’s LDF DPDs provides historic environment policy, which should be read in conjunction with Section 12 of the NPPF. Conservation areas are designated heritage assets for the purposes of policy interpretation within this framework. However, having considered the submitted details, Conservation has no material observations to make on the proposal. The Environment Agency – Object to the application and recommend refusal of planning permission given the site lies within flood zone 3b which has a high probability of flooding and the proposed development would be highly vulnerable causing a high risk to life and property. Planning Policy Framework The Development Plan Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011) Spatial Policy 1 (Settlement Hierarchy) Spatial Policy 2 (Spatial Distribution of Growth) Spatial Policy 7 (Sustainable Transport) Core Policy 4 (Gypsies & Travellers and Travelling Showpeople – New Pitch Provision) Core Policy 5 (Criteria for Considering Sites for Gypsy & Travellers and Travelling Showpeople) Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) Core Policy 10 (Climate Change) Core Policy 13 (Landscape Character) Core Policy 14 (Historic Environment) The Allocations and Development Management DPD Policy DM5 – Design Policy DM12 – Presumption on Favour of Sustainable Development National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

127

Other Material Considerations • National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) • Planning policy for traveller sites (March 2012):

When determining planning applications for traveller sites, this policy states that planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies within the NPPF and this document (Planning Policy for Traveller Sites). This document states that the following issues should be considered, amongst other relevant matters:

- Existing level of local provision and need for sites; - The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants; - Other personal circumstances of the applicant; - Locally specific criteria used to guide allocation of sites in plans should be used to assess

applications that come forward on unallocated sites; - Applications should be determined for sites from any travellers and not just those with

local connections. The document goes on to state that local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan and sites in rural areas should respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on local infrastructure.

• Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites – Good Practice Guide (May 2008) • Emergency Planning Guidance produced by the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Local

Resilience Forum (December 2012):

This document states: “New developments in flood risk areas must not increase the burden on emergency services. The Emergency Services are in heavy demand during flood incidents. The Fire and Safety Regulations state that “people should be able to evacuate by their own means” without support and aid from the emergency services. The emergency services and local authority emergency planners may object to proposals that increase the burden on emergency services.”

“New development must have access and egress routes that allow residents to exit their property during flood conditions. This includes vehicular access to allow emergency services to safely exit their property during flood conditions…..The emergency services are unlikely to regard developments that increase the scale of any rescue as being safe.”

Comments of the Business Manager - Development

The main planning considerations in the assessment of this proposal are the need for gypsy and traveller sites, flood risk, the planning history of the site, the impact on the appearance of the countryside, highway issues, access to and impact on local services, residential amenity for occupants of the application site and neighbouring sites and the personal circumstances of the applicant.

128

The site is relatively sustainable purely in terms of its location (within the Newark Urban Area indicated in the Allocations and Development Management DPD), being well related in position to the highway network and its proximity to the town centre and services. The Need for Gypsy and Traveller Pitches The NPPF and the Government’s ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ requires that Local Planning Authorities set pitch targets which address the likely permanent and transit site needs within their area and then identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth against the local targets. Core Policy 4 (CP4) sets a district wide target of 84 pitches to be provided between 2006 and 2012. This has been exceeded, with some 92 pitches having been provided to date. Joint working between Nottinghamshire Authorities has produced a draft methodology for a new Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation Assessment which was put out for a technical consultation in July 2013 and, subject to member approval, will go out for public consultation as part of an Issues Paper in September 2013. The results of this will feed into a Preferred Approach document scheduled for public consultation in early 2014. As the pitch provision target of the CP4 has been met and is also now time expired work has begun on a new needs assessment. The approach to satisfy this need will ultimately be expressed in the new Gypsy and Traveller DPD. Whilst work on the needs assessment part of the new DPD is in progress it is not possible to give an exact figure of need. In the meantime it is acknowledged, and agreed as common ground in an on-going appeal relating to planning application ref. 12/00562/FUL, that there is a significant unmet need for Gypsy & Traveller pitches.

As the Council cannot identify any sites to satisfy the unmet need either generally or that specifically presented by this application, this is a material consideration that needs to be given significant weight in the determination of this application. Given the above, it follows to assess the suitability of the site by reference to Core Policy 5 (CP5). Although this policy contains 6 assessment criteria, the site history identifies those relating to flood risk and access as being the most important. Flood Risk Notwithstanding the weight to be given to need referred to above, the application site is located within Flood Zone 3b, at high risk from flooding and within the functional floodplain of the River Trent. It is therefore essential that the Local Planning Authority balance the benefits of meeting this need against flooding. It is noted that the proposal has changed in terms of the proposed use and is now for residential caravans instead of touring ones. The vulnerability classification has therefore increased from 'more vulnerable' to 'highly vulnerable' as set out in Table 2 of the Technical Guidance to the NPPF. Table 3 of the Technical Guidance states that within Flood Zone 3b, highly vulnerable classification development should not be permitted. Table 1 of the Technical Guidance states that only water compatible uses and essential infrastructure should be permitted in Flood Zone 3b.

129

The NPPF states that local planning authorities should minimise risk by directing inappropriate development away from high risk areas to those with the lowest probability of flooding. However, given that this represents vulnerable development that should not be permitted in the first instance, the Sequential and Exception Tests do not fall to be applied to this type of proposal. Even if the Sequential and Exception Tests were applicable (which they are not) whilst the Sequential Test may be considered passed, on the basis that there are no reasonably available alternative sites for this use at lower risk, the proposal fails the Exception Test, if it were appropriate to apply it. There are two parts of the Exception Test set out in the NPPF: • It must be demonstrated that the development provides for wider sustainability benefits to

the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and

• A site specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Firstly, whilst it is accepted that the development would provide some wider sustainability benefits to the community, in terms of the occupants of the site being able to access schools, hospitals and other services within the Newark Urban Area, this does not outweigh the severity of the harm caused to that same community by the high flood risk at the site. This application complies with criterion 6 of Core Policy 5 through the inclusion of a site specific FRA. The submitted FRA asserts that: • The site is within Flood Zone 3b where there is a high risk of flooding • Previous refusals for residential development of the site have centred around the loss of

flood storage and increased displacement elsewhere • The current proposal proposes no additional built form and the retention of the former

abattoir building would not lead to a reduction in the flood plain’s ability to accommodate floodwater

• The applicant subscribes to the EA's advanced warning system and this could be extended to this site/development

• The recently constructed boundary wall has ground level openings to allow floodwater through and the steel gates are designed to let floodwater through. Mitigation features would be included in the design of the amenity block conversion.

Having considered the FRA, the Environment Agency object to the proposed development noting the site lies within Flood Zone 3b with a high probability of flooding and that 'highly vulnerable' development of the type included in this application, should not be permitted. Additionally, the risk to life and property, both within the development and in upstream and downstream locations from fluvial inundation could be unacceptable if the development were to be allowed. The Environment Agency note that the proposed development does not have a safe means of access and/or egress in the event of flooding and no alternative option for managing the safety of people has been provided as part of the application. Consequently, there would be an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the occupants in a flood event.

130

In reaching their view the Environment Agency were mindful of the previous application and appeal on the application site and have concluded that no further information has been provided which would alter their previous views. Emergency Planning Guidance produced by the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Local Resilience Forum referred to in the other material considerations section above, represents standing advice, material to the consideration of this application and it raises significant concerns in relation to any new development that would increase the burden on emergency services as it is likely that even with an evacuation plan in place, emergency services would still have to go along Tolney Lane to ensure total evacuation had occurred and granting planning permission for additional pitches will exacerbate the need for this checking procedure and therefore increase the danger of the situation for all. Whilst Members have accepted evacuation procedures are sufficient to allow proposals to go ahead on other Tolney Lane sites in the past, it remains my professional view that the principle of locating this highly vulnerable use in an area at high risk from flooding is not appropriate and should not be permitted given that they are not outweighed by need. In addition it is noted that since Members have supported previous schemes at Tolney Lane that flooding events have taken place, allowing a practical experience of the difficulties in managing evacuation and risk to be realised. It is therefore considered that the proposal in contrary to the NPPF (and its Technical Guidance), Core Policies 5 and 10 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM5 of the Allocations and Development Management DPD. The Gypsy and Traveller DPD will seek to identify and provide appropriate and suitable sites for new pitches moving forward to service local need. Drainage The site is already connected to the mains sewer and therefore the re-use of the building marks a minor change to the characteristics on the site. Turning to drainage capacity while the inclusion of a hard bound surface to the circular road and access would reduce flood storage, equally permeable surfacing could be conditioned, or offset mitigation via soakaways could be provided. The EA do not make specific reference to loss of flood storage from this development. Impact on the local/strategic highway network Criterion 3 of Core Policy 5 requires that sites should have safe and convenient access to the highway network. I note the concerns raised by the Highway Authority with regards to the cumulative number of pitches that would be served by Tolney Lane and that were Tolney Lane to closed to the eastern end due to an incident or road closure, emergency service access would be compromised. The Highway Authority also considers that any additional traffic would add to congestion in the Great North Road/Tolney Lane Area, however considers an objection on any impact on congestion from this stand-alone submission could not be substantiated at this time. The Highway Authority are due to carry out Traffic surveys which have been commissioned by NSDC. This would enable a more robust assessment of whether or not an objection on the grounds of highway capacity/congestion is reasonable/justified. I am mindful that the NPPF requires Local Authorities to approve development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Conversely, the NPPF also states that proposed development that conflicts with the Development Plan should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Given the concerns about flood risk and that applications should be determined expediently, I

131

consider it would be unreasonable to delay a decision indefinitely until traffic surveys relating to developments on Tolney Lane are completed and the findings reported. In any case, given that the Highway Authority have acknowledged congestion regularly occurs and any additional traffic will add to this congestion with no alternative access point to and from Tolney Lane, I consider the application fails to demonstrate there would be no significant impact on traffic congestion on the Great North Road/ Tolney Lane Area. I therefore consider the application is contrary to Criteria 3 of CP5 which requires that proposals have safe and convenient access to the highway network and Spatial Policy 7 which requires that development proposals be appropriate for the highway network in terms of the volume and nature of traffic generated, and ensure that the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected. With regards to the Highway Authority’s concern in respect of the safety of the access particularly in the case of an emergency, I consider this is compounded by the above concerns in relation to flood risk. Given the interlinked nature of these concerns I consider any reason for refusal relating to flooding should make specific reference to the fact that the application fails to demonstrate that emergency service access could be achieved again contrary to Criteria 3 of CP5. Impact on the character of the site, area and significance of the Newark Conservation Area The site lies at the very fringe of the Conservation Area (CA). The site is well screened by the boundary wall to Tolney Lane but otherwise the site does not have a character that positively contributes to the character of the CA. Noting the adjacent car park and residential caravan site to either side of the site which form the immediate character of this part of Tolney Lane it is unlikely that this proposal would have any significant effect on the appearance of the streetscene or wider CA character even without the landscaping proposals. A well implemented landscape strategy, realising the clear intentions in the application would be capable of indeed turning any short term neutral/ slight negative impact into a medium and long term positive effect in my view. In this respect the scheme would at worst have a less than substantial effect on the significance of the CA during construction works and the initial period of use (1-2 years). Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Overall I consider that the benefits over the medium term to the character of the site and bio-diversity enhancement would be sufficient to warrant favourable consideration against Core Policy 14 and Paragraph 134 of the NPPF. The potential improvements do not constitute a substantial public benefit however, would potential provide gypsy and traveller pitches in a relatively sustainable location. I am also mindful of the relatively secluded relationship of the site within the main public realm. In any case, I do not consider that these factors are sufficient to outweigh the concerns about flood risk. Ecology An ecological survey has not been provided with the application. The status of the site, which comprises cleared unmade ground and rubble and one retained building which is of solid brick construction and has a modern roof cover (red pan tiles), holds no apparent ecological value. There is no reason to believe that the works would necessitate alterations to the roof of the building, and it is likely any works to this building would only comprise very minor external additions and internal refit.

132

The remainder of the site itself has no ecological value having been cleared back. The trees and shrubs on the boundaries and adjacent to the site may hold value for wildlife, particularly nesting birds. The proposals would also offer opportunities for encouraging bio-diversity enhancements. In dealing with the previous application (11/01509/FUL), Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust recommended mitigation relating to timing of works, retention of as much existing planting as possible and new planting to be of native species. I am satisfied there is unlikely to be any significant impact on ecology or protected species and that the mitigation suggested in relation to the previous application could be secured by planning conditions were a favourable decision to be forthcoming. Consequently the scheme is deemed to comply with Core Policy 12 of the Core Strategy DPD, Policy DM7 of the Allocations and Development Management DPD and guidance in the NPPF. Impacts on the amenity of nearby residents The site is directly adjacent to a public car park on the one side, but is buffered from a residential caravan site to the west by a significant area of land. Any typical impacts would be caused by noise/disturbance from occupiers and from traffic movements. Planning conditions could be imposed restricting external lighting, noise generating equipment etc. reducing impacts to generally expected levels. Such a scheme would not have any significant effect on the amenities of any adjacent development. No objections have been received from third parties. Personal Circumstances The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the applicant and his family are a local family of gypsy and traveller status who currently reside at Bowers Caravan Site within the local area/community. The site would be for the sole use of family members, some fifteen in number. The proposed new pitches are principally required to allow for the expansion of the families that currently live on the adjacent Bowers Caravan Site which the Statement advises is becoming congested. In order for appropriate weight to be given to the unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the consideration of these proposals, the onus is on the applicant to prove that both him and his family along with any other occupier of the site, have Gypsy and Traveller status in accordance with the definition set out in the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites. No information has been submitted in this regard. As such, this recommendation to Committee is based on that fact that their status is proven, however, this may alter in the absence of any additional information being submitted and an update will be reported at Planning Committee. Whilst approval of this application would provide a further 15 pitches within the District, the proposed residents already live in the area and this provision may or may not assist in addressing the local need identified by the local Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment. Conclusion The key concern remains the extreme flood risk posed to the site which would be unacceptable having regard to the ‘highly vulnerable’ categorisation of the development/use type intended. The proposal is therefore contrary to national planning policy in the NPPF, and does not accord with Core Policy 10 of the Core Strategy DPD and Policy DM5 of the Allocations and Development

133

Management DPD. The proposals also fail to demonstrate that the additional vehicular traffic associated with the proposed use of the site as a Gypsy and Traveller caravan site could be accommodated without exacerbating existing traffic congestion in the Tolney Lane / Great North Road Area contrary to Core Policy 5 and Spatial Policy 7 of the Core Strategy DPD. The scheme is acceptable in other respects but none of the other factors discussed above outweighs these principal concerns. Recommendation Refuse planning permission for the following reasons: 01 The site is located within the functional floodplain (Flood Zone 3b). The proposal represents a ‘highly vulnerable’ classification of use that would be inappropriate within this flood zone and, due to site specific circumstances comprising its proximity to the River Trent and a raised railway embankment, velocities within the floodplain would be high and the consequent lack of available safe access or egress during flood events would pose a significant risk to public safety (including the lives of potential occupants of the site and to Emergency Services personnel). Consequently the scheme is considered contrary to national planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework, and to Core Policy 10 of the Newark and Sherwood Adopted Core Strategy DPD 2011, and Policy DM5 of the Newark and Sherwood Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document. 02 In the opinion of the District Council the proposal fails to demonstrate that the additional vehicular traffic associated with the proposed use of the site as a Gypsy and Traveller caravan site could be accommodated without exacerbating existing traffic congestion in the Tolney Lane / Great North Road Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Policy 5 which requires that proposals have safe and convenient access to the highway network and Spatial Policy 7 which requires that development proposals be appropriate for the highway network in terms of the volume and nature of traffic generated, and ensure that the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the highway are not adversely affected. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case file. For further information, please contact Martin Russell on 01636 655837 All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk. K.H. Cole Deputy Chief Executive

134

135

136

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5TH NOVEMBER 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO. 15(A) APPEALS A APPEALS LODGED (received between 16.09.13 – 21.10.13) 1.0 Members are advised that the appeals listed at Appendix A to this report have been

received and are to be dealt with as stated. If Members wish to incorporate any specific points within the Council’s evidence please forward these to Planning Services without delay.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION That the report be noted. BACKGROUND PAPERS Application case files. For further information please contact on Technical Support (Growth) Ext 5554 or planning@nsdc.info. Matt Lamb Business Manager - Development

137

App

eal r

efer

ence

App

licat

ion

num

ber

Add

ress

Prop

osal

Proc

edur

e

APP

/B30

30/A

/13/

2204

887

13/0

0707

/FU

L 2

Fair

way

N

ewar

k O

n Tr

ent

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

NG

24 4

RG

Prop

osed

New

Dw

ellin

g an

d ga

rage

W

ritt

en R

epre

sent

atio

n

App

eal r

efer

ence

App

licat

ion

num

ber

Add

ress

Prop

osal

Proc

edur

e

APP

/B30

30/A

/13/

2205

520

13/0

0138

/FU

L La

nd A

djac

ent 1

To

4 Sc

hool

Lan

e N

orw

ell

Not

tingh

amsh

ire

Erec

tion

of 1

No.

dw

ellin

g w

ith a

ttac

hed

doub

le g

arag

e W

ritt

en R

epre

sent

atio

n

App

eal r

efer

ence

App

licat

ion

num

ber

Add

ress

Prop

osal

Proc

edur

e

APP

/B30

30/D

/13/

2206

323

13/0

0608

/FU

L G

reen

acre

s

Lam

bley

Roa

d Lo

wdh

am

Not

tingh

am

NG

14 7

AY

Hou

seho

lder

app

licat

ion

to

Rem

ove

exis

ting

porc

h an

d re

plac

e, fo

rm n

ew d

orm

er

win

dow

and

bal

cony

to th

e re

ar e

leva

tions

.

Hou

seho

lder

App

eal

138

PLA

NN

ING

CO

MM

ITTE

E –

5TH N

OV

EMBE

R 20

13

AG

END

A IT

EM N

O. 1

5(B)

A

PPEN

DIX

B: A

PPEA

LS D

ETER

MIN

ED (A

PPEA

LS B

) A

pp N

o.

Add

ress

Pr

opos

al

Dec

isio

n D

ecis

ion

date

12

/004

17/L

BC

Olle

rton

Hal

l M

ain

Stre

et

Olle

rton

N

ottin

gham

shir

e N

G22

9A

D

Mod

ifica

tion

to O

llert

on

Hal

l (pa

rt b

uilt

nurs

ing

hom

e ac

com

mod

atio

n)

DIS

MIS

01

.10.

2013

App

No.

A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

D

ecis

ion

Dec

isio

n da

te

12/0

0415

/FU

LM

Olle

rton

Hal

l M

ain

Stre

et

Olle

rton

N

ottin

gham

shir

e N

G22

9A

D

Alte

ratio

ns a

nd e

xten

sion

s to

form

a to

tal o

f 25

dwel

lings

. Pro

visi

on o

f as

soci

ated

par

king

, pub

lic

open

spa

ce, b

ins

stor

es a

nd

flood

com

pens

atio

n.

DIS

MIS

01

.10.

2013

App

No.

A

ddre

ss

Prop

osal

D

ecis

ion

Dec

isio

n da

te

12/0

1193

/FU

L La

nd R

ear

Of F

ox H

ollo

w

Qua

ker

Lane

Fa

rnsf

ield

N

ottin

gham

shir

e

Resu

bmis

sion

of p

ropo

sed

erec

tion

of 2

dw

ellin

gs a

nd

gara

ges

and

repl

acem

ent

gara

ge in

corp

orat

ing

dem

oliti

on o

f exi

stin

g ga

rage

.

DIS

MIS

17

.09.

2013

RECO

MM

END

ATI

ON

Th

at th

e re

port

be

note

d.

BACK

GRO

UN

D P

APE

RS -

App

licat

ion

case

file

s.

For

furt

her

info

rmat

ion

plea

se c

onta

ct T

echn

ical

Sup

port

(Gro

wth

) on

Ext 5

554

or p

lann

ing@

nsdc

.info

. M

att L

amb

Busi

ness

Man

ager

- D

evel

opm

ent

139

140