Planning Connittee - 5th March 2013

Transcription

Telephone: (01636) 650000 E-‐mail: [email protected] 25 February 2013 Contact: Catharine Saxton Ext 5247 Your Ref: Our Ref: CLS www.newark-‐sherwooddc.gov.uk Growth Development Business Unit Kelham Hall, Kelham Newark Nottinghamshire NG23 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 March 2013 at 4.00 pm. Yours faithfully A W Muter Chief Executive 1. 2. 3. AGENDA Apologies for Absence Declarations of Interest by Members and Officers PEOPLE
Pages 1 -‐ 6 Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 5th February 2013 PROSPERITY
PLACE
PUBLIC SERVICE
-‐2-‐ Pages PART 1 -‐ ITEMS FOR DECISION 4. Merkur House, Bowbridge Road, Newark, NG24 4BZ (12/01701/FUL) 7 -‐ 20 (Site Visit 9.15am – 9.25am) 5. Hope House, The Park, Thurgarton, NG14 7HA (12/01720/FUL) 21 -‐ 32 (Site Visit 9.55am – 10.05am) 6. Greet Cottage, Upton Road, Southwell, NG25 0QB (13/00035/FUL) 33 -‐ 40 (Site Visit 10.15am – 10.25am) 7. Land Adjacent, 157 Boundary Road, Newark (12/01519/FUL) 41 -‐ 52 PART 2 -‐ ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 8(a). Appeals Lodged 53 -‐ 56 8(b). Appeals Determined 57 -‐ 80 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 the Cedar Room at 3.00 pm on the day of the meeting between the Planning Services Manager, 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 PLANNING COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber, Kelham Hall, Newark
on Tuesday, 5th February 2013 at 4.00pm
PRESENT:
Councillor D.R. Payne (Chairman)
Councillors:
116.
R.V. Blaney, T.S. Bickley, G. Brooks, J. Bradbury,
J. Hamilton, P Handley, D. Jones, G.S. Merry, J. Peck,
Mrs S.E. Saddington, Mrs L.J. Tift, I. Walker and B. Wells.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence was submitted by Councillor M. Shaw.
117.
MINUTES
AGREED
118.
that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8th January 2013 be approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
NOTED:
that the following Members declared an interest in the items shown
below:
Member
Councillor
Saddington
119.
Agenda Item No.
Mrs
S.E. Agenda Item No. 4 – The Paddock, Ollerton
Road, Little Carlton, Newark (12/01663/FUL).
Personal Interest, known to the applicant.
THE PADDOCK, OLLERTON ROAD, LITTLE CARLTON, NEWARK (12/01663/FUL)
The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, following a site
inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought full planning permission for an
extension to the existing detached garage to create a garden store at ground floor
and a residential annexe forming a kitchenette, living room and bedroom at first
floor. The proposal included three roof dormers on the east elevation and three
lights on the west elevation.
A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which included
correspondence received after the agenda was published from South Muskham and
Little Carlton Parish Council who unanimously agreed to support the application.
Members commented on the design of the extension, some expressing concern
regarding the extension being built at the front of the property and not to the rear
of the property, others felt that it looked in proportion with the large scale dwelling
and the extension of the garage was in keeping with the existing property. The
personal exceptional circumstances were also taken into consideration during the
1
1
debate.
A vote was taken that the application be approved; the vote was lost 6 votes for, 7
votes against.
AGREED
(with 8 votes for, 4 votes against) that full planning permission be
refused for the reasons contained within the report.
(Councillor R.V. Blaney arrived at the meeting at this point).
120.
LAND ADJACENT 8 HARRISON WAY, NEWARK (12/01710/FUL)
inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought full planning permission for the
erection of a two storey detached building to provide two bedsits; one at ground
floor and the other at first floor and associated parking.
Members felt that the originally approved scheme comprising a block of three
dwellings made good use of the land; however, providing a detached building would
create an oppressive development. Obscure glazing in a living area was not
acceptable. It was considered that by putting side windows on the existing
development had prevented the originally approved scheme being completed.
AGREED
121.
(unanimously) that full planning permission be refused for the reasons
contained within the report.
LAND SOUTH OF THE RED HOUSE, BELLE VUE LANE, BLIDWORTH (12/01417/OUT)
The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth, which sought
outline planning permission for the erection of four detached dwellings. Only the
layout was being sought, with all other matters reserved.
correspondence received after the agenda was published, and a correction from the
Case Officer, after an error had been found in the concluding comments section of
the report. It had been updated following receipt of the Highway Authority
comments. The last paragraph of that section was therefore removed. The
proposed recommendation sheet was attached as an appendix.
Members welcomed the application, it was considered that the development
proposed was not intrusive; and the piece of land was hidden from sight.
(unanimously) that full planning permission be approved, subject to the
conditions contained within the late items schedule.
122.
PEARSON’S NURSERIES, WHITEMOOR LANE, COLLINGHAM (12/01556/OUT)
inspection held prior to the meeting, which sought outline planning permission for
the erection of a dwelling on the site in connection with the business.
2
2
correspondence received after the agenda was published from the applicant who
responded to a number of points raised by the Council’s agricultural consultant.
The Planning Services Manager proposed an amendment to the recommended
reason for refusal if the Committee was minded to refuse the application. The
proposal would replace the last paragraph as follows:
‘The proposal is unsustainable by definition and does not meet the exception criteria
of established policies in the countryside and would therefore be contrary to the
provisions of the National Planning Framework 2012, the Newark and Sherwood
Core Strategy DPD 2011, saved policies H27 and H28 of the Newark and Sherwood
Local Plan 1999 and the Supplementary Guidance ‘Agricultural Workers Dwellings
and Occupancy Conditions 1999’; and would also represent the encouragement of
an unsustainable pattern of development contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework, the East Midlands Regional Plan 2009 and the Newark and Sherwood
Core Strategy’s Settlement Hierarchy’.
A Member commented on a similar application, which came before the Planning
Committee regarding an agricultural site where permission was granted on an
interim basis for a mobile home. Members felt that perhaps the application before
them was a couple of years too soon and that similar interim conditions could be
proposed in order for the applicant to have the security arrangements in place and
time to invest in the business to satisfy the functional and financial test.
The Planning Services Manager informed Members of the functional and financial
test undertaken and the need to satisfy the functional need first, then financial. The
functional need for this application had not been satisfied to warrant the dwelling to
have the need for twenty-four hour security.
A Member commented that anyone who tends the land needs to live close by and
the distance that the applicant had to travel was too far. The financial test was felt
to be so close on financial sustainability of the business.
Members considered granting personal consent to be linked to the business to
alleviate fears that the applicant may build the property and then sell it in the future.
The scale of the building was also discussed and it was suggested that the building
should be a modest dwelling and conditions applied.
The Planning Services Manager advised that the Government had changed the rules
regarding personal consent and the property could not be tied to the actual holding
through a Section 106 agreement, although it could be restricted to an agricultural
worker. In answer to the functional and financial test he confirmed that Members
could take the view that the functional test had been met and that the financial test
was so finely balanced as to be acceptable.
Members felt that if they were minded to grant permission subject to conditions,
those conditions would be delegated to the Planning Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
3
3
AGREED
123.
(with 10 votes for and 4 votes against) that:
(a).
Contrary to officer recommendation, full planning permission be
approved on the grounds that Members considered that the
functional test had been met and the financial side was so finely
balanced as to be acceptable; and
(b).
Subject to conditions delegated to the Planning Committee
Chairman and Vice-Chairman
LAND AT 67 SWINDERBY ROAD, COLLINGHAM, NEWARK (12/01589/FUL)
conversion and extension of the existing barn to form a new dwelling.
correspondence received after the agenda was published from the following:
(i). details of an amended plan submitted by the agent to illustrate a fixed internal
glazed screen to prevent access to the flat roof single storey rear section, the Case
Officer had accepted that as an acceptable amendment and proposed an
amendment to condition 2 as follows: The development hereby permitted shall not
be carried except in complete accordance with the following approved amended
plans reference 1003 Rev C and 1004 Rev C 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.
(ii). Collingham Parish Council stating that they would not support the application on
the grounds of layout density and previous planning decision.
Members whilst considering the application raised their concern regarding the
condition of the barn and that half of the barn may fall into disrepair should the
development be refused. Concern was raised regarding the car located at the
bottom of the artist’s impression, which may have a detrimental noise impact on the
bungalow adjacent to it.
The Planning Services Manager confirmed that the area in which the car was parked
in the artist’s impression was a turning point and it was necessary to have that
turning space due to the series of archways through the barn and new build. It was
considered that two cars could be parked one under the barn, the other under the
new build. It was suggested that if Members were minded to agree, a precise
turning area could be pulled further away form the bungalow.
Members further considered the barn doors and whether they could be retained. It
was considered that due to the barn doors having an outward opening it would be
unsafe and against Highways conditions to seek that. It was further suggested that
the doors be restored and sited inside the barn to keep the original feature, but it
was considered that it would not be practicable and would limit space.
AGREED (unanimously) that full planning permission be approved subject to the
conditions contained within the report and additional condition contained
4
4
within the late item schedule.
124.
LAND ADJACENT 157 BOUNDARY ROAD, NEWARK (12/01519/FUL)
erection of a single, two storey detached property with rooms in the roof space.
The Planning Services Manager advised the Committee of the proposed additional
condition to include all three windows on the side elevation to be obscure glazing.
Councillor B. Richardson of Newark Town Council spoke against the application on
the grounds of over intensification; out of character and that the plans were not
accurate.
A Member commented that this application was on behalf of the Authority from
Officers using delegated powers. The site was seen not to be strategic in any way
and would be subject to further Council approval to dispose of the land.
A Member commented on the inconsistency of the plans and height measurements
presented to them and felt that as this was an application submitted by Officers they
should be setting the highest standard in terms of information contained within their
planning applications. Deferral was proposed, the errors within the application to be
corrected and re-submitted for consideration.
AGREED
125.
APPEALS LODGED
AGREED
126.
(unanimously) that the application be deferred pending accurate plans
and height measurements being submitted.
that the report be noted.
APPEALS DETERMINED
AGREED
that the report be noted.
The meeting closed at 5.58 pm
Chairman
5
5
6
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5 MARCH 2013
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
Application No:
12/01701/FUL
Proposal:
Variation of conditions No. 2,3,4,5,6,8,9 of 11/01533/FUL to allow
the D1 Use (Children's Day Nursery) unit to be developed
independently
Location:
Applicant:
Merkur House, Bowbridge Road, Newark On Trent
Nottinghamshire
Mr C Haynes
Registered:
02.01.2013
Target Date: 27.02.2013
The Site
The site lies within the defined built up part of Newark in an area that has a mix of uses.
The site comprises what were formerly the commercial premises known as Merkur House
(now demolished) on the western side of Bowbridge Road. The site is laid with bound hard
standing and vehicular access is taken direct from Bowbridge Road.
The red line of the application site does not follow any features on the ground and now
comprises a vacant, level brown field site that has been cleared pending development.
The northern boundary comprises mature conifer trees which currently offer a high level of
privacy screening to the vacant (and demolished) factory site ‘The Bearings’ beyond. This site
has planning permission for a residential redevelopment although has not been
implemented.
The southern boundary with the hospital complex is formed by wire mesh fencing. This
continues to form the eastern boundary with the highway. To the east and across the road
are residential terraces. The Magnus secondary school lies to the south-east.
Relevant Planning History
11/00301/OUTM - Full planning permission was sought for a 60 bedroom care home at the
site immediately to the west (and includes the remainder of Merkur House) by the same
applicant. This also included access and associated parking following the demolition of the
existing warehouse. This application was approved under delegated powers on 7th April
2011.
11/00296/FUL -Proposed mix use development comprising 5 units to include A1, A2, A5 &
D1 uses, totaling 836.3 sq m (A1 food retail convenience store= 376 sq m, A1 non-food retail
=96.5 sq m, A2 =100.7 sq m, A5 = 100.7 sq m, D1 = 162.4 sq m.) This was speculative. It
provided parking for 35 vehicles. The application was refused as recommended by Planning
Committee in September 2011 as it was considered that the proposal was disproportionate
in serving a defined local shopping need and that the sequential approach had not been
7
considered. This was contrary to Policies S12, Core Policy 8 (Retail Hierarchy) and PPS4:
Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth.
11/01533/FUL – Proposed mixed use development to include A1, A2 to A5 and D1 uses, new
estate road and associated vehicular parking provisions following demolition of warehousing
unit - Re Submission. Having addressed previous concerns this was approved under
delegated powers on 29 November 2011. Comments (an objection) from the Town Council
were not received until after 2 December 2011, post the issuing of the decision. This was
done on the basis that they had previously supported the scheme (hence the previous
application being presented to Members).
12/01708/NMA – Application for a non-material amendment was granted 27/12/12. A
summary of the amendments (which related to the D1 units) was:
•
•
•
•
Inclusion of additional land to incorporate an external area for children’s
play area which has in turn shifted car parking further west;
Alterations to existing door and window openings;
Inclusion of mezzanine floor and insertion of stud walls internally to create
suitable spaces for the intended use;
Change of roof materials from slate effect to cladding and inclusion of 4 roof
lights.
The Proposal
This proposal seeks to vary some of the conditions previously attached to the grant of
permission reference 11/01533/FULM.
The site was originally granted planning permission for a mix use development comprising a
mix of retail uses to the north of the site access and two D1 Use units (annotated as health
centre) to the south of it. It is now proposed that the scheme be part implemented with only
the D1 uses coming forward initially. This was not originally forseen and the conditions as
imposed require details to be provided for the entire site, including the larger retail area
which the applicant does not intend to develop himself. Therefore the conditions are sought
to be varied to allow the applicant (developer of the D1 units) the ability to make a start onsite without having to fulfill matters which relate to the site that will be outside of his
control.
The conditions to be varied are:
Condition 2 – requires contamination to be adequately dealt with;
Condition 3 – requires measures to prevent surface water discharge over the highway;
Condition 4 – requires details of all facing materials;
Condition 5 – requires details for all external lighting;
Condition 6 - requires details for hard and soft landscaping;
Condition 8 – requires details of cycle parking and shelters;
Condition 9 – requires all parking, turning and servicing areas shown on the approved plan to
be provided on site prior to first occupation.
In response to the Highways Authorities initial comments the applicant has provided the
8
following additional information:
‘Under current regulations we are looking at around 60 to 70 children and 10 to 12 staff
when full although this is not confirmed until be apply for Ofsted regulation. (The change in
ratio in September could mean less staff). We have two staff who will be walking coming
from our existing setting. In our experience from Fernwood Nursery I believe most staff will
walk or use public transport, at Fernwood due to poor bus service people simply can't get
there! Currently over half staff walk or cycle and that's in a much more rural area so I am
anticipating even more will do so.’
Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure
Fourteen neighbours/local residents have been individually notified by letter. A site notice
has also been displayed at the site.
Planning Policy Framework
Please Note: All policies listed below and any supplementary documents/guidance referred
to can be viewed on the Council’s website.
The Development Plan
East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009)
Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional
Strategies and their associated targets and the on-going legal challenges relating to this. The
current legal position is that pending formal abolition, regional strategies remain as part of
the statutory development plan and it remains for decision makers to decide the
appropriate weight to attach the relevant policies, which for this application are set out
below:
•
•
•
•
Policy 1
Policy 2
Policy 3
Policy 22
(Regional Core Objectives)
(Promoting Better Design)
(Distribution of New Development)
(Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development)
Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)
Policies relevant to this application:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Spatial Policy 1
Spatial Policy 2
Spatial Policy 7
Core Policy 6
Core Policy 8
Core Policy 9
(Settlement Hierarchy)
(Spatial Distribution of Growth)
(Sustainable Transport)
(Shaping our Employment Profile)
(Retail Hierarchy)
(Sustainable Design)
Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)
9
• Policy S12
• ECH3
(Local Shopping Provision in Newark and the Larger Settlements)
(Hospital/Healthcare uses on Land at Bowbridge Road, Newark)
Other Material Considerations
•
National Planning Policy Framework which now replaces all PPG’s and PPS’s.
Consultations
Newark Parish Council – Object on the same grounds as previously.
On 2 December 2011 the Town Council objected to the previous application reference
11/01533/FUL (albeit this objection was received after the decision had been issued under
delegated powers, with the Town Council having changed their views since the initial
application, which they supported) on the following grounds:•
•
•
It will have an adverse impact on traffic in the area; the development leads into
Earp Avenue which is already heavily congested, the Magnus School and the
Hospital.
There are insufficient parking spaces on the site.
The retail aspect of the development will have detrimental impact on town centre
shops and falls outside of the proposed Newark Town Centre boundary and
primary and secondary shopping frontages.)
Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – Comment as follows:
‘This unit on the previous application (11/01533/FUL) was assessed as a dental surgery and
the parking was considered generous for this use, making up for the shortfall in parking
elsewhere on the site. The plan included within this application suggests it will be a day
nursery, therefore, I am unsure as to whether the parking is acceptable for this use.’
(05/02/13)
In response to the applicant’s additional information, further comments have been made:
‘Whilst I understand the site has D1 usage, I do have concerns over the amount of parking
provided, considering the number of children expected (60-70) along with 10-12 members of
staff. As previously stated, the parking for a dental surgery was considered generous, making
up for the shortfall elsewhere on the site. The vehicle movements for a day nursery are
considered an increase on those of a dental surgery due to the morning/afternoon peaks
and I am concerned that this will result in on street parking which should be discouraged in
this location. Therefore I am unable to consider the D1 day nursery unit from being
developed independently.’
No representations from local residents or interested parties have been received to date
Comments of the Director of Growth
10
This application seeks to vary conditions attached to a previous permission in order to allow
the scheme to be part implemented. The previous extant permission was for a mixed use
development comprising A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A5 (takeaways)
and D1 (non-residential institutions). The scheme was speculative with no known end users.
Whilst the approved plans show two D1 units annotated as ‘clinic/health centre’, these units
could be occupied by any use falling within this use Class, including a children’s day nursery
which is a D1 Use. Further, there were rightly no restrictions imposed by way of condition to
prevent the two D1 units from combining to form one larger unit as this was not considered
to be harmful.
From the information provided with this application now before Members, it is clear that the
D1 units are proposed to be a children’s day nursery. It should be noted that the applicant
could develop this without requiring further planning permission if the whole development
were to come forward at the same time. Consent is required purely because the conditions
imposed as existing do not allow for part implementation of the scheme.
The Town Council previously objected to the overall scheme (the mixed use development,
not specifically the children’s nursery) although this objection was not received until after
the decision had already been issued under delegated powers. This objection was a change
in their stance from the original application which they had supported and it had been
expected that the Town Council would continue to support the scheme. As CIL was due to be
adopted on 1st December 2011, Officers issued the decision in this case as soon as lawfully
possible (29th November 2011) in order to avoid criticisms over delays which would add
further cost to developers. CIL would not apply to this current s73 application following
recent amendments to the CIL Regulations which essentially exempt s73 applications from
charging.
The Town Council’s objections were largely on the grounds of congestion and insufficient
parking on site. Indeed this has now been raised as a possible issue from the Highways
Authority, albeit they have stopped short of formally objecting. Despite requests they have
not qualified how many spaces would be required or what the shortfall is likely to be.
The plans submitted show 14 parking spaces immediately rear of the D1 Use buildings which
is the same number of spaces previously shown in this location. A further 16 spaces would
be provided in front of the remaining retail part of the development. This will ultimately
provide 30 spaces in total for the entire site, which the Highways Authority are content with.
However it is not known when this retail part of the scheme will be implemented.
I consider that a reasonable starting point to assess the requirement for parking provision at
a children’s nursery is the County Council’s last Parking Guidance (May 2004). This was not
saved as a Supplementary Planning Guidance Note but has not been superseded. Thus it
represents the last available guidance that the County still use as a tool to inform their
comments. This states that visitor spaces for nurseries should be provided at a rate of 1
space per 6 children.
The applicant has confirmed, at capacity, the nursery will hold 60-70 children. Worst case
scenario I calculate that the nursery should provide 11.6 visitor parking spaces and staff
11
parking requirements should be assessed by a parking appraisal. The applicant has also
confirmed that he expects that most staff would walk, cycle or to use public transport given
the very sustainable location of the site and I consider that this is a reasonable expectation. I
therefore consider that 14 spaces would be sufficient for a day nursery in this location.
Notwithstanding this, the applicant has agreed to ascertain if there is a possibility of
providing a temporary overspill car park on the retail part of the site until such time as the
other 16 spaces are made available. The outcome of the applicant’s negotiations with the
land owner will be reported as a late item to the Committee.
All other matters associated with the mixed use development have been previously found to
be acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan. Given the extant permission I
do not proposed to rehearse these again.
In conclusion I would emphasise that this application has been lodged to simply enable the
applicant the opportunity to commence a development on an underused and brown field
site that is in need of development and regeneration. It is hoped that this scheme will act as
a catalyst to bring forward the retail element on the remainder of the site which is precisely
the aims of the Governments growth agenda. I therefore recommend that full planning
permission is granted.
RECOMMENDATION
That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions shown below.
Conditions
The conditions listed as follows are the original conditions attached to 11/01533/FUL with
the amendments shown in bold for comparison purposes.
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 (NEW)
No development shall take place unless a phasing scheme has firstly been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved phasing scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: In order for the development to be delivered in a satisfactory manner in the interests
of the environment.
02 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 for
that phase, 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 that contamination.
12
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,
•
groundwaters 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.
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.
13
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.
03 04
No development shall be commenced on any phase pursuant to Condition 2 until details of
measures to prevent the discharge of surface water to the public highway have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The provision to prevent the
discharge of surface water to the public highway shall then be retained for the life of the
development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
04 05
No development shall be commenced on any phase pursuant to Condition 2 until precise details
of the external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved
details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
05 06
No development shall be commenced on any phase pursuant to Condition 2 until details of
external lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The details shall include location, design, levels of brightness and beam orientation, together
with measures to minimise overspill and light pollution. The lighting scheme shall thereafter be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained for the lifetime of the
development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity and in the interests of crime prevention
and secure by design principles.
06 07
No development shall be commenced on any phase pursuant to Condition 2 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. 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;
all boundary treatments proposed for the site including types, height, design and materials;
car parking layouts and materials;
other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas including materials;
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation.
07 08
14
The approved soft landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the
commencement of the development, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the
local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being planted
die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting
season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority. The approved hard landscaping shall be implemented on site prior to first
occupation.
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.
08 09
No development shall be commenced on any phase pursuant to Condition 2 until full details of
the cycle parking/shelters and of a litter bin have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The details shall include precise locations, design and materials and
the proposals shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
retained for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity.
09 10
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until a plan showing the
precise extent of highway parking/turning/servicing areas to be are provided on any phase
pursuant to Condition 2 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The agreed extent of highway parking, turning and servicing areas shall be provided
in a bound material and in accordance with the approved plans (as shown on drawing number
4109W/10/10 E) and have been surfaced in a bound material. The parking/turning/servicing
areas shall not be used for any purpose other than parking/turning/loading and unloading of
vehicles.
Reason: To ensure that there is adequate off-street parking and manoeuvring space in the
interests of highway safety.
10 11
Prior to first occupation, full details of any proposed air conditioning equipment or other external
plant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved equipment and plant shall be installed strictly in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
11 12
Prior to first occupation of either Unit comprising 100.7 sq m of floor space (annotated AS ‘A2A5’ on drawing number 4109W/10/05 C) for any use falling under Use Classes A3 (restaurants,
snack bar, cafe) or A5 (hot food takeaway) exact specifications for the means of extraction for
any cooking equipment to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved details shall be used in the development.
Reason: To ensure that cooking smells are mitigated and to ensure that the noise levels
associated with the extraction is acceptable to neighbouring land uses.
12 13
The retail units hereby permitted shall not be subdivided internally unless planning permission
has first been granted for such works by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the retail units remain small scale, serving a local need and to ensure that the
viability and vitality of the town centre is not adversely affected.
15
13 14
The two premises shown on drawing number 4109W/10/04 C shall only be occupied by uses
falling within Use Class D1 Class XV (clinics, health centre, crèche, day nurseries and consulting
rooms) and for no other purpose including any other use falling within class D1 of the Schedule
to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987, or in any provision equivalent to
that Class in an statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without
modification).
Reason: The application has been assessed on the basis that these uses are not town centre uses
as defined by PPS4 and this condition is necessary in order to meet the requirements of national
planning policy and to ensure that the proposal is meeting only a local need.
14 15
The premises shall not be open for customers outside the following hours:
For A1 (retail) Uses: Monday to Saturday between 08:00 and 22:00 and between 10:00 and 16:00
on Sundays and Bank Holidays;
For A3 (restaurants and cafes) Uses: Monday to Saturday between 08:00 and 23:00 and between
10:00 and 23:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
For A5 (hot food takeaways) Uses between the hours of 08:00 and 23:00 at all times.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
Notes to applicant
01
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.
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 amendments to the CIL Regulations make clear
that it does not apply to Section 73 Applications.
03
The Highway Authority wish to make the applicants aware of the following:
In order to carry out the off-site works required 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 will
need to enter into an agreement under.
It is an offence under S148 and S151 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud on the public
highway and as such you should undertake every effort to prevent it occurring.
16
In order to keep the junction visibility splay clear of parked vehicles, a Traffic Regulation
Order (TRO) will need to be introduced.
04
An advisory booklet is available Developing Land in Nottinghamshire: A guide to submitting
planning applications for land that may be contaminated. This is available from Planning
Services, the Proactive Team of Environmental Services or the NSDC website using the
following link:
http://www.newarksherwooddc.gov.uk/pp/gold/viewGold.asp?IDType=Page&ID=7895.
Prior to undertaking an intrusive site investigation the applicant is advised to consult with:
Natural England
Block 6 & 7 Government Buildings
Chalfont Drive
Nottingham
NG8 3SN
Tel: 0115 929 1191
Fax: 0115 929 4886
Email: [email protected]
English Heritage
Ancient Monuments Inspector
44 Derngate
Northampton,
NN1 1UH
Tel: 01604 735400
Fax 01604 735401
E-mail: [email protected]
Heritage Planning Specialists
Nottinghamshire County Council
Trent Bridge House
Fox Road
West Bridgford
Nottingham
NG2 6BJ
Tel: +44 (0)115 977 2162
Fax: +44 (0)115 977 2418
E-mail: [email protected]
Where the presence of contamination is found or suspected the developer and/or his
contractor should have regard to Health and Safety Executive guidance - The Protection of
workers and the general public during the development of contaminated land
REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
(DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
17
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 East Midlands Regional Plan (adopted 2009)
Policy 1 (Regional Core Objectives)
Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design)
Policy 3 (Distribution of New Development)
Policy 22 (Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development)
Spatial Policy 1 (Settlement Hierarchy)
Spatial Policy 2 (Spatial Distribution of Growth)
Spatial Policy 7 (Sustainable Transport)
Core Policy 6 (Shaping our Employment Profile)
Core Policy 8 (Retail Hierarchy)
Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design)
S12
(Local Shopping Provision in Newark and the Larger Settlements)
ECH3 (Hospital/Healthcare uses on Land at Bowbridge Road, Newark)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Application case file.
For further information, please contact Clare Walker on 01636 655841.
All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following
website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk.
Colin Walker
Director of Growth
18
19
20
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 5 MARCH 2013
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
Application No:
12/01720/FUL
Proposal:
Demolition of an existing bungalow and construct a two storey
dwelling (Re-Submission 11/01830/FUL)
Location:
Hope House, The Park, Thurgarton
Applicant:
Mr and Mrs Macrae
Registered:
28.12.2012
Target Date:
22.02.2013
The Site
The application site contains a detached bungalow with garage located on the south side of
The Park which is a single lane cul-de-sac. It is located within the Green Belt outside of the
Main Built-Up Area of Thurgarton. Its external surfaces comprise rendered walls and
interlocking roof tiles and the property is located on a square shaped plot with relatively
spacious garden. There are a small number of other residential properties surrounding the
site. The Park slopes upwards from Nottingham Road. A brick wall topped with brick
columns and timber panels plus electric gates forms the north facing front boundary of the
site along The Park. A 2 metre high (approximately) close boarded fence forms the
boundary with the surrounding dwellings on all other sides.
11/01830/FUL Demolish existing bungalow and construct a 5 bedroom two storey dwelling
with a detached triple garage with study above – Withdrawn April 2012
93910852 Single storey flat roof rear extension – Granted permission 1991
A recent site visit showed that a curtilage building used as a playroom has been erected in
the rear garden under permitted development rights.
The Proposal
The application is for full planning permission for the demolition of the existing building on
site and the erection of a two storey replacement dwelling. The replacement dwelling would
measure 16.4 metres by 9.7 metres by 7.5 metres high.
Public Advertisement Procedure
9 neighbours have been notified individually by letter. The same neighbours were also
reconsulted and informed of a change to the description of development to more accurately
reflect the nature of the proposal as a replacement two storey dwelling rather than a
dormer bungalow.
21
Planning Policy Framework
East Midlands Regional Plan (adopted 2009)
Policy 3 Distribution of New Development
Policy Northern SRS1 Sub Regional Development Priorities
Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011)
Spatial Policy 4A Extent of the Green Belt
Spatial Policy 4B Green Belt Development
Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design
Core Policy 13 Landscape Character
Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted 1999) – Saved Policies
Saved Policy H31 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
Other Material Planning Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework Adopted (NPPF) March 2012
Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document (DPD) Draft June 2012
Policy DM5: Design
Consultations
Thurgarton Parish Council – Object to the application because the proposed property is too
large with too many South or East facing windows, meaning that neighbouring properties
would be overlooked. More sympathetic landscaping needs to be incorporated. It is
suggested that a cross section be made to prove that the fear of overlooking is unfounded in
respect of Spinney Way and Thornton Leas. If this showed a concern then there could be a
case for action such as obscure glass on the East facing elevation. A garage is not indicated
on the proposed plan and if it were included concerns over the footprint and location could
exacerbate the issues with the application.
NSDC Environmental Health – The proposed development is in a ‘Radon Affected Area’ and
it is advised that it would be prudent for the applicant to investigate if the proposed
dwelling will be affected by radon to allow for the incorporation of any measures necessary
into the construction to protect the health of the occupants.
NSDC Access and Equalities Officer - A Building Regulation application is required
Neighbours/Interested Parties Five letters supporting the application have been received.
22
Three letters objecting to the application have been received. Main issues raised relate to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increased levels of overlooking exacerbated by site levels and the large number of
proposed windows;
The new proposal is for a house around 100% larger in space than the existing
bungalow;
The development is over powering on adjacent properties and would be better as a
bungalow rather than a house;
Mature trees along the south boundary of the site have been removed and replaced
by newly planted leylandi which may result in future problems;
A landscaping scheme involving the planting of native species (not too close to the
boundary) should be required;
Floodlighting at the existing property intrusively lights up adjacent properties – this
application is an opportunity to set a condition that lighting should be beamed into
the property, not directed out of it;
The application contains no meaningful information regarding future parking
arrangements. A future garage may have an adverse impact on neighbouring
properties;
Frosting of windows may be required to protect the privacy of neighbouring
properties.
Appropriateness of Development and Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that the fundamental aim of Green
Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the
essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. A
replacement of a building is not considered to be inappropriate development in the Green
Belt, provided the new building is in the same use and is not materially larger than the one it
replaces. It further states that when considering any planning application, local planning
authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt.
This approach is consistent within saved Policy H31 of the Local Plan, Spatial Policy 4B of the
Core Strategy, and the NPPF.
The NPPF and Local Plan do not define what was meant by 'materially larger'. Where other
local authorities define a threshold within local policy, this typically ranges between 30 –
50%. (volume and/or floorspace increase) in determining whether a replacement dwelling is
materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. However, what is materially larger in planning
terms is essentially (and rightly in my view) a matter of fact and degree and is not defined as
either a quantitative (size, floorspace, footprint, volume, etc) or qualitative (bulk, design,
context) measure. Throughout the years there has been extensive case law on the subject
with matters of interpretation varying. Notwithstanding the degree of judgement involved
in firstly determining whether a development proposal is inappropriate (by reason of being
materially larger) it is useful to understand the size of the proposed dwelling compared to
the existing bungalow. This is detailed in the table below.
23
Footprint
Volume
Floorspace
% increase / decrease compared
to ‘existing’ dwelling
-25.8%
+34.3%
+39.6%
The proposed floorspace and volume of the proposed dwelling is larger than the existing
dwelling. However, the proposed footprint is less that the existing dwelling.
In qualitative terms defining what is materially larger can include the context and design of
the site. In this instance, the site sits within a small cluster of two storey dwellings (including
Thornton Lea, Spinney Way, Monksmead and Elmcroft) accessed off Nottingham Road. The
existing dwellings are two storey and are similar or greater in height than the proposed
replacement dwelling. The application site is thus comparable with the dwelling and garden
sizes which already exist. There are a variety of designs and characters of property and the
application proposal is not in my view harmful in this context. Thurgarton Conservation Area
would not be affected by the proposed development due to its distance from the
application site and the proposal would therefore preserve its setting and special character.
I note the proposed development would result in an additional amount of living space
including two extra bedrooms. However, I do not consider that the intensity of the use of
the site by a typical family would result in any significant additional outside activity, such as
levels of vehicle movements and car parking, resulting in a negligible impact on openness.
In relation to the issue raised in relation to a replacement garage not being part of the
current application, the Applicant has confirmed they intend to park their cars on the
driveway. In order to protect the openness of the Green Belt, it is recommended that a
condition be imposed removing permitted development rights for future extensions and
ancillary buildings including garages.
Overall, I do not consider the proposed replacement dwelling to be materially larger than
the dwelling it replaces and it is not therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
The proposed development would not prejudice the purposes of including land in the Green
Belt and, subject to a condition removing permitted development rights, would not result in
any greater harm to the openness of the Green Belt than the existing dwelling.
Impact on Visual Amenity
The NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and new
development should be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping. Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in
the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life
and can include replacing poor design with better design and widening the choice of high
quality homes. The NPPF also states that decisions should limit the impact of light pollution
from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscape and nature conservation.
Core Policy 9 states that new development should achieve a high standard of sustainable
design and layout that is of an appropriate form and scale to its context complementing the
24
existing built and landscape environments. Core Policy 13 requires the landscape character
of the surrounding area to be conserved.
The existing bungalow is considered to be of little architectural merit and is not highly
visible from the street scene due to the surrounding buildings, existing levels of mature
landscape screening and boundary treatments. The design of the replacement dwelling is
contemporary and would provide the opportunity to provide a family home with improved
energy efficiency standards. This would improve the character and appearance of the site
overall and complement the surrounding built context of the adjacent two storey dwellings.
The replacement dwelling would be positioned on the site of the existing bungalow, albeit
on a smaller footprint. Despite the increased height of the replacement dwelling and the
topography of the land, the replacement dwelling is unlikely to be highly visible from
Nottingham Road or the wider open countryside beyond the surrounding dwellings.
Proposed external surfaces comprise rendered walls and grey roof slates/tiles and a
condition is recommended to ensure samples of the proposed materials are approved prior
to the commencement of development.
I note that the Applicant has confirmed they would be willing to carry out appropriate
landscaping. I consider it reasonable to recommend a condition requiring precise details of
landscaping to remove any ambiguity for unbuilt areas and to ensure a satisfactory
development.
Minor domestic light fittings do not require planning permission and it is not therefore
considered reasonable or necessary given the existing site context to recommend the
imposition of a condition relating to proposed domestic lighting. Environmental Health
investigate complaints of artificial light which may be causing a nuisance.
Overall, the proposed development is considered to support sustainable development
objectives set out in the NPPF, would result in a better design complementing the existing
built and landscape environments and would not be visually detrimental by reason of its
siting, materials or design.
Impact on Residential Amenity
The NPPF seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants
of land and buildings. The topography means that the land slopes gradually upwards from
east to west. The floor level of Spinney Way and Thornton Lea are therefore approximately
2 metres lower in level than the proposed floor level of the replacement dwelling. However
a 2 metre high (approximately) close boarded fence and conifer hedge follow the slope of
the land adjacent to the gardens of these properties with a separation gap of between 21 35 metres ensuring no adverse impact by virtue of any overbearing impact.
The south facing elevation of the proposed dwelling contains four sets of first floor windows
serving a landing area, two bedrooms and a bathroom facing towards the rear elevation and
rear garden of Thornton Lea. However, there is a separation gap of over 35 metres between
these windows and the boundary with Thornton Lea. I consider this distance to be over the
25
minimum distance required to ensure no adverse impact upon the amenity of the occupiers
of Thornton Lea by virtue of any overlooking.
The east facing elevation of the replacement dwelling contains a single first floor window
serving a dressing room facing towards the rear elevation of Spinney Way which contains
habitable room windows at first floor level. However, there is a separation gap of 21 metres
between this window and the boundary with Spinney Way which I consider to be the
minimum required to ensure no adverse impact upon the amenity of the occupiers of
Spinney Way by virtue of any overlooking.
Overall the shape, size and position of the replacement dwelling would not dominate the
adjacent dwellings or result in any adverse impact upon the occupiers of adjacent properties
by virtue of any overlooking, overbearing or loss of privacy impact.
Impact on Highway Safety
It is not considered that proposed movements to and from the replacement dwelling would
be significantly different from existing levels. There is ample space for cars to park and
manoeuvre within the site enabling entry and exit to the highway in a forward gear. As such,
the proposed development would not result in any adverse impact upon highway safety.
Other Issues
The Issue raised in relation to the future maintenance of existing landscaping at the site is
not considered to be a material planning consideration.
Conclusion
The replacement dwellinghouse is considered to be appropriate development in the Green
Belt and would not harm the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed development is not
considered to be detrimental to the character or appearance of the area, the amenity of
neighbouring properties or highway safety. 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
26
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with
the following amended plans, reference numbers:
GA138/02 Proposed Site Plan
GA138/03 C Proposed Elevations
GA138/01 B Proposed Floor Plans
GA138/10 Existing Bungalow
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
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 Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Order in respect of:
•
Class A: The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house,
including extensions to the property and the insertion or replacement of doors and
windows.
• Class B: The enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration
to its roof.
• Class C: Any other alteration to the roof of a dwelling house.
• Class E: Development within the curtilage of a dwelling house.
unless consent has firstly be granted in the form of a separate planning permission.
Reason:
To ensure that the local planning authority retains control over the specified classes of
development normally permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 or any amending legislation), in order to safeguard the openness
of the Green belt in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Spatial
Policy 4B of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011).
04
Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no development shall be commenced until
details/samples of the materials identified below have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
• Facing materials
• Bricks
• Roofing tiles
• Doors
• Windows
Reason:
In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Framework and Core Policy 9 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March
2011).
05
27
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. 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.
• Existing trees and hedgerows, which are to be retained pending approval of a
detailed scheme, together with measures for protection during construction.
• Proposed finished ground levels or contours;
• Means of enclosure;
• Hard surfacing materials.
Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory development in the
interests of visual amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and
Core Policies 9 and 13 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011).
06
The approved landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the
commencement of the development, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being
planted die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the
next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in
writing 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 biodiversity in accordance with
the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Policies 9 and 13 of the Newark and
Sherwood Core Strategy (Adopted March 2011).
Informatives
Note to Applicant
1
The proposed development is in a ‘Radon Affected Area’. Radon Affected Areas are parts of
the country where a percentage of properties are estimated to be at or above the Radon
Action Level of 200 becquerals per cubic metre (Bq/m³).
Radon is a naturally occurring gas arising from the radioactive decay of uranium where that
element is found in the underlying geology of an area. The gas finds its way towards the
surface of the earth and in doing so may enter buildings and accumulate. Radon itself is also
radioactive and decays in a short time, but in doing so emits alpha particles, which are
highly damaging to body tissue, especially if inhaled into the lungs. Long-term exposure
may cause lung cancer and there is an increased risk to smokers.
Given the above I advise that it would be prudent for the applicant to investigate if the
proposed dwelling will be affected by radon and incorporate any measures necessary into
the construction to protect the health of the occupants.
28
For more information on this subject please visit our website at:
http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/radon/
If you have any further information on the site or application or you wish to discuss the
issues further, please contact 01636 655430.
2
The applicant’s attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should
3
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.
4
This application has been the subject of pre-application discussions and has been approved
in accordance with that advice. The District Planning Authority has accordingly worked
positively and pro-actively, seeking solutions to problems arising in coming to its decision.
This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended).
5
From the East Midlands Regional Plan (adopted 2009):
From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted
March 2011):
Spatial Policy 4A Extent of the Green Belt
Spatial Policy 4B Green Belt Development
Core Policy 14 Landscape Character
From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999):
Saved Policy H31 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside
29
National Planning Policy Framework Adopted March 2012
Allocations and Development Plan Development Plan Document Draft June 2012 - Policy
DM5
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Helen Marriott on Ext 5793
C Walker
Director – Growth
30
31
32
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 5 MARCH 2013
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
Application No:
13/00035/FUL
Proposal:
Location:
Householder application for erection of a conservatory and detached
carport.
Greet Cottage, Upton Road, Southwell
Applicant:
Mrs Anita Higgins
Registered:
23.01.2013
Target Date: 20.03.2013
The Site
The application site is a large plot in the open countryside south of the A612 between the main
built up areas of Southwell and Upton, although the site falls within the administration of Upton
Parish Council. The site is approximately 0.13 hectares with the southern boundary of the site
broadly following the River Greet. As a consequence the majority of the site falls within Flood
Zone 2 as identified by the Environment Agency maps. There are a number of trees subject to a
Tree Preservation Order along the southern boundary of the site although these are a significant
distance from the dwelling and the proposals within this application.
The property within the site is a modern two storey dwelling set back approximately 35m from
the highway. There is a detached double garage to the west of the property. The boundaries of
the site comprise high hedges and brick entrance pillars with automated gates.
Neighbouring development is sparse owing to the open countryside location of the site but does
include Sherwood Restorations to the north. The Grade II* Listed ‘The Workhouse’ is north west
of the site on the opposite side of Upton Road.
The site has been subject to a number of approvals and refusals for a nursing home and hotel but
the most relevant site history is the application under which the existing dwelling was granted
approval as a replacement dwelling. Application 06/01751/FUL was granted conditionally in
March 2007 and permitted Development rights were removed by condition.
The Proposal
The proposal seeks permission for two separate elements, the first being a conservatory extension
at the rear of the dwelling. This would partially infill an existing void between the kitchen and
lounge with an approximate width of 3.26m and length of 3.68m. The design of the conservatory
is modern with a glazed roof panel hidden behind a brick papapet. Secondly the proposal outlines
the erection of a detached carport south of the existing detached garage. The carport would be
open on three sides with an approximate footprint of 27.6m². It is proposed that this will be
constructed of a timber clad steel frame with timber boarding to the rear wall.
33
Occupiers of five neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter.
Relevant Planning Policies
•
Core Policy 9 : Sustainable Design
•
•
•
H24 : Extensions to dwellings
NE1: Development in the Countryside
C11: Setting of Listed Buildings
Please Note: All policies listed above can be found in full on the Council’s website.
Other Material Considerations
National Planning Policy Framework
Newark and Sherwood Publication Allocations & Development Management DPD (Emerging)
•
•
Policy DM5: Design
Policy DM6: Householder Development
Consultations
Upton Parish Council: No comments received to date.
Southwell Town Council: Southwell Town Council Planning Committee considered this application
at its meeting last night and resolved to object to this application on the following grounds;
•
The original planning decision in 2006 intended that the size and scale of the new dwelling
to reflect that of the original dwelling and therefore the applicants were not allowed any
further permitted development rights, this extension and addition car port can therefore
be seen as over intensification of this development site which is situated on the important
site lines of the Workhouse.
34
•
The Council have found the plans ambiguous with the development description not
matching the wording in the design statement and all of the plans submitted showing
detailing of a separation to the dwelling as indicated in the design statement. On these
grounds the Council have made a decision on the plans submitted by the applicant to
object to this application and wish to call in this application to the District Council Planning
Committee.
The application has been called to Committee by Councillor Harris on the basis of the above
consultation response.
Neighbours/Interested Parties
One letter of representation has been received to date stating full support for the application.
I consider that the main planning consideration in the assessment of this application is the impact
that the development will have on the character of the surrounding area given the countryside
location of the site.
Impact of the design on the character of the dwelling and surrounding area
Despite the existing dwelling being a relatively recent feature of the landscape, the site has
historically accommodated one dwelling in broadly the same location. The presence of residential
built form is therefore well established. I acknowledge that permitted development rights were
removed from the property and the previous case officer’s report concluded that permitted
development rights should be restricted in the garden to preserve the landscape. Members will be
aware however, that this does not result in all householder development being inappropriate by
definition; it simply allows the Local Planning Authority a degree of control over the physical
evolvement of the site.
The proposed conservatory is to be located within a void in the existing building such that its limit
would not extend beyond the existing built extremities of the dwelling. As a consequence the
impact of the conservatory on the openness of the countryside would be negligible. The
conservatory has been designed to reflect the existing dwelling both in terms of design features
and materials. It is therefore considered a subservient addition appropriate to the scale of the
host property.
The proposed car port, being detached and of a larger scale, has more potential to impact upon
the openness of the countryside. The car port is however proposed in close proximity to the
existing garage and again does not extend beyond the southern limits of the dwelling or the
eastern limits of the garage. I note the comments from Southwell Town Council that the site is
situated on important site lines to the Grade II* Listed ‘The Workhouse’. In this regard, I would
conclude that, although in plan form it appears there is a line of sight from the location of
development to The Workhouse, the existing site constraints would prevent this. Notwithstanding
the hedged boundaries of the site, there is intervening built form between the Listed Building and
the proposed development. Moreover, the single storey nature of the development allows it to
35
become a relatively discrete feature of the landscape confined within the existing site boundaries.
I would therefore conclude that the proposal will have no impact on the setting of the nearby
Listed Building.
The design and access statement submitted to accompany the application states that the car port
has been designed to resemble an agricultural building that would have been consistent with the
original site use. I accept this design rationale and therefore feel that the use of timber and a clay
tiled roof to match the existing garage is appropriate in reflecting the character of the site.
Overall it is felt that the site, being of a significant size, can accommodate the relatively minor
proposals without amounting to over intensification of the site or having a detrimental impact on
the openness of the surrounding countryside. In this regard the proposal complies with the third
and fourth criteria of Saved Policy H24.
The impact upon neighbours
The closest residential neighbour is over 50m away to the north of the existing dwelling. The
development proposed is single storey in nature and at the rear of the dwelling. There would
therefore be no detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
Other Matters
The majority of the site is located within Flood Zone 2 as identified by the Environment Agency
maps. The proposed development however is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore not
envisaged to create additional pressures relating to flood risk. Notwithstanding this, the
application was accompanied by a ‘Householder Flood Form’ in which it is stated that the car port
is an easily removable structure comprising non-habitable accommodation and the floor level of
the extension will match the existing dwelling which was subject to modelled data at the time of
the original 2007 permission.
I note that Southwell Town Council found the plans submitted to accompany the application
ambiguous and felt that the description of development was an inaccurate representation of the
proposal. I am of the understanding that the initial confusion arose from an incorrect concluding
paragraph to the original Design and Access Statement (this referred to the formation of the
retirement cottage). The agent confirmed both verbally and in writing that this was an
administrative error and submitted a revised Design and Access Statement prior to the receipt of
Southwell Town Council’s comments. I am comfortable that the description of development is
appropriate to the application which it relates.
Southwell Town Council comments also refer to the plans demonstrating a separation of the
dwelling as the floor plans show no connection between the kitchen and the hall. The agent has
confirmed in writing that the internal layout is to remain as a single dwelling as the original
approval and the rationale behind the floor plans is that this area of the property was not
surveyed. I am of the opinion that this is acceptable to a householder application of this nature
and the floor plans adequately represent the proposed development in relation to the existing
dwelling. Members will be aware that the application must be assessed on its own merits. If there
were any intentions to separate the dwelling into two in the future, this would be dealt with
36
through a separate planning application or enforcement powers if a breach occurs without the
appropriate permission.
Conclusion
I am of the opinion that the existing site can accommodate the relatively minor proposals without
detrimentally affecting the openness of the countryside and the character of the surrounding
area. I am also confident that following written confirmation from the agent, the description of
development is an accurate representation of the development proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve, subject to the following condition(s)
Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of
this permission.
Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete
accordance with the following approved plans reference
•
Proposed Carport and Sun Lounge Plans 42/12 5 dated 23/01/2013
•
Proposed Elevations 42/12 6 dated 23/01/2013
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.
Informative
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
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.
02
37
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 Local Plan (adopted 1999)
Saved Policy H24: Extension of Dwellings
From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted March
2011)
Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design
03
The application as submitted is acceptable. In granting permission the District Planning Authority
is implicitly working positively and proactively with the applicant.
04
Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, the Local Planning Authority is of the understanding
that the application does not constitute the division of the existing dwelling which would require
the submission of a separate planning application.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Laura Gardner on 01636 655907.
Colin Walker
Director of Growth
38
39
40
AGENDA ITEM NO.7
Application No:
12/01519/FUL
Proposal:
Erection of 1 No. detached dwelling
Location:
Land Adjacent, 157 Boundary Road, Newark
Applicant:
Newark & Sherwood District Council - Asset Management
Registered:
16 November 2012
Target Date: 11 January 2013
Update
Members will recall that this item was deferred at the last meeting in order for clarity to
be provided on the submitted plans and elevations. Revised plans have now been
received, which will be presented on the day of Committee. The recommendation remains
unchanged.
The Site
The site is a vacant enclosed and rectangular area of land laid to rough grass immediately
adjacent the southeast boundary of number 157 Boundary Road. The site sits between the
aforementioned dwelling which itself is a pair of semi detached buildings, and the Holy
Trinity Community Centre and Catholic Church. The vehicular entrance to the Sconce and
Devon park and visitor centre is less than 100 yards to the northwest of the site, its car park
encompassing the rear of the application site. Access to the site is directly off Boundary
Road, the scheme providing parking to the front of the plot. The land is flat and currently
enclosed on to the side and front by a mix of high timber fencing and lower metal railings
and is open to its rear where it abuts the car park to the visitor’s centre. The site is in the
Newark central conservation area.
There is no relevant planning history to this site.
The Proposal
The proposals seek planning permission for the erection of single, two storey detached
property with rooms in the roof space. The property is to be sited line abreast with the
established street scene to the northwest, set back from the plot’s frontage and providing
access and parking to the front. The building is hip roof to the front, extending into a central
gable to the rear, brick gable roofs to each side elevation. The room in the roof space is
facilitated by a single off set pitched roof dormer window to the front, vertically aligned
with the first floor casement window and the ground floor bay. The front door is covered by
a small pitched roof porch, off set to the side of the bay window. Private amenity space is
enclosed and provided to the rear, matching the provision of its neighbours.
41
Occupiers of ten 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.
Relevant Planning Policies
Please Note: All policies listed below can be found in full at the end of Part 1 of the Agenda
under ‘List of Relevant Policies’. Any supplementary documents/guidance referred to can
be viewed on the Council’s website.
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
East Midlands Regional Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (adopted March 2009)
Members will be aware of the Coalition Government’s commitment to revoking Regional
Strategies and their associated targets which came into effect in July 2010. Since that time a
High Court judgement has held that the powers the Government relied upon to achieve this
could not be used to revoke all Regional Strategies in their entirety and therefore they have
been re-established as part of the Development Plan.
The Government still intend to revoke Regional Strategies through the Localism Bill, which
has begun its passage through parliament. The Government had stated that this intention
to revoke Regional Strategies was a material consideration. The Court of Appeal has
concluded that at the moment, the Government’s intention to revoke Regional Spatial
Strategies may only be worthy of weight as a material consideration in very few cases. This
application is not such a case. The current legal position is that pending formal abolition;
regional strategies remain as part of the statutory development plan.
•
•
Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011):
•
•
•
•
Core Policy 14 Historic Environment
Spatial Policy 1 Settlement Hierarchy
Spatial Policy 2 Spatial Distribution of Growth
Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999):
•
Saved Policy C1 Development in Conservation Areas
Consultations
Newark Town Council object to the proposals on the grounds that they represent over
development of the site and are out of character. Comment is made on the fact that the
plans and the proposal do not marry up although no further clarification of this point is
42
offered.
Nottinghamshire County Council – Highways request that a minimum of 5.25 metre access
width is provided where there is a shared access and egress from the highway. The
application plans has since been amended to reflect this.
Newark and Sherwood District Council Environmental Health comment on the proposals,
stating that owing to the site having previously been used as an electricity substation, there
is a possibility of migratory contaminants in the ground and as such controlling conditions
will be required.
Newark and Sherwood District Council Planning Conservation state that this part of the
Newark Conservation Area is closely related to Devon Park and the Queen’s Sconce, forming
significant parkland with the remnants of Civil War ramparts (a Scheduled Monument).
Historic housing stock with a degree of architectural interest on Boundary Road (both inside
and outside of the Conservation Area) is predominantly Victorian and Edwardian terraced or
semi-detached buildings. The amended scheme references this type of housing in both
mass, form and detailing, and will thus result in a development that sustains the significance
of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore consistent with national advice
contained within section 12 of the NPPF, as well as CP14 of the Core Strategy and saved
Policy C1 of the Local Plan.
Neighbours/interested parties raise the following matters by way of summary:
• Work involved in construction will have an impact on shared boundaries
• Property will overlook neighbours owing to height
• New dwelling considered too close to existing properties
• Design not in sympathy with others in the vicinity
• Development should be limited to two storeys
• Loss of established trees
• Site area not large enough for the property
• Increase in traffic from the site for construction
Comments of the Director - Growth
The site is part of Newark’s main built up area, which is the districts sub regional centre,
considered by the settlement hierarchy to the majority of additional growth. The Core
Strategy’s settlement hierarchy is drawn up in response to the objectives of the regional
level plan and National Planning Policy Framework’s to promote sustainable patters of
development. I consider that the principle of the site for development is acceptable and the
consideration of the proposals will depend upon a site specific assessment of the impacts. I
consider in the main these to be visual and residential amenity and highway safety, taking
account of the context, street scene and Newark’s central conservation area.
In visual terms, the building has been sited so as to reflect the established set back in the
street scene and utilises off set detailing to the frontage which includes a bay window to the
ground floor, smaller window to first floor and a contained, vertically proportioned pitched
roof dormer to the roof space. The frontage has been simplified in its layout, the number of
windows having been significantly reduced during the life of the application. I am of the
view that this makes the front elevation appear less busy and reflects some of the
43
fenestration on other properties either side of Boundary Road, of which there are many
types ranging from pre and post war terraced dwellings to more modern semi detached and
detached dwellings. I consider therefore that the erection of a detached dwelling on this site
would not appear out of character with the street scene
The plot is narrow and thus is the design of the dwelling which I appreciate will result in a
slim profile and deep range. The design however has been amended to reduce the overall
height of the rear element and shorten the span of the main roof. I consider that this
reduces the impact on neighbour amenity in terms of the presence of the building and its
proximity to the shared boundary but also in visual terms reduces the height of the roof and
thus the impression of the building’s height. Expanding this assessment to consider in more
detail the impact of the proposals on the amenities of neighbours in terms of privacy, I
appreciate that there are windows in the side elevations that will relate to the bathrooms
and light into the stair case. The latter being those presented to the side boundary of
number 157. I consider that views out of these windows are transient in their nature and in
any case would not offer such that would impact on the privacy of 157. First floor side
elevation windows to the opposite elevation will overlook circulation space to the front of
the community centre and as such I do not consider therefore there will be an impact here.
In terms of the character and appearance of the conservation area, I have regard to its
varied character in built form terms and also the importance of the Sconce and Devon Park
to the rear in open space terms. I agree with the Conservation Officer and comments that
the contained nature of the proposals have visual separation from the aforementioned
open space. I am also of the view that the rationalised and simple design to the building’s
frontage, when it is read in the street with its set back, will not appear overly obvious. This
recessive presentation will ensure that whilst presenting good simple design, it will not have
a significant visual impact in the street scene. I therefore consider that the character and
appearance of the conservation area will be preserved, having regard to both saved Policy
C1 of the Local Plan and Core Policy 14 of the Core Strategy. I would recommend in this case
controlling not only the roof and wall materials by agreement in condition but also the
doors and windows to ensure a quality development in the conservation area.
Parking and manoeuvring space is provided within the site, to the front of the dwelling, the
width of the access having been amended to reflect NCC Highways requirements. I am
satisfied therefore that the proposals will not have an adverse impact on the safe use of the
highway and that there is sufficient parking (x2 spaces) for the requirements of a single
dwelling.
In terms of amenity provision for the dwelling, this is provided as an enclosed area to the
rear, commensurate in size and layout/relationship to the dwelling to its immediate
neighbours. I consider the provision sufficient for the size of property and its context to
meeting the needs of privacy.
The proposals involve the removal of two of the three trees to the southeast boundary of
the site, the three comprising of an Ash, a Lime and a Sycamore. The Lime and the Sycamore
are proposed for removal to facilitate the dwelling, the scheme proposed the retention of
the Ash. The Lime and the Sycamore have uneven growth and are recessive in the street.
The application proposed the retention of the Ash which will retain a degree of natural
cover to the frontage along with the hedge enclosing the parking area. It must be
44
recognised that the presence of mature trees along Boundary Road are an important
feature of this part of the conservation area, however it should be noted that the ash tree to
the front has the most visual presence in the street scene and is also the more attractive
form and this is proposed to be retained. Furthermore, I am of the view that given their
lesser prominence in the street scene and uneven form, there would be limited justification
to protect the Lime and the Sycamore through the making of a preservation order. The
retention of the Ash and the hedge to the frontage, are contained in the application, and
can be referred to in any landscaping scheme to be agreed at a later date.
I refer to the comments of consultees and have addressed those concerns in my comments
above. In terms of the impact that might arise out of any implementation of the planning
permission, I attach limited weight in the balance. Any damage arising out of construction to
third party land or interests is at the responsibility of the contractor/site owner and works
would likely take place during reasonable hours. There are powers that the Council has with
respect Environmental Health should any problems arise during this time.
RECOMMENDATION
That full planning is approved subject to the conditions and reasons shown on the
attached recommendation sheet.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact John Morrison on Ext 5837
C Walker
Director – Growth
Recommendation Sheet
Application No:
12/01519/FUL
Applicant:
Newark & Sherwood District Council
Kelham Hall
Newark
Nottinghamshire
NG23 5QX
Agent:
Newark & Sherwood District Council - Asset Management
Kelham Hall
Newark
Nottinghamshire
NG23 5QX
45
Proposal:
Erection of 1 No. detached dwelling
Site Address:
Land Adjacent 157 Boundary Road Newark On Trent
Nottinghamshire
Recommendation:
APPROVE
With the Following Conditions/Reasons
Conditions
01
The development hereby permitted shall not begin later than three years from the date of
this permission.
Purchase Act 2004.
02
Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no development shall be commenced until
details/samples of the materials identified below have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter be carried out in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
• Facing materials
• Bricks
• Roofing tiles
• Doors
• Windows
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the
conservation area.
03
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. 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.
• Existing trees and hedgerows, which are to be retained pending approval of a
detailed scheme, together with measures for protection during construction.
• Proposed finished ground levels or contours;
• Means of enclosure;
• Car parking layouts and materials;
• Hard surfacing materials.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.
04
The approved landscaping shall be completed during the first planting season following the
commencement of the development, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which, within a period of five years of being
planted die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the
46
next planting season with others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in
writing 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 biodiversity.
05
Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that
required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not
commence until Parts A to D of this condition have been complied with. 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 that
contamination.
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)
(ii)
and
(iii)
a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
an assessment of the potential risks to:
human health;
property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland
service lines and pipes;
adjoining land;
ground waters and surface waters;
ecological systems;
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.
47
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.
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.
06
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (and any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order),
other than development expressly authorised by this permission, there shall be no
development under Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Order in respect of:
•
•
•
•
Class A: The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwelling house,
including extensions to the property and the insertion or replacement of doors and
windows.
Class B: The enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of an addition or alteration
to its roof.
Class C: Any other alteration to the roof of a dwelling house.
Class E: Development within the curtilage of a dwelling house.
Or Schedule 2, 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.
Unless consent has firstly be granted in the form of a separate planning permission.
Reason 1: To ensure that the local planning authority retains control over the specified
classes of development normally permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any amending legislation), in order to safeguard the
amenity of neighbours.
07
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried except in complete accordance with
the following amended plans, reference BR/0912/101 A-1A 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.
48
Note to Applicant
01
The applicant’s attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should
02
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
PAYABLE on the development hereby approved as is detailed below:
Dev Types
Residential
(C3)
Industrial
(B1b, B1c,
B2, B8)
Retail
Totals
A
Net Area
(GIA in Sq.
M)
B
CIL Rate
C
Indexation
at date of
permission
(220 until
1st January
2012)
Proposed
floorspace
(GIA in Sq.
M)
Less Existing
(Demolition
or Change of
Use)
(GIA in Sq.
M)
Includes %
splits
CIL
Charge
185
0
185
£45
222
£8400.68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
0
0
0
185
0
£45
0
222
0
£8400.68
CIL Rate (B) x Chargeable Floor Area (A) x C (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Permission)
220 (BCIS Tender Price Index at Date of Charging Schedule)
03
This application has been the subject of discussions during the application process to ensure
that the proposal is acceptable. The District Planning Authority has accordingly worked
positively and pro-actively, seeking solutions to problems arising in coming to its decision.
This is fully in accordance with Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) Order 2010 (as amended).
04
49
From the East Midlands Regional Plan (adopted 2009)
• Policy 3 Distribution of New Development
• Policy Northern SRS1 Sub Regional Development Priorities
From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted 1999)
Saved Policy C1 Development in Conservation Areas
From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted
March 2011)
• Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design
• Core Policy 14 Historic Environment
• Spatial Policy 1 Settlement Hierarchy
• Spatial Policy 2 Spatial Distribution of Growth
50
51
52
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8(a)
APPEALS A
APPEALS LODGED (received between 21 January 2013 – 18 February 2013)
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 Matt Lamb on Ext 5842 or [email protected].
C Walker
Director of Growth
53
54
Application number
12/01206/FUL
Application number
12/00385/FUL
Application number
12/01251/FUL
Application number
12/01005/FUL
Appeal reference
APP/B3030/D/13/2190245
Appeal reference
APP/B3030/A/12/2187941/NWF
Appeal reference
APP/B3030/D/13/2191547
Appeal reference
APP/B3030/A/12/2189653/NWF
Bramley Meadows
Fiskerton Road
Bleasby
Nottinghamshire
Address
The Grange Lodge
Newark Road
Caunton
Newark On Trent
Nottinghamshire
NG23 6AE
Address
Cover Point
Halloughton
Nottinghamshire
NG25 0QP
Address
3 The Cedars
Syerston
Newark
NG23 5ND
Address
Procedure
Written Representation
Erection of a pair of single
storey semi detached earth
sheltered dwellings
Householder Appeal
Householder application for
conversion of single storey
dwelling into a two storey
dwelling, including an open
front porch. Demolition of
single garage and external
store. (Resubmission)
Proposal
Procedure
Erection of new dwelling with
integral garage and associated
landscaping works
Proposal
Procedure
Householder Appeal
Householder application for
erection of single storey
extension and internal
alterations
Proposal
Procedure
Proposal
55
12/00748/FUL
12/01112/FUL
APP/B3030/A/13/2190599/NWF
APP/B3030/A/12/2185034/NWF
Application number
Appeal reference
Application number
12/01375/FUL
APP/B3030/A/12/2189114/NWF
Appeal reference
Application number
Appeal reference
29 Barnby Gate
Newark On Trent
Nottinghamshire
NG24 1PX
Address
Unit 5-7
Local Centre
Rubys Avenue
Fernwood
Newark On Trent
Nottinghamshire
NG24 3RQ
Address
The Red Lion Public
House
Southwell Road
Thurgarton
Nottinghamshire
NG14 7GP
Address
Procedure
Erection of two single storey
dwellings (Revised scheme
incorporating 2 No. two
bedroom dwellings)
Installation of 2No. wall
mounted condenser units to the
rear
Proposal
Procedure
To construct dormer bungalow.
Proposal
Procedure
Proposal
56
Application number
11/00704/OUT
Appeal reference
APP/B3030/A/13/2191009/NWF
Land To The Rear Of
Majeka
Wellow Road
Ollerton
Nottinghamshire
NG22 9AX
Address
Procedure
Proposal
Erection of 5no 1.5 storey
detached dwellings
57
Land Off
North Gate
Newark On Trent
Nottinghamshire
Address
M C B Bros Ltd, Lowfield Farm
Gainsborough Road
Langford
Newark
NG23 7RN
11/01067/OUTM
App No.
12/01011/FUL
Decision date
06.02.2013
Decision
ALLOW
Change of use of agricultural
building to use for repair and
maintenance of plant and
machinery
08.02.2013
ALLOW
Proposed retail development
comprising 6 Units for Bulky
Goods/ Open A1/ Open A1
Convenience uses and provision of
car parking
Proposal
Decision date
Decision
C Walker
Director of Growth
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8(b)
Proposal
For further information please contact Matt Lamb on Ext 5842 or [email protected].
Application case files.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
RECOMMENDATION
That the report be noted.
Address
App No.
APPENDIX B: APPEALS DETERMINED (APPEALS B)
58
Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 22, 23 and 24 January 2013
Site visit made on 24 January 2013
by George Mapson
DipTP DipLD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 8 February 2013
Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/A/12/2174284
Land off North Gate Newark, Newark on Trent, Nottinghamshire, NG24 1HD
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Philip Rowe against Newark & Sherwood District Council.
The application Ref 11/01067/OUTM, is dated 1 August 20111.
The development proposed is described on the application form as: “Proposed erection
of retail development comprising Bulky Goods/Open A1/Open A1 Convenience uses and
provision of car parking to serve same.”
Summary of decision: The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, subject
to the conditions set out in Schedule 1.
Preliminary matters
The appellant company
1.
At the inquiry, it was pointed out that although the application and the appeal have
been made in the name of Mr Philip Rowe, this was solely because the constraints of
Planning Portal’s online application and appeals services. The Portal requires an
individual name to be provided in the first instance, with a separate field for a company
name to be inserted.
2.
The appellant company is ‘Newark Property Developments Limited’ and the intention
was for the application and appeal to be made in the company name. I shall therefore
treat the applicant/appellant in this case as being ‘Mr Philip Rowe (Newark Property
Developments Limited)’ [‘the appellant company’].
The appeal site and proposals
The appeal site
3.
The appeal site occupies an important gateway position on a main arterial route into
Newark from the north. It is prominently located between the road and the River Trent
and its riverside walkway. It is within the Newark Conservation Area.
4.
It was formerly part of the Warwick and Richardsons Brewery site, an area of the land
that the appellant company owns and has been trying to redevelop for many years.
Part of the site has been developed. One of two listed buildings on the site, the main
1
The application was dated 29 July 2011, submitted on 1 August 2011 and registered by the Council on 2 August
2011.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
59
Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/12/2174284
brewery building, has been restored and converted into 54 residential apartments and
3 retail units. The other listed building, ‘The Maltings’, remains in a state of disrepair.
5.
The planning permission for the conversion of the brewery building included the
approval for residential development on the appeal site, but the downturn in the
housing market has meant that the sales of the apartments in the converted building
have stalled and the proposed new build housing is no longer considered to be viable.
The appeal proposal
6.
The proposal is for a new retail warehouse park with 6 units (A-F). The development
would provide about 4,960 sqm of gross internal floorspace on the ground floor and
about 1,794 sqm of mezzanine space, giving a total to 6,754 sqm gross internal
floorspace. The development is intended to meet the requirements of bulky goods
retailers for whom alternative sites in Newark town centre would be either unavailable
or unviable.
7.
Units A and F would be for open (unrestricted) retail use for convenience goods. Units
B-C would be restricted by a planning condition to bulky comparison goods.
8.
Units A and F would occupy frontage positions and have been brought forward on the
site for townscape reasons, given the importance of the street scene to the character
and appearance of this part of the conservation area and the setting of the nearby
listed buildings.
9.
The planning application was submitted in outline. ‘Access’, ‘layout’ and ‘scale’ formed
part of it, with ‘appearance’ and ‘landscaping’ reserved for subsequent approval.
The passage of the planning application and the DPD process
10. The appellant company, through its agents Urbis Ltd (Architects), began preapplication discussions with the Council in February 2011, with a first meeting taking
place in March 2011. This was almost nine months before consultation began on the
Council’s Site Allocations and Development Management DPD (October 2011).
11. After making extensive changes to the scheme to satisfy the Council’s requirements,
the planning application was submitted in August 2011. The proposal was justified by
a PPS4 statement.
12. Over the nine month period between its submission and its consideration by the
Planning Committee on 12 April 2012, the scheme was subject to further detailed
discussions and amendments. The Council informed Urbis Ltd that it would be
determined under the planning and development policy existing at that time and that it
was considered to be acceptable in terms of PPS4.
13. The Council sought expert retail advice from Alyn Nichols & Associates [ANA], who
produced an initial appraisal of the scheme in October 2011. The gist of that
appraisal’s conclusions was that a refusal of planning permission on retail policy
grounds might not be defensible. In November 2011 the appellant company provided a
further statement, which was audited by ANA and was apparently agreed in January
2012 with no fresh issues being raised.
14. At that time the Council had begun to make progress with its Allocations and
Development Management DPD. The Council sought ANA’s view on whether the appeal
proposal would give rise to concerns about prematurity and was advised that it would
not. The application was reported to the Planning Committee with a recommendation
that outline planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions.
15. However, the Committee resolved that it was ‘minded to refuse’ the application.
Although no putative reasons for refusal have been issued, the matters of concern to
the Members were:
2
60
1) That there was scope to disaggregate components of the scheme and, on that
basis, there were other sites that would be sequentially preferable to the appeal
site;
2) That approval of this scheme might prejudice full consideration of alternative sites
in the context of the Allocations and Development Management DPD;
3) That the prospects of the scheme being developed and occupied were uncertain,
having regard to current market conditions; and
4) That there is an extant planning permission for residential development on the land,
which if not implemented would have an adverse impact on the Council’s five year
housing supply.
16. There were also criticisms of the layout of the proposed development.
The statement of common ground
17. The parties agree that the appeal proposal would have no significant adverse impact on
the vitality and viability of Newark town centre, subject to the imposition of
appropriately worded conditions that have been agreed.
18. Despite the Members’ criticisms, it has been agreed that there are no objections to the
design of the proposal, in terms of the layout, the proposed access improvements, the
scale parameters or the indications of appearance on the illustrative plans. The
development would have no adverse impact on the character or appearance of the
conservation area or on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. It would have no
adverse impact on the local highway network or on the safety of road users. It would
not undermine the maintenance of a five year supply of housing land within the
District.
Main issues
19. The areas of dispute between the parties relate to the ‘sequential test’ and
‘prematurity’, the first two matters of concern to the Members.
20. That being the case, the main issues in this appeal are:
1) Whether by applying the appropriate degree of flexibility to the appeal proposals, or
part of them, there are any sequentially preferable locations in Newark for this type
of retail development that are both suitable and available; and
2) Whether approval of the appeal development would prejudice full consideration of
alternative sites in the context of the Allocations and Development Management
DPD, having regard to the limited capacity for additional retail warehouse
development in Newark.
Other matters
21. The other two matters of concern to the Members relate to the impact on housing land
supply and the viability of the proposed scheme.
22. Housing land supply: The Council’s Rule 6 statement confirms that it is not part of the
Council’s case to suggest that approval of the appeal proposal would create a shortfall
in available housing land. As mentioned above, this is also the position taken in the
statement of common ground.
23. Viability: The appellant company’s advocate said that the Council’s commercial agent
had been asked to present a case on the basis that some of the units would not be
viable for their prospective occupants. However, without having detailed financial
information from the appellant company and the requirements of the as yet unknown
prospective occupiers, he would be in no position to make such a case.
3
61
24. He argued that the United Kingdom operates a free market economy, not a command
economy, and the planning system is not concerned about whether or not a proposed
development would be profitable for the developer, unless there would be land use
consequences. For example, cases of an enabling development to secure a certain
benefit. That does not apply here.
Planning policy
The development plan
25. The Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011): A number of policies have been cited
that have relevance to this proposal. Some seek to promote the regeneration of
under-used urban brownfield sites in Newark. Others promote the growth of retailing
and other town centre uses, to maintain the vitality and viability of existing centres. I
have taken full account of their provisions and objectives.
26. Of these policies, Core Policy 8 (Retail hierarchy) is particularly relevant. It states that
Newark town centre will be the principal focus of new and enhanced retail and other
town centre activity in the District. Retail development in out of centre locations will be
strictly controlled by utilising the policies within PPS4 (now the National Planning Policy
Framework [‘the Framework’]. Proposals will need to demonstrate their suitability
through a sequential site approach and provide a robust assessment of their impact on
nearby centres.
27. Policy NAP 1(9) (Newark Urban Area; Newark Town Centre) promotes the town centre
as the focal point of retail, leisure and office development, and states that the Council
will identify opportunities for improving the retail provision in and on the edge of the
centre to reduce travel to other centres outside the District. The Allocations and
Development Management DPD should identify capacity for new and improved
convenience/comparison goods, including opportunities to improve home, furnishing,
gardening and other bulky goods.
28. The Newark and Sherwood District Council Local Plan (adopted March 1999): Some
parts of the local plan remain in force following the adoption of the Core Strategy. Of
relevance to this appeal is ‘saved’ policy S3 (Retail Warehouses, Supermarkets and
Superstores’), a criteria-based policy that sets out site requirements that must be met.
It states that sites should have good access to the main road network, be accessible by
a choice of means of transport and have sufficient land for parking and servicing. The
proposed development should not add significantly to the overall number and length of
car trips.
29. The policy states that in determining applications, the District Council will have regard
to opportunities for retail development to make use of derelict or under-used land or to
secure the retention in effective use of buildings of architectural interest.
30. Paragraph 9.27 of the supporting text adds that this encouragement applies in cases
where an out of centre location is acceptable. It explains that new retail warehouse,
supermarket or superstore development should be located within or on the edge of the
Central Shopping Area. However, where no such sites are available, planning
permission may be granted on out of-centre sites provided it would not undermine the
vitality and viability of the town centre or add significantly to the overall number and
length of car trips.
National planning guidance
31. The National Planning Policy Framework: The Framework was published on 27 March
2012 and replaced a raft of PPGs and PPSs, including PPS4. PPS4 (Policy EC15)
required a more rigorous sequential test than that contained in the Framework. For
example, it is not part of the Framework’s sequential test for applicants to demonstrate
that a proposal has scope for disaggregation.
4
62
32. The Planning System: General Principles: This ODPM document was published in 2005.
It accompanied the publication of PPS1 and remains extant. Paragraphs 17-19 provide
the only national planning guidance on prematurity.
33. Planning for Town Centres, Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and Sequential
Approach: This DCLG document was published in December 2009 as a Companion
Guide to PPS4 and remains extant. The sequential approach is set out at paragraphs
5.4-5.7, and the onus rests on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with it.
Need for additional retail warehousing in Newark
34. The GVA Grimley Retail Study (2010) showed that the District’s retail warehouse
provision is performing poorly. The householder telephone survey showed that
residents in the north and south of the District are using retail parks that are located in
neighbouring authorities. This is perhaps unsurprising given the proximity to Lincoln
and Nottingham. Nevertheless, the global forecasts indicated that there is capacity in
the longer term for additional comparison goods floorspace in the District over the
period up to 2026.
35. The Study warned that a ‘do nothing’ approach to Newark’s retail strategy could
jeopardise the town centre’s position in the retail hierarchy2, especially in the light of
the large scale retail developments that are coming through the pipeline in competing
centres.
36. The Council has accepted that there is need for additional retail warehousing in Newark
to meet an existing qualitative deficiency and an imminent quantitative deficiency,
which will rise by 2019.
37. The Council supports the redevelopment of the NSK site on Northern Road, rather than
the appeal site, to meet this deficiency. The NSK site3 is allocated for mixed use
development on the Core Strategy Proposals Map. It is envisaged that this site could
accommodate around 150 dwellings, some employment use, and retail provision of up
to 10,000 sqm net floor space.
38. At the inquiry the parties reviewed the retail expenditure capacity figures in the GVA
Grimley Retail Study, and the assumptions on which they were made, in the light of
current economic conditions. They produced revised figures for the period up to 20264.
It was agreed that there would be sufficient capacity to support only one new retail
warehouse site in Newark.
Reasoning
Issue 1– The Sequential Test
39. The appeal proposal represents a substantial new retail development outside the town
centre. If sites outside the town centre are to be considered for such development
they must be subjected to the sequential test, and that test must demonstrate that a
flexible approach has been taken to the proposal. The Council contends that this
entails considering whether there was scope for disaggregation of the proposals such
that sequentially preferable sites or premises might accommodate some of its
components.
40. The Council agreed that disaggregation should apply only to units B, C, D and E,
because units A and F would not be subject to a bulky goods restriction.
41. The appellant company’s case has three strands. Firstly, that the scheme’s compliance
with the more robust requirements of PPS4 for the sequential test was confirmed by
2
Newark acts as the main shopping and service centre for the surrounding rural area and is also defined as a SubRegional centre in the East Midlands Regional Plan [Core Strategy Policy 8 and paragraph 5.28]
3
‘Mixed Use Site 3 (NUA/MU/3)
4
See Document 1.8
5
63
ANA5 and the officer’s Committee report of 12 June 20126. There has been no
subsequent change in circumstances, in terms of the range or scope of alternative
sequentially preferable sites in Newark.
42. Secondly, that whilst the Framework calls for flexibility from appellants and local
planning authorities when considering the format and scale of a development proposal,
there is no policy requirement for disaggregation7. The appellant company has
demonstrated flexibility in altering the design and layout to address the Council’s wish
to see a high quality scheme that is appropriate to this important site. That should be
sufficient.
43. Thirdly, the sites suggested by the Council as being sequentially preferable were the
Co-operative premises on Victoria Street and the Beaumond Cross Shopping Centre
(Potterdyke), between Lombard Street and Portland Street, near the town centre. The
sites are either not available or not suitable. Tellingly, the Council has not promoted
the NSK site as sequentially preferable to the appeal site.
44. At the inquiry the parties agreed that the Co-operative premises are likely to be let to
B&M Bargains and the Council conceded that, although it is not unavailable as matters
currently stand, it is unlikely to be offered to the wider market.
45. That leaves only Beaumond Cross with available retail space. This is a new shopping
centre, phase 1 of which opened at Easter 2012. It has a new on-site bus station and
offers over 100,000 sq ft (9,290 sqm) of open A1 retail floorspace, anchored by a new
Asda foodstore, with a basement and ground level car park. Being close to the
established town centre, it occupies a more sequentially preferable location than the
appeal site.
46. Beaumond Cross contains eight retail units of between 97.5 sqm and 362 sqm ground
floor space, some of which are vacant and available. The Council argued that these
units provide substantial flexible space of sufficient size to accommodate at least one of
the bulky goods units from the appeal proposal, if disaggregated from the whole
scheme.
47. For example, units 3 and 4 could be combined to provide over 700 sqm of ground floor
space. As the smallest unit within the proposed development is 523 sqm, it could be
accommodated within these combined units.
48. The appellant company’s position was that disaggregation is neither required by policy,
nor a realistic and viable option. However, if it is right to disaggregate then
theoretically one of more of the proposed units on the appeal site could be squeezed
into the vacant units at Beaumond Cross.
49. However, there has been no apparent interest in Beaumond Cross from retail
warehouse operators. They have had the chance to take up some of the available
space there, but none has chosen to do so.
50. The units at Beaumond Cross are unattractive to retail warehouse operators. They
have been added as an adjunct to a secondary car park to the Asda foodstore. They
are accessed via the exit route from the foodstore. They lack visibility, presence,
footfall and any meaningful association with the town centre. They were evidently
designed for high street retailers, operating small format stores with little need or use
5
The ANA report of January 2012 (paragraph 4.16) concluded that : “Within the town centre the [appellant
company’s] sequential assessment has sought to identify existing vacant premises and concludes that none of
these are (sic) suitable available or viable to satisfy the requirement that would be met by the proposed
development. In our view this conclusion is fair.”
6
The planning officer’s report (page 27) stated: “it is agreed that there are no sequentially preferable sites.”
7
The appellant’s advocate drew attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City
Council [2012] UKSC 13 (21 March 2012). On the facts of that case, it held that there was no need to
demonstrate disaggregation of a large Asda when considering the need to demonstrate flexibility. Furthermore it
concluded that ‘suitable’ should be taken to mean ‘suitable for the development proposed by the applicant’, rather
than ‘suitable for meeting the identified deficiencies in retail provision in the area’.
6
64
for large areas of floorspace for displaying their goods. They were not designed for
retail warehouse operators who have very different requirements.
51. Even though the retail warehouse sector is one where new retailing formats are
continually developing and evolving to meet changing customer needs and preferences,
it continues to be one based on large space formats, economies of scale and easy
access. There is little to suggest that the units at Beaumond Cross would be equipped
to meet the needs of this sector. Consequently, I find that Beaumond Cross does not
represent a suitable, sequentially preferable site to the appeal site for retail warehouse
development.
52. In coming to this conclusion I note the view expressed by ANA in the report of January
2012 (paragraph 4.11) that “with regards to the suitability of the units for bulky goods
retailing, we accept that they are unlikely to be acceptable for genuine bulky goods
retailers.”
53. Furthermore, I note the opinion of the planning officer in the Committee report on 12
April 2012 (paragraph 27) that “Whilst the Potterdyke [Beaumond Cross] scheme has
vacant units of various sizes that could accommodate additional non-food retailing,
none are (sic) likely to be suitable for genuine bulky goods retailers nor indeed would
this (sic) be desirable for them to locate in the town centre.”
54. Finally, I turn to consider the factors that weigh in favour of the appeal site as a
sequentially preferable out of centre location for a retail warehouse development. The
Framework, at paragraph 24 states that “When considering edge of centre and out of
centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected
to the town centre.”
55. The principal factor in favour of the appeal site is its location on a main road between
the town centre and Northgate Retail Park. It enjoys good accessibility and good
visibility to the passing public.
56. It is adjacent to Northgate Retail Park, a well established retail warehouse location that
serves the Newark catchment area. While the profile of this retail park has
strengthened in recent years, the profile of some solus retail warehouses elsewhere
has declined. The appeal site would benefit from the profile of the retail park and the
clustering effect that comes from close proximity to it, as have the solus retail units of
Aldi and Halfords. It would therefore be well placed to take advantage of the customer
base that the retail park attracts.
57. I consider that the appellant company has applied the appropriate degree of flexibility
to the appeal proposals. I conclude on the first main issue that there are no suitable or
available sequentially preferable locations for this type of retail development in Newark.
Issue 2 – Prematurity
58. Paragraph 17 of ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ states that in some
circumstances, it may be justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of
prematurity where a DPD is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been
adopted.
59. This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or where the
cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting permission could prejudice the
DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new
development which are being addressed in the policy in the DPD.
60. Paragraph 19 makes clear where the onus of proof lies. It states that where planning
permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the planning authority will need to
demonstrate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would
prejudice the outcome of the DPD process.
7
65
61. The Council’s case is that approval of the proposed development would be premature
pending the resolution of representations to the Allocations and Development
Management DPD. It argued that the Allocations and Development Management DPD
has reached an advanced stage. The examination has been concluded and some postexamination modifications have been published for consultation. Once the consultation
process has been completed, the examining Inspector will compile her report.
62. The first point to make is that the appeal proposal complies with current development
plan policy. Its suitability has been demonstrated through the sequential approach, in
compliance with paragraph 24 of the Framework. There is no evidence to show that it
would have a materially adverse impact on nearby centres, including the town centre,
or that there is a better location in Newark for retail warehouse development of the
type proposed. It would therefore assist, not undermine, the objectives of Core
Strategy Policies CS8 and NAP1.
63. The appeal proposal also satisfies ‘saved’ policy S3 of the local plan. The site has good
access to the main road network, is accessible by a choice of means of transport and
has sufficient land for parking and servicing. It would not add significantly to the
overall number and length of car trips.
64. Moreover, it would assist the regeneration of under-used land that is close to Newark
town centre and on an important arterial route to it. It would assist in securing the
retention and the effective use of ‘The Maltings’, a listed building which is in urgent
need of restoration.
65. The site is available now to meet the specific need for additional bulky goods retailing
in Newark that was identified in the GVA Retail Study of 2010. Its development in the
short term, rather than medium or long term, would assist the objective of maintaining
Newark’s position in the retail hierarchy. Consequently, significant benefits would arise
from the appeal proposal.
66. Having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is at the
heart of the Framework (paragraph 14), and the exhortation that decision making
“means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan
without delay”, it is clear that planning permission should be granted.
67. This was the view of the planning officer, whose report of 12 April 2012 (page 28) dealt
specifically with the prematurity issue and the likely impact of the appeal development
on the ability of the NSK site to be redeveloped during the Plan period. It stated that
“ANA therefore advise that a decision to approve development at this site [the appeal
site] should not preclude a retail development on the NSK site within the Plan period.
Equally, in the officer’s submission, it is not necessary to allocate the current site [the
appeal site] for retail use given the pending application.”
68. The Council has not promoted the NSK site as a sequentially preferable site for a retail
warehouse development, or that it would assist the regeneration of under-used land.
The NSK site is not sequentially preferable to the appeal site and is currently in
employment use. It is being promoted to enable the company to relocate to another
site within the District because of its role as a major employer. The Council’s concern,
and that of NSK (Europe) Ltd, is that that objective would be undermined if this appeal
were to be allowed.
69. However, the draft allocation of the NSK site (and some adjoining land) is for a mixed
use development. In terms of its nature and scale, the NSK redevelopment would be
quite different from the development proposed on the appeal site. The appeal
development is much smaller and is focussed on bulky goods retail warehousing. The
appellant company’s aim is to utilise an unused site to meet a qualitative need that was
identified in the Core Strategy. The aim of the NSK scheme is to redevelop a site that
is already in beneficial use based on future retail capacity which would not come on line
until 2019 at the earliest.
8
66
70. I believe that significant benefits would arise from the appeal proposal and they should
be realised sooner rather than later. Having regard to the presumption in favour of
sustainable development, which is at the heart of the Framework, and the exhortation
that decision making “means approving development proposals that accord with the
development plan without delay” (paragraph 14), it is clear to me that planning
permission should be granted.
71. I conclude on the second main issue that approval of the appeal development would
not prejudice full consideration of alternative sites in the context of the Allocations and
Development Management DPD to the extent that planning permission should be
refused for the appeal development.
Overall conclusions
72. I have taken account of all the matters raised at the inquiry and in the written
representations from all the parties, and also my observations at the appeal site and
other sites in Newark that I was invited to view. For the reasons given I have decided
that the appeal should be allowed and that outline planning permission should be
granted, subject to conditions.
Conditions
73. At the inquiry the appellant and Council submitted a list of conditions and the reasons
for them. After some discussion and amendment, this list was agreed.
74. I have considered that list and also the advice in Circular 11/85 and have decided to
impose the conditions that are set out in Schedule 1 (page 10). For completeness, I
have set out in Schedule 2 (page 15) the reasons for imposing these conditions, some
of which differ from those that were put forward by the parties8.
Formal decision
75. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the proposed
erection of retail development comprising Bulky Goods/Open A1/Open A1 Convenience
uses and provision of car parking to serve the development on land off North Gate
Newark, Newark on Trent, Nottinghamshire, NG24 1HD in accordance with the terms of
the application, Ref 11/01067/OUTM, dated 1 August 2011, and the plans submitted
with it, subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1 attached.
George Mapson
INSPECTOR
8
The parties agreed that, at a later date, the appellant company might be required to ‘tweak’ the planning
permission in order to meet the specific needs of prospective operators of the units. This might entail applications
under s.96A or s.73, or possibly s.79 if it entailed a variation of a condition. In such a case a clear understanding
of the reasons for imposing the conditions would be required.
9
67
SCHEDULE 1: CONDITIONS
1)
Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local
planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.
2)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the
date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
3)
No development shall be commenced on site until details of a phasing scheme
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
This scheme should detail how the phases that are not developed out in the early
stages will be secured and treated. The development shall thereafter be
constructed in accordance with the approved phasing scheme.
4)
Details of the appearance and landscaping (hereinafter called ‘the reserved
matters’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority before any development begins pursuant of its respective phase and
the development shall be carried out as approved.
5)
Applications for the approval of the reserved matters shall be in accordance with
the principles and parameters described and illustrated in the following drawings
a) to d) below, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority
through the approval of a non-material amendment to the consent. Maximum
scale parameters for the buildings are; Buildings A to E would be a maximum
height of 14m (including any chimneys) whilst Building F would have a maximum
height of 7m.
a) Drawing No. PL07 (Site Layout);
b) Drawing No. PL08 Rev F (Proposed Ground Floor Plan);
c) Drawing No.PL10-13 Rev C (Proposed Site Sections); and
d) Drawing No. PL14 (Section through River Edge).
6)
No development shall take place within the application site until a programme of
archaeological work has been implemented in accordance with a written scheme
of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details. The developer shall afford access to the site at all
reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the local planning authority
and allow the archaeologist to observe the excavations and record items of
interest and finds.
7)
Unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority, development other than
that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation
must not commence until Parts A to D of this condition have been complied with.
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 that contamination.
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 the matters a)
to c) below:
10
68
a) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
b) an assessment of the potential risks to: (i) human health; (ii) property
(existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,
woodland and service lines and pipes; (iii) adjoining land; (iv)
groundwaters and surface waters; (v) ecological systems; and (vi)
c) 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 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.
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.
8)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a
timetable for the implementation of the flood compensation scheme at Appendix
D (drawing reference NTW/1500 Rev B) of the BWB’s Flood Risk and Water
Environment Report has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local
planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed in accordance
within a timescale which shall be firstly agreed in writing by the local planning
authority and in any event prior to first occupation of any unit.
9)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a surface water
drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an
assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development,
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved
details before the development is completed.
11
69
10)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a scheme to
install oil and petrol separators has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.
11)
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in
complete accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated July
2011, reference number NTW/1500/FRA Rev B compiled by BWB Consulting and
the following mitigation measures a) and b) below, as detailed within the FRA.
These are:
a) finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 12.45m above Ordnance
Datum (AOD).
b) surface water run-off generated by the development shall limited so that
it would not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site and would not
increase the risk of flooding off-site.
12)
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied or brought into
use until:
a) details of (i) the permanent closure of existing site accesses that have
been made redundant as a consequence of this permission and (ii) the
reinstatement of the access crossing as a footway, have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and
b) the works have been carried out in full accordance with the approved
details.
13)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the
pedestrian link between the development and the Riverside Walk and the
adjacent Brewery Site (outlined in blue) in accordance with the drawing numbers
PL07, PL10_Rev C and PL14 have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. These details shall include a full specification of
surface treatments and any means of associated enclosure. The approved
scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation.
14)
use until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority (LPA). The Travel Plan shall set out proposals (including
targets, a timetable and enforcement mechanism) to promote travel by
sustainable modes which are acceptable to the LPA and shall include
arrangements for monitoring of progress of the proposals. The Travel Plan shall
be implemented in accordance with the timetable set out in that plan.
15)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of
measures to prevent the deposit of debris upon the adjacent public highway
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to any other works
commencing on site.
16)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of a
scheme for the parking of cycles within the application site has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall
include the design, materials, amount and specification. The cycle stands shall be
located near to the main entrance to the development, be covered and that area
shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of cycles. No
part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until
provision has been made for the parking of cycles in accordance with the
approved details.
17)
use until the parking/turning/servicing areas are provided in accordance with the
approved plans. The parking/turning/servicing areas shall be retained thereafter
12
70
and shall not be used for any purpose other than parking/turning/loading and
unloading of vehicles.
18)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced 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, of the matters listed a) to e) below, have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved
details.
a) external windows including roof windows, doors and their immediate
surroundings, including details of glazing and glazing bars;
b) treatment of window and door heads and cills;
c) verges and eaves;
d) rainwater goods; and
e) extractor vents.
19)
Any application for Reserved Matters shall be accompanied by a detailed scheme
for both hard and soft landscape works which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be
carried out as approved. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the
nature conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant
species. The details shall include:
a) 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.
b) proposed finished ground levels or contours;
c) proposed means of enclosures (including noise attenuation measures
adjacent to the service yard);
d) car parking layouts and materials;
e) other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas;
f) hard surfacing materials;
g) minor artefacts and structures for example, furniture, refuse units, signs,
lighting etc.); and
h) retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where
relevant.
20)
The approved soft landscaping shall be completed during the first planting
season following the commencement of the development, or such longer period
as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Any trees/shrubs
which, within a period of five years of being planted die, are removed or become
seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with
others of similar size and species unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority. The approved hard landscaping shall be implemented in full.
21)
No raw materials, equipment, finished products or waste materials shall be
stored outside buildings other than in accordance with details to be approved in
writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of such
storage. Thereafter any external storage shall be located in accordance with the
approved details.
22)
Units A to F of the development hereby approved shall not be open to customers
outside the following times: 08.00 and 20.00 on any day.
13
71
23)
Servicing of Units A, B, C, D and E of the development hereby approved shall not
take place outside the following times: 9.00 to 10.30 and 19.00 to 21.00.
24)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a Service
Management Plan in relation to the servicing of Unit F of the development has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Thereafter Unit F shall be serviced only in accordance with the agreed Plan.
25)
use until full details of any proposed air conditioning equipment or other external
plant has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The approved equipment and plant shall be installed strictly in
accordance with the approved details.
26)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a scheme
detailing security measures for designing out crime at the site has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This
scheme shall include the provision of CCTV covering the public spaces within the
curtilage of the site, appropriate external lighting and details of any physical
barriers to lock off areas when the premises are closed. The approved details
shall be installed on site prior to first occupation and thereafter be retained for
the lifetime of the development.
27)
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development Order) 1995 as amended and the provisions of the Town
and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended:
a) Unit A on Drawing PL07 shall not exceed 1,375 square metres gross
internal floorspace;
b) Units B to E on Drawing PL07 shall not in aggregate exceed 4,540 square
metres gross internal floorspace and shall not be used for the sale of any
goods other than those within the following categories:
(i)
Electrical goods and other domestic appliances;
(ii)
Bathroom suites – furniture and accessories; kitchen units –
furniture and accessories, floor and wall tiles;
(iii)
DIY products, materials, tools and machinery for the repair,
maintenance or improvement of the home, the garden and
motor vehicles;
(iv)
Motor and cycle goods; and
(v)
Furniture, bedding, floor coverings, soft furnishings and
textiles.
c) Unit F on Drawing PL07 shall not exceed 840 square metres gross internal
floorspace and shall not be used for the sale of convenience goods, but
may be used for the bulk sale of wines and spirits.
28)
No retail unit shown on Drawing PL07 shall be subdivided to create a unit with a
gross internal floorspace of less than 523 square metres.
29)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a priority
junction on Northgate has been provided in accordance with the scheme shown
on drawing no. BMT/120/TT/001Rev P3.
30)
The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a scheme for
improvements to the Northgate/Queens Road junction has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme
shall provide MOVA traffic signal control and nearside pedestrian detection
facilities (or similar arrangements to provide the same effect). The approved
scheme shall be completed prior to first occupation of any of the units.
14
72
SCHEDULE 2: REASONS FOR CONDITIONS
1)
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2)
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
3)
In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the scheme is delivered in
an appropriate manner.
4)
This is a planning permission in outline only and the information required is
necessary for the consideration of the detailed proposal.
5)
The application is in outline and the local planning authority wishes to ensure
that the details which have not yet been submitted are in accordance with the
scale parameters set out in the outline application.
6)
In order to afford appropriate protection for the potential archaeological
significances of the site.
7)
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.
8)
To reduce the impact of the development on the floodplain of the River Trent.
9)
To prevent the increased risk of flooding and ensure future maintenance of the
drainage system.
10)
To protect ground and surface water from pollution.
11)
To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future
occupants and to prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage
of/disposal of surface water from the site.
12)
In the interests of highway safety.
13)
To provide adequate and safe access to neighbouring developments and to
promote sustainable transport links.
14)
To promote sustainable transport.
15)
To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited on the public
highway (loose stones etc).
16)
To promote sustainable transport.
17)
To ensure that adequate off-street parking, servicing and turning provision is
made to reduce the possibility of the proposed development leading to on-street
parking in the area, and in the interests of safety and convenience on the site.
18)
In the interests of visual amenity and in order to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the conservation area.
19)
20)
In the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity and in order to preserve or
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.
21)
To ensure that the work is carried out within a reasonable period and thereafter
properly maintained, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity and in
order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation
area.
15
73
22)
23)
To reduce conflicts between customers and deliveries/servicing of the units and
safeguard the living conditions occupiers of nearby dwellings.
24)
To reduce conflicts between customers and deliveries/servicing of the units and
safeguard the living conditions occupiers of nearby dwellings.
25)
In the interests of safety and convenience of the public using the adjacent
parking area and to safeguard the living conditions occupiers of nearby
dwellings.
26)
In the interests of designing out crime and in order to fulfil the duties imposed
under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended.
27)
In order to protect the vitality and viability of the town centre from significant
harm, to ensure that the range of goods sold is appropriate for the site’s location
and layout and to control the character of the development.
28)
In order to protect the vitality and viability of the town centre from significant
harm and to control the character of the development.
29)
In the interests of highway safety and capacity.
30)
In the interests of highway safety and capacity.
16
74
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Ian Ponter
Of Counsel, instructed by
officers of Newark & Sherwood District Council
He called
Mr Alyn Nicholls
Alyn Nichols & Associates,
Chartered Town Planners,
Huddersfield
Mr Stephen Perrett
BSc (Hons) MRICS
Partner, Cheetham & Mortimer,
Chartered Surveyors
Councillor Roger Blaney
MA (Hons)
Member of the Planning Committee,
Mr Matthew Norton
MA (Hons) MRTPI
Business Manager – Planning Policy,
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Paul Tucker
Queen’s Counsel, instructed by
Peter Brett Associates LLP
He called
Mr Graham Chase
FRICS FCIArb FRSA
Chairman,
Chase & Partners LLP
Mr Jonathan Wadcock
BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
Associate,
Peter Brett Associates LLP
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr Bob Woollard
BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
Associate Director,
Capita Symonds, Nottingham
representing NSK (Europe) Ltd
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
1. Documents submitted on behalf of the Council
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6.
1.7.
1.8.
1.9.
Appearances on behalf of the Council
The Council’s letter of notification of the appeal and public inquiry, and the list of
people notified
Opening submissions
Statement of Common Ground correction
Revised Statement of Common Ground (agreed between Graham Chase and
Stephen Perrett)
List of suggested conditions v.1
List of suggested conditions v.2
Update of capacity requirement (agreed capacity figures 23/1/2013)
Closing submissions
17
75
2. Documents submitted on behalf of the appellant
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
Appearances on behalf of the appellant
Opening submissions
Revised Appendix 10 to Mr Wadcock’s Proof of Evidence (additional document)
[Site Allocations and Development Management DPD Examination in Public Day 4
(18 December 2012) Matter 5/Representor 72/NSK Europe Ltd
Statement on behalf of NSK Europe Ltd – Site at Northern Road, Newark]
Two documents (including plan and layout) relating to Beaumond Cross
(Potterdyke development), Newark
Inquiry Note on the relative accessibility of the Appeal Site and the NSK (Europe)
Limited site (by Peter Brett/Roger Tym)
Inquiry Note on the LPA’s revised retail floorspace requirements (by Peter
Brett/Roger Tym)
Closing submissions
3. Documents submitted by Mr Woollard on behalf of the NSK (Europe) Limited
3.1.
Closing submissions
4. Core Documents
CD1.
CD2.
CD3.
CD4.
CD5.
CD6.
CD7.
CD8.
CD9.
CD10.
CD11.
CD12.
CD13.
CD14.
CD15.
CD16.
Newark & Sherwood LDF Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)
Newark & Sherwood Local Plan (adopted 1999) extract of policies C1, C2, C4,
C5, C11, C23, S3, R10, R12, PU1)
East Midlands Regional Plan (extract of policies 1, 2, 3, 18, 19, 22, 27, 35,
45, 48, 49)
Bridge Ward Neighbourhood Study Final Report Summary
GVA Grimley Retail Study 2010 and Appendices
Alyn Nicholls Associates ‘Retail Capacity and Retail Proposals at Newark’
advice dated May 2010
Alyn Nicholls Associates ‘Assessment of Retail Policy Issues Arising from the
Proposal’ advice dated January 2012
Experian Retail Planner Report 2009
Experian Retail Planner Report 2012
Urbis letter dated 31 January 2012
Allocations & Development Management Options Report, October 2011
Allocations & Development Management DPD Additional Sites Consultation
Paper, March 2012
Publication Allocations & Development Management DPD, June 2012
The Planning System, General Principles (2005)*
Planning for Town Centres, Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and
Sequential Approach, December 2009 (Companion Guide to PPS4)*
The National Planning Policy Framework (published 27 March 2012)*
*not reproduced
18
76
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 21 January 2013
by Chris Frost BSc(Hons) DipLD FLI CBiol MSB MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 6 February 2013
Appeal Ref: APP/B3030//12/2185198
MCB Bros Ltd, Lowfield Farm, Gainsborough Road, Langford, Newark,
Nottinghamshire NG23 7RN
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr D Holland against the decision of Newark & Sherwood District
Council.
The application Ref 12/01011/FUL, dated 10 July 2012, was refused by notice dated
3 October 2012.
The development proposed is the change of use of an agricultural building to use for the
repair and maintenance of plant and machinery.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use
of an agricultural building to use for the repair and maintenance of plant and
machinery at Lowfield Farm, Gainsborough Road, Langford, Newark,
Nottinghamshire NG23 7RN, in accordance with the terms of the application
Ref 12/01011/FUL, dated 10 July 2012, and the plans submitted with it,
subject to the following conditions:
1)
Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision schemes for: a) the
remodelling of the access to the A1133; and b) soft landscape works and
its maintenance, are submitted in writing to the local planning authority
for approval, and unless the approved access improvements are
implemented within 6 months of the local planning authority's written
approval, and the approved landscape scheme implemented in the first
planting season following the local planning authority’s written approval
the use of the site for the repair and maintenance of plant and machinery
shall cease until such time as schemes are submitted, approved and
implemented.
2)
No materials, vehicles or plant hire equipment shall be stored on the site
outside the building, save for the parking of up to 3 vehicles at any time.
3)
The premises shall not be open to members of the public and deliveries
to and from the site shall not take place outside the following times:
07:00hrs to 19:00hrs on Mondays to Saturdays and not at all on
Sundays and public or bank holidays.
4)
Details of off-site soft landscape works shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall
be carried out as approved in the first planting season following approval.
77
Appeal Decision APP/B3030//12/2185198
5)
A schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years
from the completion of the approved landscape works shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The schedule
shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
schedule.
Procedural Matter
2. The description of the development refers only to the change of use of a
building. However, the application states that a new or altered vehicle access
is proposed to and from the public highway and details of this are provided.
Accordingly, the proposed improvement of the access also forms part of the
application.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are whether this rural site should be considered a suitable and
sustainable location for this repair and maintenance business (bearing in mind
relevant policies); and whether the use of the site for carrying on this business
would prejudice the safety of highway users as a result of the use of the
proposed access onto the A1133 Gainsborough Road.
Reasons
4. Saved policy NE1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan states that planning
permission will not be granted for development in the countryside, although it
then goes on to specify circumstances where such development could be
acceptable. One of these is for the change of use of rural buildings where this
is consistent with saved policy NE2. Saved policy NE2 goes on to support the
conversion or re-use of rural buildings for employment and other uses. This
proposal for the re-use of a former agricultural building would be consistent
with this policy.
5. In common with saved policy NE1, saved policy E28 says that planning
permission will not normally be granted for employment development in the
countryside. Exceptions are made, mainly in relation to certain types of
agricultural development and mineral extraction. However, this policy is silent
on the issue of the re-use of existing buildings. Accordingly, saved policy NE2
remains the most relevant policy to this particular development.
6. Saved policy NE6, which deals with farm diversification sets out limitations on
what are considered to be acceptable economic activities on a farm. These are
seen as those that are complementary to the agricultural operations on the
farm and are operated as part of the farm holding. None of these apply here
and accordingly this policy has little relevance to the development that is the
subject of the application.
7. Spatial policy 3 of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy seeks to support
and promote local services and facilities in the rural communities and also
supports rural diversification. There is no reason to consider that the re-use of
this agricultural building would not be consistent with this policy. Core policy 6
of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy addresses the shaping of the
employment profile of the District and speaks of supporting the economies of
the rural communities and helping the economy of rural areas by rural
diversification. Again the proposals meet these criteria.
2
78
8. Policy 24 of the East Midlands Regional Plan is again supportive of the
continued diversification and further development of the rural economy, where
this is consistent with a sustainable pattern of development and the
environmentally sound management of the countryside. Here, the re-use of an
existing building represents a sustainable approach to development and
accordingly the proposals are supported by the policy.
9. The Council sees a conflict with each of these policies. However, while I can
accept that the proposals fall outside the definition of farm diversification, this
in itself does not preclude the proposed change of use, as the general force of
the relevant development plan policies is to support the rural economy and the
re-use of existing buildings.
10. The storage of vehicles or equipment or materials outdoors is likely to appear
intrusive in this rural setting. However, what is sought is the authorisation of a
use for the building, which would include outdoor parking for up to 3 vehicles.
The Council suggests a condition prohibiting the outdoor storage of materials or
plant hire equipment, which the appellant feels is too restrictive and not fit for
purpose. I consider that a condition is reasonable and necessary in the
interests of visual amenity. However, I acknowledge that parking for up to 3
vehicles is required and consider this to be reasonable. Accordingly, I find that
it is necessary for this to be specified in a condition in the interests of clarity.
In these circumstances there is reason to accept that the scope of the
development can be limited, as proposed in the application, to contain the
visual consequences of the development.
11. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to support a
prosperous rural economy. This includes supporting the sustainable growth
and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, including
through the conversion of existing buildings. Saved policy NE2 is aligned with
this approach as is Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy and policy 24 of the
East Midlands Regional Plan. While I accept that the location of the site could
generate a greater need for travel than a more urban based site might
generate, the re-use of the existing building is sustainable and thereby
supported by the Framework. In conclusion, there is no sound reason to reject
the proposal on the basis of development plan policies that deal with the rural
economy.
12. It is important to safeguard highway safety and avoid creating circumstances
that compromise safety to what is judged to be an unacceptable level. The
importance of this is emphasised by local policies and The Framework, which
refers to safe and suitable access to sites. Here the junction with A1133 has
limited turning radii (although it is proposed to improve these) and the access
track to the building is relatively narrow at 5m width. The limited width of the
access track suggests that large vehicles wishing to enter the site would need
to stop, to ensure the access was clear. Then, manoeuvring into the site could
be relatively slow for some large vehicles. However, fears that, on occasions,
this would result in some encroachment into the opposing carriageway only
seems likely in the absence of 15m radius kerbs. As such kerbs are proposed,
the development could be conditional on this provision. However, the overall
characteristics of the access track mean that it exhibits some undesirable
limitations in relation to highway safety.
13. Nevertheless, in view of the limited size of the building that is to be re-used
and the consequent limitation this would present in terms of vehicle numbers,
3
79
the frequency of vehicle movements seems likely to be limited. Taking this
into account along with the positive features of the scheme (re-using an
existing building and supporting the rural economy) the balance of
considerations lies in favour of supporting the scheme, despite its shortcomings
in respect of access arrangements.
14. Conditions are suggested in the event of planning permission being granted. A
time limit for the submission of details and their implementation is necessary in
the interests of good planning. As the unrestricted outdoor storage of
materials and machinery would be visually unacceptable, a condition is
necessary, as already discussed, in the interests of visual amenity. A limitation
on public access and hours for deliveries is necessary in relation to highway
safety. As improved kerb radii are proposed in order to improve access to the
site, it is necessary and reasonable to require that this is achieved.
15. New planting is shown on the plans, although this would be located outside the
site, on other land within the appellants’ control. Conditions relating to the
provision and maintenance of such planting would be acceptable to the
appellant and I find that this is necessary and reasonable in the interests of
visual amenity.
Chris Frost
Inspector
4
80

Planning Connittee - 5th March 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

Pencader Corporate Center

Open Newsletter - Classic Cruisers USA

Seven for All Mankind

Tourist Information - Newark and Sherwood District Council

The Residences at Symphony Hall

commercial vertical farming initiatives

New Staff Welcomed At Luncheon

July 16, 2014 Volunteerism, a great investment for the public and

Kids practice creativity at The Works competition | The Newark

Part II