Planning Committee 6th September 2011

Transcription

Telephone: (01636) 650000
Fax: (01636) 655899
E-mail: [email protected]
26 August 2011
Contact:
Catharine Saxton
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
06.09.11-Agenda
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, 6 September 2011 at 4.00 pm.
Yours faithfully
A W Muter
Chief Executive
AGENDA
Pages
1.
Apologies for Absence
2.
Minutes of the Planning Committee held on 2 August 2011
3.
Declarations of Interest by Members and Officers
1-6
-2Pages
PART 1 - ITEMS FOR DECISION
4.
Field Reference No. 8199, Ossington Road, Carlton-on-Trent (11/00508/FUL)
7 - 60
Site Inspections
5.
Field Reference No. 8708, Gravelly Lane, Fiskerton (11/00807/FUL)
61 - 69
6.
Unit 3 Manners Road, Newark-on-Trent (11/00628/FUL)
70 - 79
7.
Merkur House, Bowbridge Road, Newark-on-Trent (11/00296/FUL)
80 - 89
8.
The Lodge, Halam Road, Southwell (11/ 00651/FUL & 11/00652/LBC)
90 - 103
9.
Land off (Field Reference No. 1719), Ollerton Road, Little Carlton (11/00276/FUL)
104 - 130
10.
Rear Garden of Everest, Main Street, Kirton (11/00199/FUL)
131 - 137
11.
3 Railway Cottages, Oldbridge Way. Bilsthorpe (11/00791/FUL)
138 - 144
12.
Flowserve Pump Division, Hawton Lane, Balderton (11/00867/FULM)
145 - 151
13.
Center Parcs, Sherwood Forest Holiday Village, Old Rufford Road, Rufford
(11/00701/FULM)
152 - 160
14.
Land adjacent to the A617 Mansfield/Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR)
Between Nottingham Road and Southwell Road West, Mansfield
(10/00173/OUTM & 10/00240/NPA)
161 - 177
List of Relevant Policies
178 - 209
15.
PART 2 - ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
16(a) Appeals Lodged
210 - 212
16(b) Appeals Determined
213 - 235
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.
-3NOTES: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, 2nd August 2011 at 4.00pm.
PRESENT:
Councillor D.R.P. Payne (Chairman)
Councillor B. Wells (Vice-Chairman)
ALSO IN
ATTENDANCE:
32
Councillors:
R V Blaney, G Brooks, J.E. Hamilton, P. Handley, D. Jones,
G S Merry, Mrs. S.E. Saddington, Mrs L. Tift, and
Mrs Y Woodhead
Councillors:
R.L. Bradbury, I. Brown, P.C. Duncan, R.B. Laughton and
A.A. Truswell.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillors J.L. Osborne and M. Shaw.
33
MINUTES
Councillor Mrs L. Tift confirmed her attendance and Councillor P. Handley had
submitted his apology for the 28th June 2011 Planning Committee meeting.
AGREED that subject to the above amendments the Minutes of the meeting held
on Tuesday, 28th June 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed
by the Chairman.
34
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
NOTED:
35
Member
Agenda Item No
Councillor P. Handley
Agenda Item No 6 – 62 Kirklington
Road, Southwell (11/00315/FUL) the
proposed development was adjacent
to his property.
LAND OFF SANDHILLS SCONCE, TOLNEY LANE, NEWARK ON TRENT (10/01464/FUL)
The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth following a site
inspection held prior to the meeting, in relation to the proposed change of use of
paddock to Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Site at land off Sandhills Sconce, Tolney
Lane, Newark on Trent, Notinghamshire.
A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which included further
representation from the Agent and the Environment Agency.
Councillor Mrs I. Brown Newark Town Council spoke against the application.
The Members debated at length the issues surrounding flooding in the area and
the fact that much of Tolney Lane was already established for Gypsy and Traveller
provision. Following debate Members came to the view that given the existence of
existing pitches, the fact that caravans would not be of a permanent construction,
and that there was a flood evacuation plan in place for Tolney Lane in any event
that the harm by reason of flood risk could be overcome.
AGREED (with 6 votes for, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions) that:
(a).
contrary to officer recommendation full planning permission be
approved subject to conditions delegated to Officers to finalise
the wording as follows:
•
•
•
•
(b).
36
Maximum number of twelve caravan/pitches without
sub-division of pitches
Drainage condition
No permanent buildings
Scheme for flood evacuation
the Enforcement Section investigate the brick built permanent
structure on site and take any necessary action.
SITE AT COTHAM ROAD, HAWTON (11/00819/FUL)
The Committee considered the report of the Director – Growth following a site
inspection held prior to the meeting, in relation to the erection and operation of a
wind monitoring mast up to 70 metres high, to measure the wind speed and
direction at approximately 40, 50, 60 and 70 metres above ground level for a
temporary period of two years, located at Cotham Road, Hawton,
Nottinghamshire.
Councillor K. Sutton Hawton Parish Council spoke against the application.
AGREED (with 7 votes for and 4 votes against) that full planning permission be
approved subject to the amendment to condition 1 as follows and
conditions and reasons shown on the recommendation sheet attached
to the report:
•
37
Condition 1 – The development hereby permitted shall not begin
later than twelve months from the date of this permission.
62 KIRKLINGTON ROAD, SOUTHWELL (11/00315/FUL)
The Committee considered the report of the Director - Growth, following a site
inspection held prior to the meeting, in relation to an application for the formation
of access and erection of two No. 2 storey detached houses, located at 62
Kirklington Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire.
representation from the Environmental Project Engineer.
Councillor A. Gregory Southwell Town Council spoke against the application.
Members debated at length the layout of the development and the type of
housing proposed. Discussion focussed on what was considered to be a cramped
form of development particularly in terms of the relationship with Pinewood Close
to the rear and on the size of the units, which would not meet an identified need in
Southwell, as reported in the recently adopted Core Strategy.
AGREED (unanimously) that contrary to officer recommendation full planning
permission be refused on the following grounds:
•
•
Detrimental to the character of the area and residential amenity
of No’s 31 and 48 Pinewood Close, contrary to Local Plan Policy
H23
Size of the units is inappropriate to meeting the needs of
Southwell which is contrary to the Core Strategy and
commentary at paragraph 4.13 of the report.
(Having declared a prejudicial interest on the above Minute (Agenda Item No. 6) Councillor P.
Handley withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the item).
38
KESTREL, MAY LODGE DRIVE, RUFFORD (11/00474/FUL)
inspection held prior to the meeting, in relation to an application for the proposed
replacement dwelling at Kestrel, May Lodge Drive, Rufford, Nottinghamshire.
Councillor J. Pearce Rufford Parish Council spoke against the application.
AGREED (with 6 votes for, with 5 votes against) that full planning permission be
approved subject to the conditions and reasons shown on the
recommendation sheet attached to the report.
39
THE STABLES CARAVAN PARK, WELLOW ROAD, OLLERTON (11/00592/FUL)
inspection held prior to the meeting, in relation to an application for the change of
use of the paddock to gypsy and traveller caravan site located at the Stables
Caravan Park, Wellow Road, Ollerton, Nottinghamshire.
representation from Ollerton Village Residents Association.
Councillor Mrs A.A. Truswell as local Member for Ollerton and Councillor R.
Shilling, Ollerton and Boughton Town Council spoke against the application.
Members debated the issue of the principle of development and the percentage
provision of new gypsy and traveller accommodation across the Newark Urban
Area and Ollerton and Boughton as detailed in the recently adopted Core Strategy.
AGREED (with 9 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention) that:
40
(a).
contrary to officer recommendation full planning permission
be refused on the grounds that the application is contrary to
Core Policy 4 of the Core Strategy in terms of proportion of pitch
provision and prematurity in the absence of the Allocations and
Development Management Policy DPD, expected to be adopted
in September 2012; and
(b).
the Chief Executive be authorised to undertake enforcement
action given the retrospective nature of the proposal. Officers be
mindful of the timescale for adoption of the Allocations DPD
which may ultimately impact on pitch provision throughout the
District.
FIELD REFERENCE NUMBER 8199, OSSINGTON ROAD, CARLTON ON TRENT
(11/00508/FUL)
inspection held prior to the meeting, in relation to an application for the
installation of one wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 74m, a new
access track, a hardstanding, a small substation and associated infrastructure,
located at field reference number 8199, Ossington Road, Carlton on Trent,
Nottinghamshire.
representation from Carlton on Trent Parish Council, the applicant, the agent and
neighbours. The Director – Growth also provided supplementary comments on the
cumulative impact and noise data.
Councillor T. Cooper Carlton on Trent Parish Council spoke in support of the
application for one wind turbine, but did not support multiple wind turbines.
Members debated at length the reports and verbal information before them.
AGREED (with 8 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention) that full planning
permission be approved subject to the conditions and reasons shown on
the recommendation sheet attached to the report and the following
additional conditions:
•
•
41
Revisions to noise conditions to ensure rigid controls, any
changes to ensure tighter control; and
That no secondary development should commence until the
wind turbine had been connected to the National Grid.
MOBILE HOME AT SEVEN OAKS, ALLESFORD LANE, EDINGLEY (11/00313/FUL)
The Committee considered the report of the Director - Growth, in relation to
variation of condition No. 3 of planning permission reference 09/01523/FUL to
allow the siting of three mobile homes, located at Seven Oaks, Allesford Lane,
Edingley, Nottinghamshire.
representation from Edingley Parish Council.
The Committee Members commented that the Planning Inspector when granting
permission for this site had indicated that this site was for one static caravan to
accommodate one family. Following the adoption of the Core Strategy which
relates to pitch provision for new Gypsy and Travellor sites, and given the lack of
evidence from the applicant regarding use for a single family the Committee came
to the following view.
Since the previous appeal the District has adopted the Core Strategy and the
application site is not located in an area where this policy seeks to locate new
Gypsy and Traveller sites, and notwithstanding the remainder of the implemented
temporary permission, no evidence has been provided by the applicant which
would outweigh the special family circumstances taken into account and given
material weight by the Inspector.
AGREED (unanimously) that:
(a).
contrary to officer recommendation full planning permission be
refused for the following grounds; and
•
•
(b).
42
Contrary to Core Strategy given that not within an area
where the recently adopted Core Strategy seeks to locate
a new Gypsy and Travellers site
Insufficient evidence of special family circumstances to
outweigh Core Strategy policy and the Inspector’s basis
for the previous decision.
authority be given to the Chief Executive to commence
enforcement action for any unauthorised works.
LIST OF RELEVANT POLICIES
AGREED that the Policies be noted.
43
RULE NO. 31 – DURATION OF MEETINGS
In accordance with Rule No. 3.1.1, the Chairman indicated that the time limit of the
three hours and proposed a motion to extend the meeting for a further five
minutes.
AGREED (unanimously) that the meeting would continue for a further five
minutes.
44(a)
APPEALS LODGED
AGREED that the report be noted.
44(b)
APPEALS DETERMINED
The Committee were informed of the additional appeal that had been received for
the wind turbine at Farndon. Members were asked to nominate a Councillor to
work with the Director – Growth.
AGREED that:
(a).
the report be noted; and
(b).
Councillor I. Walker be nominated to work with the Director –
Growth relating to the appeal for the Farndon wind turbine.
The meeting closed at 7.00pm
Chairman
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 6 SEPTEMBER 2011
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
Application No:
11/00508/FUL
Proposal:
Installation of 1 wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of
74m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation, and
associated infrastructure.
Location:
Field Reference Number 8199 Ossington Road Carlton On Trent
Nottinghamshire
Applicant:
Mr G A Vere-Laurie
Registered:
04.04.2011
Target Date: 30.05.2011
Background
Members will recall that this application was presented to Committee on 2nd August 2011.
Following a site visit and debate, Members resolved to approve the application with a vote
of 8 for, 2 against and 1 abstention, subject to further consideration of noise conditions that
were delegated to the Director of Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and
Local Member.
Since that time, it has come to our attention before issuing the decision that the British
Horse Society (BHS) were not in fact consulted due to an oversight on our part. For this I
offer my full and sincere apologies. Therefore for completeness and fairness, the application
comes before you again for determination.
The original report to Committee is attached as an Appendix (A) for ease of reference. I
would take this opportunity to remind Members that, as verbally corrected at last
Committee, the distance from the turbine to the East Coast Railway Line is actually 1.45 km,
not 0.95 km as stated (5th paragraph) in that report.
In light of the above, Members are asked to reconsider this matter, taking into account the
response from the BHS, and other late representations which are material.
Further Consultations Responses
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, Appendix B contains a summary of the late items that
had been received since the printing of the last Committee agenda and comprises an
unedited summary that was previously before Members for consideration at the meeting on
2nd August 2011.
Appendix C contains a summary of all representations received after noon on Monday,
1st August 2011 (the deadline for late items). Some of these matters were reported verbally
at the last Committee.
Appendix D comprises an unedited version of the late information provided to Members at
the start of Committee.
Comments of the Director of Growth
For the avoidance of doubt Members are entitled to consider all matters afresh albeit the
previous debate at the Planning Committee on 2nd August 2011 is a material planning
consideration, together with the additional information set out below.
Bridleway No. 8 and the BHS
Members will note that the BHS have objected to the application and their comments are
set out in full at Appendix C. This objection effectively reiterates the comments made by the
Rights of Way Officer which Members were able to consider in full at the last Committee.
They state that current BHS guidelines indicate that turbines should be no less than three
times overall height (in this case 222 metres) from all other routes, including roads. In this
case, as previously reported, the proposed turbine is 100 metres away at the closest point.
However, as set out in the main Committee report, this is guidance, it is not statutory and
therefore a pragmatic view needs to be taken especially given the proximity of Ossington
Road. As such, this objection does not change the professional recommendation in this case.
For clarity, even with the BHS objection, I do not consider this carries sufficient weight to
warrant a reason for refusal in this instance.
Cumulative Impact
Members are asked to note that this has already been dealt with at Committee and fully
detailed, unedited at Appendix D.
Since that time a further representation has been received relating to the scope of the
cumulative impact assessment, specifically asking why an approved turbine at Tuxford in
Bassetlaw district was not included. The turbine in question (application no. 50/10/00046)
would be located on Ollerton Road just west of Tuxford and would be 99.5 metres to tip.
However, this is outside of the ‘Zone of Theoretical Visualisation’ and, in any event, given
the distances involved these turbines would not be seen in the same landscape. I am
therefore satisfied that there would be no significant cumulative impact as previously
reported.
Noise Data
It was verbally reported at the last Committee that representation from a Planning
Consultant, Mike Sibthorpe, acting on behalf of local residents TTOG, were received after
the deadline for late items at last Committee. The verbal update drew Members’ attention
to Appendix D which was handed out, and this is attached for information.
Matters relating to Appendix 1 of the Noise Report were addressed in this previous update.
However, for the avoidance of doubt it is helpful to set out what Appendix 1 is and what raw
noise data is, which residents have requested. What has been provided is not raw noise data
in its complete form but is a full set of graphical representations of the noise data gathered,
plotted against wind speed. This, we have been consistently advised, is enough to come to a
decision. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has confirmed that he is satisfied the
information contained in Appendix 1 is accurate and therefore has no need to question the
raw data. This would be the whole set of tables or lists of numbers representing the noise
readings obtained, which were in any event graphically displayed at Appendix 1. This being
the case, we are satisfied that the raw noise data is not required.
At last Committee, it was proposed verbally that some minor amendments be made to the
noise conditions. There was debate on the issue of noise and Members made it clear that
the proposed noise conditions should ensure tighter controls. These conditions, given that
this matter is returning to Committee for a decision, have now been amended to ensure
they are robust and these are included (Conditions 11 to 15) in the revised recommendation
sheet. You will see that for clarity it is now proposed to delete Condition 11. This is because
Condition 11 serves little purpose and could be seen as contradictory in light of
Condition 14. We are satisfied that it can be deleted with no loss to the amount of control
exercised over the development, as the EHO has confirmed.
Grid Connection
In accordance with Members’ instructions, a Condition (No. 23) has now been added to
ensure that no development can be commenced until details of the grid connection have
been approved.
Conclusions
For the reasons set out in the main Committee Report, taking into account all material
considerations including the late representations, I continue to recommend approval of this
application.
RECOMMENDATION
That full planning permission is approved subject to the conditions and reasons shown on
the attached revised recommendation sheet.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Application case file.
For further information, please contact Clare Walker on Ext: 5841.
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
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.
Reason:
To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
02
No development shall be commenced until full details of the turbine specifications including
its make, model, power rating, external dimensions, colour and finish have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall
comprise a three bladed turbine no larger than the maximum dimensions submitted as part
of the application. No part of the structures shall carry any logo or lettering other than as
required for health and safety reasons. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with such details as approved.
Reason:
To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of
the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
03
No development shall be commenced until precise details of the transformer cabinet and
substation, including the types and colours of materials to be used on their external
elevations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be in accordance with the approved details.
Reason:
To ensure the development has a satisfactory appearance by virtue of the
materials used.
04
No development shall be commenced until the operator of the wind turbine has provided
written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence and Civil Aviation
Authority:
i)
Proposed date of Commencement of Development;
ii)
The maximum extension height of any construction equipment.
Within 14 days of the date on which electricity is first exported from the development, the
Company shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of
Defence (MOD), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Local Planning Authority:
i)
Earliest possible date of completion of construction;
ii)
The height above ground level of the highest potential obstacle;
iii) The position of that structure in latitude and longitude.
In the event that the anticipated date of completion of construction varies from that which
has been notified to the MOD and CAA, an update shall be provided in writing to both
parties prior to construction extending beyond the date of which they have been notified.
Reason:
In the interests of air traffic safety.
05
The delivery of abnormal loads shall take place in accordance with the details outlined in the
‘Engena’ Environmental Documentation (pages 21 to 24) dated March 2011, forming part of
this permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In order to ensure the surrounding highway infrastructure is not compromised
by the development and in line with the submissions.
06
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access is
constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from the
access to the public highway in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The provision to prevent the unregulated 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.
07
Details of measures to prevent the deposit of debris (mud/loose stones etc) upon the
adjacent public highway shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to any works commencing on site. The approved measures shall be
implemented prior to any other works commencing on site.
Reason:
In the interests of Highway safety.
08
No development shall be commenced until full details of soft landscaping 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) 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 and in particular shall relate to the gapping-up of existing
hedgerows as set out in the supporting statement.
Reason:
In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation.
09
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 nature conservation.
010
No development shall be commenced until details of an aviation warning light to be fitted to
highest practicable point (25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with
an optimized flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration) of the
turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
light shall thereafter be installed as approved.
Reason:
In the interests of aviation safety.
011
The noise resulting from the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the
background noise levels measured in the Noise Report by Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd
dated January 2011 forming part of this application.
Reason:
To ensure that residential amenities are safeguarded.
012
The peak to trough sound modulation produced by the wind turbine shall not exceed
2-3dB(A) above background levels when measured at Hill Farm.
Reason:
013
The Sound Power Level produced by the turbine shall be no greater than 102.5dB at wind
speed of 10m/s.
Reason:
To ensure that the sound power levels predicted for the candidate turbine are
adhered to in order to safeguard residential amenity.
014
The noise emitted from the wind turbine subject to this consent, when measured or
calculated in free field conditions at noise sensitive properties (in existence at the time of
this consent) as measured in accordance with the ETSU R 97 requirements shall not exceed:
i)
During Night Time hours, the greater of the night hours background noise level plus
5dB(A) or 38 dB(A) at wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second, at Hill Farm at
10 metres above ground level. Night time (23:00 – 07:00).
And at all other times:
ii)
The greater of the quiet waking hours LA90 background noise level plus 5 dB(A) or
40dB(A) at wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second. at Hill Farm at 10 metres
above ground level. Quiet daytime (weekday evenings 18:00 – 23:00, Saturday 13:00 –
18:00 and Sunday 07:00- 18:00).
(The noise levels relate to the wind speeds measured on site and referenced to a height of
10m above ground level. Where it is necessary to convert between measured wind speeds
and the wind speed and noise levels at 10m height, this conversion shall be undertaken
using a methodology to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority).
At the request of, and following a complaint to the Local Planning Authority, the operator of
the development shall measure and assess the level of noise from the wind turbine
generator at one or more specified locations in accordance with the procedures stated
above and shall provide the results to the Local Planning Authority. The operator of the
development shall agree all such measurement locations with the Local Planning Authority
prior to such measurement and assessment. Guidance within the document ETSU-R-97 shall
be used to agree such measurement locations.
Reason:
015
The turbine shall not produce an audible tone requiring a correction as set out in "The
Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" - ETSU-R-97.
Reason:
In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties.
016
Prior to the commencement of any development a scheme shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out the protocol for the
assessment of TV interference during construction and operational phases in the event of
any complaint, including the remedial measures to be taken. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved protocol.
Reason:
In the interests of the amenity of surrounding residents.
017
All electrical cabling between the turbine and the sub-station shall be located underground
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
018
Any vegetation that is to be removed as part of the development hereby permitted shall be
not be lopped, topped, felled or otherwise removed during the bird nesting period
(beginning of March to end of August inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of nesting birds on
site.
019
All excavations shall be either covered or provided with egress boards during the night to
prevent mammals and amphibians from either falling in or getting trapped.
Reason:
In order to afford appropriate species protection and in line with the
recommendations of the applicants ecologist.
020
If the wind turbine hereby permitted ceases to operate for a continuous period of
12 months then a scheme for the decommissioning and removal of the wind turbine and
ancillary external housing shall be submitted within six months of the end of the cessation
period to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval.
Reason:
In the interests of visual amenity.
021
Not later than six months before the date on which the planning permission hereby granted
expires, the wind turbine and external housing shall be dismantled and removed from the
site and the land reinstated to it former condition in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to the commencement
of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall include the dismantling and removal
of the turbine and external housing above existing ground levels and the removal of the
turbine base and foundations.
Reason:
In the interests of visual amenity
022
The planning permission hereby granted shall be for a temporary period only to expire
25 years after the date of the commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of
the date of commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Local Planning
Authority within one month after the event.
Reason:
The proposal is not suitable for a permanent permission and in accordance with
the applicants expressed intent.
023
No development shall be permitted until such time as full details of the connection to the
national grid have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
For the avoidance of doubt.
Note to Applicant
01
The applicant must contact Mr. Malcolm Goodall, Highway Bridge Design, 0115 977 4490 for
structural approval prior to any works commencing.
The applicant must contact Mr Heath Phillips, Principal Co-Ordination Officer (North), 01623
520739 for road space approval prior to any works commencing.
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.
The applicant must liaise direct with the Highways Agency (HA) for approval prior to any
works commencing as access to the B1164 is from the A1 itself and crosses the bridge
structure over the Trunk Road network for which HA is the road (Highway) authority.
02
The conditions set out above comprise part of the planning permission and must be fully
complied with in each case. Failure to comply with the terms of these conditions or failure
to comply with the approved plans could render your development unauthorised.
It is very important that no development takes place on site before any conditions requiring
the prior approval of plans or the completion of works prior to commencement, have been
fully discharged by the Local Planning Authority.
If any of the conditions are unclear or you would like further information regarding our
requirements, please do not hesitate to contact the case officer for your application.
REASONS FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
(GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby permitted accords
with the policies listed below and there are no other material issues arising that would
otherwise outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan.
From the East Midlands Regional Plan (adopted 2009)
Policies 24, 26, 27 and 40.
From the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted 1999)
Saved Policies NE1, NE3, NE6, NE17, T21, PU8
From the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted
March 2011)
Core Policies 9, 10, 13, 14
Spatial Policies 3, 7.
APPENDIX A
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 2 AUGUST 2011
Application No:
11/00508/FUL
Proposal:
Installation of 1 wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 74m, a
new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation, and associated
infrastructure.
Location:
Field Reference Number 8199, Ossington Road, Carlton on Trent
Nottinghamshire
Applicant:
Mr G A Vere-Laurie
Registered:
04.04.2011
The Site
The site lies in the open countryside approximately 2km to the west of the Carlton-on-Trent
village. The application site comprises part of a field which lies on the southern side of Ossington
Road, close to the access track to Hill Farm, within the parish of Carlton-on-Trent.
The red line of the application site is drawn in a circular shape, does not reflect any features on the
ground and spans 48 metres in diameter. The red line also includes the access track to the turbine
site from Ossington Road.
The site lies within an arable field bound by mature hedgerows. The landscape is gently undulating
with numerous woodland blocks connected by well established hedgerows. Pylons run from north
to south approximately 650 metres to the east.
A public footpath (No. 7) runs alongside the western field boundary in line with the access to Hill
Farm connecting with other footpaths to the south and east. A bridleway (No. 8) is located some
580 metres to the east which is accessed from the opposite side of Ossington Road which runs
north, connecting to a network of other bridleways.
Also to the east are the East Coast Railway Line, approximately 0.95km away and the A1 trunk
road which is approximately 1.7km from the site. A wind monitoring mast measuring 60 metres to
tip is sited approximately 1.2km to the south-east.
Carlton-on-Trent Conservation Area encompasses the village and its wider setting and lies
approximately 1.7km to the east of the turbine site.
The nearest residential properties are:
•
•
•
The Grange, Ossington which is approximately 1.18km to the northwest;
Park Lidget (a complex of 9 dwellings) within Ossington parish that lies approximately 1.26km
to the south-west;
Hill Farm, Carlton-on-Trent lies approximately 490 metres to the south-west;
•
•
Willoughby Farm, Carlton-on-Trent is approximately 855 metres to the south;
The nearest of a cluster of properties at Castle Hill lie approximately 1.05km to the east.
Relevant Planning History
APPLICATION NUMBER
PROPOSAL DETAILS
10/SCO/00001
In May 2010, Engena, on behalf of Mr George Vere-Laurie sought a
scoping opinion (under the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations) for a wind farm comprising 5 wind turbines at 100
metres high. The LPA responded, confirming that an EIA would be
required and setting out the scope of issues that the EIA would need
to address should a planning application be forthcoming.
10/00722/FUL
A planning application for a the installation of a 60 metre high wind
monitoring mast for a period of two years at Field Reference 0483,
Norwell Lane, Carlton-on-Trent was approved at Committee in
August 2010. The mast was erected shortly after the grant of
permission and lies to the south-east of the proposed turbine.
10/SCR/00004
A Screening Opinion for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
was requested prior to the submission of this application for a single
turbine. It was determined that an EIA was not required under the
provisions of the Environment Impact Regulations.
The Proposal
This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single, three bladed turbine
mounted on a tapering cylindrical tubular steel tower. It would have a hub height of 50 metres and
rotor diameter of 48 metres, giving a maximum height of 74 metres to blade tip. The base of the
turbine would measure 3.5m in width, tapering to 1.4m at the hub. The finish and colour of the
turbine is likely to be off-white with a semi-matt finish to reduce glare. The candidate turbine is an
‘Enercon E48’ and would have an energy output of 800kw.
A concrete foundation is required to support the turbine which would measure 15.1 metres in
diameter to a typical depth of 1.65 metres, depending on site conditions. This would be buried and
allowed to re-vegetate.
A crane hard standing would be located adjacent to the turbine and measure 20 metres wide by
30 metres long. This would be have a crushed stone running surface, stone sub-surface over a
geotextile membrane, making it semi-permeable. A new site access would be created with 18.9
metres of hedgerow to be removed to allow construction vehicles into the site. The initial 5.5
metres wide access track at Ossington Road reduces to 4.5 metres wide and would also be finished
as per the crane hard standing.
A transformer cabinet would be sited close to the turbine, under the swept path of the blades.
This would typically measure 2.6 metres wide by 4 metres in length to a height of 2.4 metres, sat
on a 0.5 metre concrete plinth taking the total height to 2.9 metres.
A sub-station is also proposed and would typically measure 4.6 metres wide by 5.6 metres in
length, with an eaves height of 3.3 metres to a maximum height of 3.8 metres to ridge. This would
have a concrete slab foundation of 1.2 metres and it would be located adjacent to Ossington Road
at the site entrance.
The materials and colours of both the transformer and substation are to be agreed by condition, if
approved, and the developer has indicated these could be flexible to best respond to local
vernacular. Cables leading from the turbine to the external compact housing would be buried
underground.
It is industry standard practice that a candidate turbine is specified. This is because the wind
turbine market is fast moving with models being constantly updated. However, the impacts from
the candidate turbine represent the ‘worst case scenario’ and the final specification, controlled by
condition, would be 74 metres to tip and have no greater environmental impacts in terms of noise
etc. This same principle applies for the transformer cabinet and the sub-station which are ‘typical’
but again represent the greatest impact the development would have.
With an output of 800kw, the applicants state the development has the potential to prevent
approximately 817 tonnes of CO₂ from being released annually into the atmosphere and would
provide energy equivalent needs of 425 homes each year for its 25 year operational period. The
electricity produced will feed into the national grid. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that this
application does not include where the turbine would be connected to the national grid and this
would be subject to a separate application under the Electricity Act. However, they have indicated
that they have a degree of comfort that they may be able to connect to the grid at Hill Farm to the
south.
In addition to the standard submission requirements, the application is accompanied by a
supporting statement assessing a range of environmental matters including noise, ecology,
aviation, landscape and heritage impacts.
An amended site location plan has been submitted showing the red line of the application site
tightly hugging the developable land. Four further visual representations/photomontages have
also been submitted upon request.
Departure/Public Advertisement Procedure
Due to the rural location of the site no neighbouring properties were individually notified of this
proposal by letter. However site notices were displayed within the vicinity of the site and an
advert placed in the local press. In addition, surrounding Parish Councils have been notified of this
proposal.
Relevant Planning Policies
National Planning Policy
The Government’s energy policy is set out in the UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 which states
that the UK is committed to sourcing 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and aims
to reduce the UK’s emissions of carbon dioxide by over 750 million tonnes between now and 2030.
In the Government's Energy Review, which was published in July 2006, the Government
announced its intention to give greater clarity to strategic issues relating to renewables. Annex D
of the Energy Review seeks to renew the commitment of the Government to renewables and
clarifies the role of the planning system in realising renewable projects. Annex D states that:
“New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but they
provide crucial national benefits. Individual renewable projects are part of a growing proportion of
low carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both through reduced
emissions and more diverse supplies of energy, which helps the reliability of our supplies. This
factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the planning system should give
significant weight when considering renewable proposals.”
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development was adopted as national policy in 2005. PPS1: Planning
and Climate Change (Supplement to PPS1) was adopted as national guidance in December 2007.
This guidance supplements the advice contained in PPS1 and sets out the Governments national
policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It sets out how
Local Authorities should contribute to reducing emissions and stabilising climate change and
identifies tackling this as a key priority for the planning system.
'Delivering Sustainable Development' places spatial planning in a key role in helping tackle climate
change. It states that used positively, planning has a pivotal and significant role in helping to
“secure enduring progress against the UK’s emissions targets, by direct influence on energy use
and emissions, and in bringing together and encouraging action by others and in creating an
attractive environment for innovation and for the private sector to bring forward investment in
renewable and low-carbon technologies and supporting infrastructure” (Paragraph 7).
Specifically, it has key planning objectives, which include a role for planning authorities to prepare
and deliver spatial strategies that “make a full contribution to delivering the Government’s Climate
Change Programme and energy policies and in doing so contribute to global sustainability.”
In terms of Renewable and low-carbon energy generation, the PPS states that:
“Planning authorities should:
•
•
Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for
renewable energy and its distribution nor question the energy justification for why a proposal
for such development must be sited in a particular location;
Ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with PPS22
and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in the most
exceptional circumstances.”
The supplement states in relation to Determining Planning Applications, that before the
development plan is updated to reflect the policies in this PPS, planning authorities should ensure
proposed development is consistent with the policies in this PPS. In addition at paragraph 40 it
states that “An applicant for planning permission to develop a proposal that will contribute to the
delivery of the Key Planning Objectives set out in this PPS should expect expeditious and
sympathetic handling of the planning application.”
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) outlines the key principles to which
regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should adhere in their approach to
planning for renewable energy. More specific and detailed guidance on wind energy is contained
in the accompanying Companion Guide to PPS22 issued in August 2004.
PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, adopted 2004, advocates the sensitive
exploitation of renewable energy resources and also makes reference to development in the
Green Belt; It states that whilst the Policies in PPG2 continue to apply, Local Planning Authorities
should ensure that planning policies address the particular land use issues and opportunities to be
found in the countryside.
PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Policy HE1 ‘Heritage Assets and Climate Change is
relevant which identifies the historic environment as a non-renewable resource in its own right
and sets out national policy in relation to this. Specifically it highlights that where there is conflict
between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the
public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to
the significance of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles in
this PPS and national policy on climate change.
Other relevant national policy:
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
PPG24: Planning and Noise
PPS25: Development and Flood Risk
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.
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 reestablished 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 and the relevant policies for this application are set out below.
•
•
Policy 24 (Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification)
Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s National and Cultural Heritage)
•
•
Policy 27 (Regional Prioritises for the Historic Environment)
Policy 40 (Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation)
Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (DPD) (adopted March 2011)
Policies relevant to this application:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design
Core Policy 10: Climate Change
Core Policy 13: Landscape Character
Core Policy 14: Historic Environment
Spatial Policy 3: Rural Areas
Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport
Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted March 1999)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy NE1 (Development in the Countryside)
Policy NE3 (Agricultural Land)
Policy NE6 (Farm Diversification)
Policy NE17 (Species Protection)
Policy T21 (Heavy Goods Vehicles)
Policy PU8 (New Public Utilities)
Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy July 1999
The Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was prepared under the previous
development plan system in 1999. Whilst the SPG forms a material consideration and should be
used in assessment of the application, it should also be recognised that it was prepared twelve
years ago and, therefore, some of its provisions may be superseded by newer development plan
policies, as well as national planning policy. The policies in the SPG are supplementary to the
Development Plan and, therefore, cannot be used in themselves as stand-alone reasons for
refusal.
The document contains research, using a Department of Trade and Industry database, which
found that the windiest parts of the District are to the west. The guide sets out a number of
policies for the consideration of proposals for wind turbines within the Newark and Sherwood
District.
Policy W1:
Wind Turbines in the Countryside
Policy W2:
The Impact of Wind Turbines on Wildlife and Human Heritage Designations
Policy W3:
Wind Turbines associated with existing or proposed Employment Development
Consultations
This application has been referred to Committee by Councillor Rose due to ‘the affect on the
open countryside and impacts on the character of the Trent landscape and views across the Trent
valley.’ A site visit is also requested, taking into account the approach and views from Kneesall.
Carlton-on-Trent Parish Council – Support.
If the blimp is put up the Parish Council would be much more supportive of the application – we
strongly support the blimp proposal in order to clarify people’s minds both for or against the
proposal. The application prompted much discussion and heated debate, particularly with
members of the public. Most people present were extremely concerned that this proposal may
lead to several more turbine applications in this area. (04/05/11)
“Further to the planning meeting, of which the majority of the village attended, the Parish Council
voted to support the amended site plan. The parish council debated the entire application and
invited members of the public to express their views. At the end of the process the PC voted NOT
to re-vote the initial application. Instead the Chairman has asked me to send you copies of all the
correspondence received from members of the public either supporting or opposing the planed
turbine.” (09/06/11)
Comments as follows:
“A wide range of points about the new environmental visualisations were made by (they name a
resident) in a report she had already forwarded to the NSDC, much of it based on the Visual
Representations of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance 2006, prepared for various Scottish
bodies. Some of these were raised during the meeting including;
A photomontage cannot give the same effect as a moving element in the landscape – they can
never be ‘true to life’ and the apparent realism of a photomontage may in fact be deceptive. The
human eye can perceive a much greater depth of a field than a camera, and once a photo is taken
the viewer’s response will be different depending on the kind of computer screen or quality of
print out they are viewing.
The accompanying report claims that Egmanton lies out of an area of impact, but in their previous
report, which visualized the area of impact, the visual showed a considerable proportion of
Egmanton to be within the area.
The viewpoints presented were not necessarily exactly where they were described and in some
cases were significantly distant from the location described which reduced the visual impact of the
turbine on the landscape shown.
In some locations as little as crossing a road or moving a few yards up or down the a lane allowed
the representation to minimalise the visual impact of the turbine i.e. causing a tree to come
between it and the camera.
Some had large objects such as trees in the foreground or did not have a view of the proposed
turbine, both of which are not considered good practice.
It was noted that too much emphasis should not be placed on montages and that according to the
NSDC Duty Planner contacted that day they were only one of several methods the council would
employ to analyse the visual impact of the turbine, including site visits.
Other concerns raised were that the viewpoints still did not show the view from Carlton-on-Trent.
This was a particular importance to the mother of two autistic children who explained that
repetitive movements can be extremely distracting from those on the autistic spectrum. She was
concerned about low frequency noise/AM and ground vibrations as those suffering from autism
can be extremely sensitive to these factors. She was invited to provide more information in
support of how turbines can affect the autistic.
It was suggested by the council that choosing a model of turbine with the propeller as far from the
shaft as possible would, according to the American scientists, reduce low frequency emissions,
which was hoped NSDC would look into and perhaps stipulate to the developer.” (01/07/11)
Sutton-on-Trent Parish Council – Object because of its detrimental impact on the landscape
(14/06/11). Object because of adverse impact on the amenity of local residents. (received
18/04/11)
Ossington Parish Council – Support the application. (28/04/11, 20/05/11, 27/06/11 and 15/07/11)
Norwell Parish Council – Object on the following grounds:
•
•
•
Destruction of visual amenity of the area
Montages are misleading
Residents of Park Lidget will be affected by noise, flicker and their outlook will be ruined.
(26/05/11 and 23/06/11)
Cromwell Parish Meeting – Comments as follows:
“At a sparsely attended meeting, no strong support was voiced and there was a general feeling
that single turbines should serve local needs (e.g. farms and isolated industrial premises rather
than direct profit).” (21/04/11)
Caunton Parish Council – Have contacted us to say they have no comments to make. (17/06/11)
“Caunton Parish Council considered the above application at their meeting on July 13, 2011. The
Parish Council have no comment to make in relation to this application.” (14/07/11)
Highways Agency – No objections. They include their Spatial Planning Advice Note SP 12/09 for
information which refers to applications for turbines sited near to trunk roads. (14/04/11,
confirmed again 20/05/11)
Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – No objections and comment as follows:
“The proposed route for materials and plant being delivered to the site is from the A1 (which is
controlled by the Highway Agency) at the junction with the B1164, then West on the B1164 for
1.6km to the site.
Given the width of existing exit from the A1 onto the B1164 and the short and relatively straight
distance along the B1164 to the site, the wind turbine can be delivered without alterations to the
existing highway. Although this is a large structure this is a minor proposal in terms of the affect it
will have on the traffic capacity of the existing highway network and as such this will not be a
material factor, however the applicant will need to liaise with the relevant Nottinghamshire
County Council departments for structural and road space approval.
The applicant must also liaise direct with the Highways Agency (HA) for approval prior to any
works commencing as the proposed access route to the B1164 is from the A1 slip roads and
crosses the bridge structure over the A1, which is part of the ‘Trunk Road’ Network for which HA is
the road authority.
In view of the above the Highway Authority has no objection to the application in principle subject
to the following conditions:
Condition: No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the
access is constructed with provision to prevent the unregulated discharge of surface water from
the access to the public highway in accordance with details first submitted to and approved in
writing by the LPA. The provision to prevent the unregulated 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.
Condition: Details of measures to prevent the deposit of debris upon the adjacent public highway
shall be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any works commencing on site. The
approved measures shall be implemented prior to any other works commencing on site.
Reason: In the interests of Highway safety.”
A list of notes to applicant are also suggested (these have been included on the recommendation
sheet) (11/04/11)
Nottinghamshire County Council (Rights of Way) – Offer the following comments.
“The applicant has clearly taken into account the Planning Policy Guidance in relation to the
proximity of public rights of way to proposed wind turbines and has made provisions accordingly.
Carlton on Trent Public Footpath No. 7 and Public Bridleway No. 8 have both been acknowledged
in the application and the minimum distances suggested within the guidance have been applied.
However, the applicants have not taken into account access to Carlton on Trent Bridleway No. 8,
which leaves the Ossington to Carlton on Trent Road to the East of the proposed development
site. I have attached a plan detailing the route for your reference. The Bridleway is well used by
equestrian users who can only access the route along the road from the directions of Carlton on
Trent or Ossington. If an equestrian user accesses the bridleway from the direction of Ossington
then, as the proposal stands currently, they would have to pass the turbine to within an
approximate distance of 100m.
Current BHS guidance suggests that 'a distance of three times overall height from all other routes,
including roads, with the 200m recommended in the Technical Guidance to PPS 22 being seen as
the minimum, where it is shown in a particular case that this would be acceptable'.
The above guidance is to accommodate the potential problems of noise distraction and
the blade shadows of wind turbines scaring horses, potentially leading to them rearing up and
unseating the rider. Although this problem is thought to be insignificant if a turbine is sited north
of a route subject to a wind turbine proposal, blade shadows could be a significant problem at the
proposed location as the site is directly south of the road, with the proposed wind turbine well
within the minimum distance suggested in the guidance.
In view of the above, I object to the proposal on behalf of the Countryside Access Team at
Nottinghamshire County Council, on the basis that the safety of equestrian users wishing to access
Carlton on Trent Bridleway No. 8 would be compromised if the wind turbine is erected as
planned. This would have the knock on effect of compromising the safety of vehicular users of the
adjacent road.
I would advise that the British Horse Society should be consulted on the proposal.”(25/05/11)
Following the submission of further information from the applicant’s agent, additional comments
have been made by the ROW Officer:
“The applicant has stated in their response that the suggested separation within the BHS
guidance has not been imposed from the nearby highway as equestrians will be subject to existing
disturbance from the highway, for example from vehicules, cyclists and pedestrians. These are all
forms of disturbance that any horse and rider using a public highway can be reasonably expected
to encounter and in almost all cases equestrian users are already accustomed to such
disturbance.
I appreciate that the applicant has complied with PPS22 Companion Guide in respect of the
proximity of the proposed wind turbine to public roads and public rights of way and in addition,
that the British Horse Society (BHS) guidance is not statutory. However, the situation remains that
the proximity of the proposed wind turbine to the nearby road will potentially act as an
obstruction to equestrian users wishing to access Carlton on Trent Bridleway No. 8 from
Ossington.
In the interests of protecting users of the public rights of way network I am unable to withdraw my
objection to the proposal.” (19/07/11)
Nottinghamshire County Council - Archaeologist – Has confirmed they wish to make no
comments.
Ministry Of Defence Safeguarding – No objections. They comments that in the interests of safety
the turbine should be fitted with a safety light at its highest practical point. They also state that if
granted we must tell them 1) the date construction starts and ends, 2) the maximum height of
construction equipment and 3) the latitude and longitude of the turbine (received 20/04/11).
Civil Aviation Authority – No comments have been received at the time of writing this report.
National Air Traffic Services – No safeguarding objections (13/06/11).
Midlands Air Ambulance – No response has been received at the time of writing this report.
Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland Air Ambulance - No response has been received at the
time of writing this report.
North Midlands Helicopter Support Unit - No objections provided it is fitted with an appropriate
safety light.
Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance Charitable Trust - No response has been
received at the time of writing this report.
Natural England – Comment as follows:
“Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the
natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Local authority biodiversity duty and opportunities for enhancement
Under section 40(1) of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 a duty is placed on
public authorities, including local planning authorities, to have regard to biodiversity in exercising
their functions. This duty covers the protection, enhancement and restoration of habitats and
species.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity & Geological Conservation also expects local authorities
to prevent harm to biodiversity and geological interests. Part (vi) of the Key Principles makes it
clear how the government expects the council to consider planning decisions that could lead to
harm to biodiversity and geological interests. Section 10 on ancient woodland and section 12 on
networks of natural habitats describe how these particular biodiversity features should be
protected from development.
The ecological survey submitted with this application has not identified that there will be any
significant impacts on statutorily protected sites, species or on priority Biodiversity Action Plan
(BAP) habitats as a result of this proposal. However when considering this application the council
should maximise opportunities in and around the development for building in beneficial feature as
part of good design in accordance with the duty on the council described above and in paragraph
14 of PPS 9.
The Town and Country Planning Association’s publication ‘Biodiversity By Design’ provides further
information on this issue and the publication can be downloaded from
http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/biodiversity-by-design.html
Examples of biodiversity enhancements that can be widely incorporated into development
proposals include:
Green/brown roofs
The use of alternative roofing (turf, aggregate, brown and green roofs) can make a significant
contribution to biodiversity, attenuation of rainfall, and energy efficiency as they can provide a
high degree of insulation.
Landscaping
Native species of plant should be used in landscaping proposals associated with development,
unless there are over-riding reasons why particular non-native species need to be used. The
nature conservation value of trees, shrubs and other plants includes their intrinsic place in the
ecosystem; their direct role as food or shelter for species; and in the case of trees and shrubs,
their influence through the creation of woodland conditions that are required by other species,
e.g. the ground flora.
Nesting and roosting sites
Modern buildings tend to reduce the amount of potential nesting and roosting sites. Artificial sites
may therefore need to be provided for bats and birds. There is a range of ways in which these can
be incorporated into buildings, or built in courtyard habitats. Their location should provide
protection from the elements, preferably facing an easterly direction, out of the direct heat of the
sun and prevailing wind and rain.
Sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS)
Many existing urban drainage systems are damaging the environment and are not, therefore,
sustainable in the long term. Techniques to reduce these effects have been developed and are
collectively referred to as Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS are physical
structures built to receive surface water runoff. They typically include ponds, wetland, swales and
porous surfaces. They should be located as close as possible to where the rainwater falls,
providing attenuation for the runoff. They may also provide treatment for water prior to
discharge, using the natural processes of sedimentation, filtration, adsorption and biological
degradation.” (08/04/11)
In their letter dated (19/05/11) they also make comments as follows:
“Protected species
If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the possible presence of a
protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the authority should request survey
information from the applicant before determining the application. The Government has provided
advice1 on BAP and protected species and their consideration in the planning system.
The following link to some guidance Natural England Standing Advice on our website has been
produced to help the authority better understand the impact of this particular development on
protected or BAP species should they be identified as an issue at this site and whether following
receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further consultation with Natural
England.
Local wildlife sites
If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, e.g. Site of Nature Conservation
Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient
information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife site before it
determines the application.
Biodiversity enhancements
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are
beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the
installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the
biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application.
This is in accordance with Paragraph 14 of PPS9. Additionally, we would draw your attention to
Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every
public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the
proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the
same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type
of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural
environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.”
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – Comment as follows:
“Having studied the submitted documentation (Ecological Assessment, Wild Frontier Ecology,
December 2010) we would like to make the following comments:
Bats
From the results of the static and transect surveys, the site clearly supports good numbers of
Noctule and Nathusius Pipistrelle bats. It is acknowledged in the report that both “are classified by
Natural England as species at high risk of turbine collisions and at high risk of population threat
from wind turbine developments”. With regard to survey methodology for bats, we note that
automated static monitoring was carried out for this site. We would like to query whether any
detector surveys were actually carried out at turbine height? We can’t find any reference to this
type of survey in the report. We understand that it is currently best practice to carry out such at
height monitoring (refer to the Bat Conservation Trust, BCT consultation draft Surveying for
onshore wind farms, February 2011). We are of the view that, because of the presence of sensitive
species at this site, it is particularly important such surveys are carried out in order to fully assess
impacts on these two high risk (aerial hawking) bat species.
Birds
With reference to page 39 of the ecological assessment, if you were to approve this application we
recommend that you attach a planning condition to protect breeding birds during habitat removal
works. When wording this condition, we recommend works should avoid the period between
March and the end of August, rather than the beginning of August, as stated in the report. This will
make sure that certain species, such as yellowhammer (which can breed through spring and
summer) will not be disturbed.
We are disappointed that no habitat enhancements were put forward in the assessment. This is
probably because the report concludes no significant effects for the majority of receptors. Ideally,
we would like to see some enhancements for birds that will potentially be displaced from the
turbine area being incorporated within the project. We suggest this could be in the form of
provision of habitats suitable for wintering lapwing, provided at an appropriate distance from the
turbine for the lifetime of the project. Other forms of mitigation/ enhancements could comprise
wildlife seed mix establishment on arable field margins, again at a suitable distance from the
turbine and ideally for the duration of the project.
Other species and habitats
We welcome the mitigation put forward on pages 39-40 (construction best practice to protect
mammals and amphibians and replacement hedgerows) and we recommend these be secured by
appropriately worded condition(s) should you approve the application.
In summary, we strongly recommend that “at height” bat surveys should be carried out, in line
with current BCT survey guidelines. The information collected from these surveys should be used
to fully evaluate the impacts of the project on “high risk” bat species. We expect inclusion of a
condition to protect breeding birds and we would also like to see some off-site enhancements for
birds being secured through this planning application, should it be approved.” (09/05/11)
Further comments have now been received: “Thank you for consulting NWT on the agent’s
response to our letter dated 09/05/11. We are very pleased that our comments have been
considered.
One final point omitted from our previous letter is that we would ideally like to see some form of
construction phase bat monitoring carried out. We feel this is justified because of the presence of
Nathusius pipistrelle and Noctule in the wider scheme area and there is an apparent lack of UK
based research on the subject. However as we have no outstanding objections to the scheme,
we would be happy for you to determine this application.” (06/07/11)
They have since clarified that their comments should have read: “We would ideally like to see
some form of operational phase bat monitoring carried out….” (18/07/11)
English Heritage – Offer no comments and recommend that the application is determined in
accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of our specialist advice.
(10/05/11 and 2/06/11)
Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds - No response has been received at the time of writing
this report.
British Horse Society – No response has been received at the time of writing this report.
Council for the Protection of Rural England - No response has been received at the time of writing
this report.
Caunton Airfield – State:
“This wind turbine will not affect Caunton Airfield, therefore no objection.”
Newark & Sherwood District Council (Environmental Health) – Comment as follows:
“I refer to the above application and confirm that I was involved in pre application discussion with
the noise consultants regarding their choice of background monitoring location. Given the location
of the site and the proximity of residential premises, I agreed with their proposal that
measurements at Hill Farm would be appropriate. It has subsequently been suggested that this
site is financially linked to the scheme. That would not invalidate the background noise
measurements carried out.
The ETSU R 1997, is currently the methodology we are required to use to assess these type of
applications. I do note that Hayes McKenzie Ltd have prepared a further report on possible
revisions, April 2011 but these have not yet been implemented.
Once the application was received I studied the noise report submitted in support of the
application by Hayes Mackenzie Ltd. In their report, they detail the methodology of obtaining the
background noise data, their noise prediction methodology and a summary of the actual data
obtained was subsequently provided. Their conclusions are that the noise impact from the turbine
at Hill Farm, will be less than the permitted levels set out in the ETSU report. By extrapolation, the
same being true for other properties further away. Overall I find the report informed and well
constructed.
One area of concern expressed by representation, is that the noise consultants relate their
background noise readings to the recorded wind speed data, corrected to 10m height, in line with
convention, though measured at 20m,40m and 60m with wind direction data gathered at 60m.The
derived wind speed data being obtained from the 40m and 60m heights. I see no problem with
this as the expected hub height for the turbine is 50m.
Should approval be granted it would be sensible to condition noise emissions in line with those set
out in the report.
In respect of the affected person with the hearing condition, whilst it’s a planning issue at this
stage we would not consider a person’s particular sensitivity in respect of noise nuisance, under
EPA 1990 using “the man on the Clapham omnibus”. Whilst the affected person has concerns and
has been engaged by the applicants I am not clear whether such concerns would constitute a
material planning issue. Perhaps legal can advise.”
Interested parties/neighbours - Sixty three comments have been received in respect of this
application. Of these, 3 make comment (on the lack of consultation), 11 support and 49 (it should
be noted that a number of these are from the same household and are repeat comments) object.
These are summarised below:
Support:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Visually not disagreeable.
The turbine is graceful, visually pleasing and would enhance the landscape.
Noise wouldn’t be an issue due to proximity of railway and the A1.
Unrealistic to rely on fossil fuel, we remember the power cuts and this would impact far more
than one turbine.
Renewable are the way forward to guarantee clean future.
This would be our small contribution to being environmentally more sustainable.
This could bring tourists to the area and be a positive development.
Potential to create job opportunities in the area.
Objections (the numbers in brackets are intended to give Members an indication of the number
of comments made on each topic) are summarised as follows:
Visual Impact (37)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Highly visible location, adverse impact and degradation of sensitive rural landscape.
No proper visual assessment, the montages are inaccurate and cannot be trusted.
The height of the turbine will be serious intrusion, compared to pylons.
Contrary to the create and conserve policy for such landscape types.
Turbine will be in full view of properties at Park Lidget Farm.
Substation is equivalent to small bungalow.
More pylons will be required to carry the electricity produced, marring the landscape.
Ecology (27)
•
Adverse impacts on wildlife (including deer, badgers, green wood peckers, migrating birds
such as swans and geese, bats, owls) both during construction and during the life of the
development.
Heritage/Design Impacts – (23)
•
•
•
•
•
The turbine would be detrimental to Carlton, a small and pretty village which is a
Conservation Area and this should be preserved.
The turbine would disrupts ancient skyline, historic monuments and overshadow ancient
villages yet to be exposed.
Detrimental impacts from Laxton and Lincoln Cathedral.
Turbine would dominate the view and impact from view just below the old windmill at the
wharf looking south/east.
Design – structure is out of keeping with the architecture and visual appeal of the
conservation villages that surround the site.
Noise (21)
•
Noise measurements have not been taken from the village itself.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Noise data is not representative background noise is not representative of local conditions at
height where turbine will be sited.
Measurements are incorrect as Hill Farm has a vested interest in the application. In support of
this an appeal decision has been submitted (APP/E2530/A/08/70273384 – relating to an
application for a wind farm of ten turbines at Long Bennington which was dismissed).
Concerns that noise data, background noise and methodologies have been compromised by
location and equipment.
Make and model of turbine should be specified and this is contrary to our SPG.
Clear from appeal decisions that ETSU-R-97 is not a suitable noise assessment mechanism BS4142 would be more suitable.
Properties at Castle Hill will be downwind of the turbine and background noise levels should
be taken from there.
If permitted, a condition should be imposed regarding noise levels not exceeding 35dB, as
indicated by the applicants in the Planning Appraisal.
DEFRA ‘Noise and Nuisance’ states the government through LPA’s is required to identify and
protect quiet areas in order to improve quality of life. Expect NSDC to do this.
A resident of Carlton suffers severe sensory disability called Hyperacusis meaning their
hearing is extremely sensitive, making everyday noises intolerable causing pain, distress and
panic attacks. Confirmation of this condition has been received from the affected person’s
medical consultant and details of this condition and its impacts have also been included.
The affected person has encountered wind turbines elsewhere and even without them in view
the pain was intolerable.
This person spends considerable amount of time in Tuxford with family but will now not be
able to as Bassetlaw District Council have granted approval for a turbine close by. BDC advised
the disability was not taken into account as the affected person does not reside there.
This will drive the affected resident from her home.
Impact on health (MS sufferers and the visually impaired) – noise exacerbates symptoms.
Highways (9)
•
•
Construction Traffic – lanes are not suitable to accommodate the construction traffic, damage
to roadside and verges.
Driver distraction and safety.
Others
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Turbines are not environmentally friendly/cost effective and are unreliable. Benefits are
disproportionate to impacts on the locality (12)
Shadow Flicker (12)
Concerned that this could lead to further turbines in this location (the anemometer was
originally for five turbines) (7)
Reduced Property Values (6)
Suggest that a blimp be flown (6)
Ice throw (5)
Adverse on health, insomnia, mood swings, depression, headaches etc (4)
TV Reception (4)
Proximity to dwellings.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Query where the turbine would be connected to the national grid (4)
Lighting strike (3)
No benefits other than financial gain for applicant (3)
Lack of notification/site notices (3)
Safety should the blades sheer-off (3)
There are other locations more suitable (3)
Contrary to European and Scottish regulations who demand minimum distances of 2km for
safety and quality of life.
Construction Impacts such as dust, noise etc.
Adverse impact on tourism.
Insufficient research on impacts where they are close to homes.
Other applications in locality have been refused on grounds of intrusion into the countryside.
Turbines should be sited together, a minimum of 25 in locations close to or off-shore not
dotted around the villages.
Political uncertainty, government is considering the subsidies on offer, turbines may be shown
as white elephants.
Conflicts with Council’s policy and PPS22.
Concern over the (inadequate) level and scope of consultation.
Fee paid is incorrect and application invalid.
Unable to assess viability.
The data collected from the wind mast cannot co-oberate this application as its in wrong
place.
Query, capacity of substation as it could indicate the number of turbines to feed into the grid
system.
‘Typical’ substation, transformers and turbine – not acceptable, need to know precise details
so its impact can be assessed.
Close proximity of footpath.
No local benefits.
requested raw noise data, rainfall data, wind speed measurements from monitoring mast, coordinates for turbines and neighbouring dwellings.
Request output of generator so they can assess economic benefit.
Aviation Safety.
Government should zone off land for turbines.
This would not be an educational resource.
Construction would have negative impact on carbon footprint.
A petition against the application has been received signed by 74 residents. The reasons are cited
as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Visual flicker/strobe effect
Impaired t.v. reception
Reduced property values
Noise
Cost of energy they produce
Higher than conventional power stations
Impact on local wildlife
Visual impact on green belt.
Having regard to the provisions of all relevant planning policies, the nature of the proposed
development and the representations received, there are a range of issues which need to be
considered in the determination of this application. These are discussed below.
Planning Policy Context
A reasonable starting point for consideration of this application is the Government’s commitment
to electricity generation by renewable sources set out in the Renewable Energy Strategy and in
particular the target that 15% of national electricity production should be derived from renewable
sources by 2020. This target has been maintained under the coalition Government.
This commitment is supported by other Government guidance and of particular significance is the
supplement to PSS1 which was adopted in December 2007. This PPS: 'Planning and Climate
Change' places spatial planning in a key position to create a successful response to climate change.
It states that spatial planning has a significant role in helping by “direct influence on energy use
and emissions and in creating an attractive environment for innovation and for the private sector
to bring forward investment in renewable and low-carbon technologies and supporting
infrastructure."
Specifically, it has key planning objectives, which include a role for planning authorities to prepare
and deliver strategies that “make a full contribution to delivering the Government’s climate
change Programme and energy policies.” It states that: “An applicant for planning permission to
develop a proposal that will contribute to the delivery of the Key Planning Objectives set out in
this PPS should expect expeditious and sympathetic handling of the planning application.”
The District Council’s commitment to tackling climate change is set out in Core Policy 10. This
provides that we will encourage the provision of renewable and low carbon energy generation
within new development.
In determining this application, I therefore consider it is necessary to balance the strong policy
presumption in favour of wind turbines against the site specific impacts.
Landscape and Visual
The visual acceptability of turbines as a principle is a subject that is divisive and Members will note
that many local residents have objected to the scheme due to the perceived adverse impact on
the landscape. By contrast, some local residents have written in support of the turbine,
considering it to be a graceful structure not harming the countryside. Clearly at 74 metres in
height, the turbine will be visible in the landscape and the significance of this impact and its harm
has been carefully considered in assessing this application.
The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Assessment, which includes computer
generated images which illustrate from 14 viewpoints, the impact of the turbine on the landscape.
A Zone of Theoretical Visualisation (ZTV) has also been submitted, which shows the extent of land
where the turbine could theoretically be visible from. The Council’s Landscape Architect has
examined the submissions and is now satisfied that sufficient images have been submitted, that
these are a fair representation and that the information is adequate to enable a proper and
considered assessment to be undertaken.
There are no special landscape designations within the vicinity of the site. This application lies
within the Mid Nottinghamshire Farmlands character area and the application site is located within
a gently undulating arable landscape. The majority of the boundaries associated with the arable
fields are composed of well maintained, mature, species-rich hedgerows which are generally in
excellent condition. These hedgerows form a good network throughout the area, connecting the
numerous blocks of woodland.
The views from the roads and tracks are therefore quite enclosed, however many of the views
(topography allowing) are medium distance with frequent wooded skylines. These are
intermittingly interrupted by pylons and power lines. The settlements within the area tend to be
of a strongly vernacular nature aside from some agricultural buildings and chicken sheds made of
modern materials.
The landscape condition is described as very good with a coherent pattern of elements. There are
few detracting elements and the landscape sensitivity is defined as moderate. The landform is
apparent with intermittent areas of woodland giving a generally moderate visibility value within
the Policy Zone. Views are intermittent and often enclosed due to the blocks of woodland and a
good network of hedgerows, but longer distance views are apparent around the edges of the
Policy Zone.
The Policy action for this area is to ‘Conserve’. In terms of landscape features, these are
specifically to maintain any existing historic field patterns, conserve and enhance the ecological
diversity of deciduous woodland through consistent management and conserve and maintain
hedgerows and prevent fragmentation (through lack of management and intensification of arable
farming.
Visually the Landscape Appraisal submitted by the applicant concludes:
“It is inevitable with the development of tall and moving structures that some visual effects are
likely to occur. The appraisal has indicated that the visual effects of the wind turbine will be of a
localised nature and that they will only occur where a clear line of site to the wind turbine can be
achieved, and at relatively close range. It is concluded that significant effects will be limited to
those areas up to approximately 1.5km from the proposal, where clear views can be obtained. In
reality the occurrence of linear vegetation within the surrounding landscape will help to diminish
visibility.
I would generally agree with this summary due to the intermittent blocks of woodland and good
network of hedgerows that will help to screen some local views.
As the turbine would lie within the 30m and 40m land contours and the higher land to the west
around Egmanton, Laxton and Kneesall is between 50m and 60m, further visual montages were
requested so that proper assessment could be made regarding the visual impacts on these
landscapes. These were duly submitted.
Having now carefully assessed these I consider that although the turbine will be visible from these
sites it will be small, and behind the line of pylons which are more prominent. I therefore consider
that it will have a slight adverse visual impact, and a minor adverse significance for landscape
effects which would mean that the proposed scheme would not quite fit into the landform and
scale of the landscape and would affect an area of recognised landscape character. However I do
not consider that this is severe enough to warrant a refusal in this instance. I consider that some
off site planting would be appropriate to help mitigate views from the west and could include
possible small woodland planting or hedgerow planting within the applicant’s ownership. This
could be controlled by condition.
The widest part of the turbine is 3.5 metres which would appear as a slim structure on the horizon.
Its design is such that its base can be painted green changing to white towards the top so as to
help it blend into the landscape and the use of semi-matt materials will also reduce glare. Due to
existing landscape features, I consider that views of the turbine would be fleeting rather than
sustained and given its rural position the number of receptors are relatively low.
Taking into account the stream-lined design of the turbine, the nature of the landscape and its
moderate sensitivity and taking into account that the application is for a single turbine that is a
slim structure on the horizon, I am of the opinion that the turbine and its associated structures
would not interrupt the openness of the countryside nor significantly detract from the landscape.
This view is supported by the Council’s Landscape Architect. I conclude that the visual impact of
this development would be acceptable and is in accordance with policy in landscape terms.
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
There have been several objections raised with regard to the impact upon the historic
environment and the cultural heritage of the area. With these in mind, careful assessment has
been in relation to assessing the impacts on designated heritage assets.
National policies within PPS5 (HE9 and HE10) which deal with applications concerning heritage
assets. Specifically, Policy HE9 states that the significance of a designated heritage asset can be
harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its
setting, and where there is harm, again this should be judged in relation to the public benefit.
Policy HE10 relates specifically to the setting of designated heritage assets and states that
applications should be treated favourably that preserve those elements of the setting that make a
positive contribution to, or better reveal of the significance of the asset. Again it cites public
benefit to be weighed against the harm and furthers this to state that the greater the negative
impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to
justify approval.
PPS5 defines setting as: “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not
fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a
positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate
that significance or may be neutral.”
Specifically as a tall landmark structure, I have considered the proposals in relation to the listed
Church buildings of Carlton on Trent as well as such assets within neighbouring villages. The
conclusion I have drawn is that this medium sized single turbine will not have a significant visible
impact upon such heritage assets. I shall deal with the main ones in turn.
In Carlton on Trent, the Church of St Mary is a Grade II* listed building. It has a substantial spire
which is visible within the wider landscape with significance view gauged from the A1 corridor.
There are various other listed buildings within the village and the edge Conservation Area itself lies
1.7km east of the turbine site. Carlton on Trent lies within a shallow valley, formed by the River
Trent. The form of the landscape in this area means that the turbine would be elevated on a slight
hill as the landscape on the west side of the A1 is more undulating. However, given the form of the
landscape, the woodland areas and that the A1 and the East Coast Railway line dissects between
these locations, there is no significant impact upon the assets and that the main views of the
church spire in the landscape are preserved and not interrupted by the proposal. Indeed the village
itself is set amongst a mature landscape which blocks views of the turbine in the most-part from
the built up area.
Park Lidget farmhouse and its associated farm buildings are Grade II listed and are in residential
use. This former farmstead (within Ossington parish) is set on higher ground that the turbine. The
original farmstead was not designed to enjoy a wider landscape setting in the same way a
monument or hall may have and the line of pylons 200 metres to the west have already infringed
on their wider landscape setting. These properties would still have substantial landscape buffer to
enjoy and therefore I take the view that there would be no significant adverse impact upon these
listed properties.
At Norwell the Church of St. Lawrence is a Grade I listed dating from the 13th century. It has a
tower with a crenellated parapet. The church is situated to the west of the village adjacent to the
site of a medieval manor. Norwell itself is also situated in a low lying area within the landscape.
Visually, the proposed turbine will have limited impact on the setting of the church, due to the
topography and the woodland. There is no impact on the relationship between Carlton and
Norwell Churches as these do not share a significant visual relationship.
The church in Cromwell is situated next to the A1 and is screened by a number of trees. As such
there would be no impact upon this asset. At Sutton on Trent the Church here is Grade I listed and
is within the centre of the village. There is no impact of the proposed development upon the
significances of this asset. Whilst the spire of Newark Parish Church of St Mary Magdalene is a
much larger feature (at 78 metres in height) within the landscape than the smaller Parish
Churches, I consider that there is no impact on this by the proposed development as the turbine
would not interrupt views of this landmark building and would not be read together. Overall I
consider that there are no impacts on specific heritage assets from this application.
Whilst I appreciate that, overall, long distance views of the proposed structure will be seen, as a
single turbine only, I consider that this is acceptable and under PPS5, the perceived harm is offset
by this development being in the public interest. The actual turbine is a simple structure which is
minimalist and fairly ‘architectural’ in design. In conclusion I do not consider that the addition of a
single turbine in this area will have a negative impact in accordance with PPS5.
The development has a low potential for archaeology and the County Archaeologist has no
comments to make on this application. The applicants indicate they consider appropriate
mitigation would be a watching brief, controlled by condition, to take account of unknown
archaeological remains and this is shown on the recommendation sheet. Due to the distances
involved and the design of the turbine I do not consider there would be any harmful impacts upon
any scheduled ancient monuments or Registered Parks and Gardens.
Noise
Many of the local objections refer to loss of amenity as a result of noise from the turbines. The
Companion Guide to PPS22 outlines the types of noise which can be generated by wind turbines
(paragraph 42) and states: “There are two quite distinct types of noise within a wind turbine. The
mechanical noise produced by the gear box, generator and other parts of the drive train and the
aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air.”
The Guide also states that since the early 1990’s there has been a significant reduction in
mechanical noise, which is now at a similar level to aerodynamic noise. It also states that: “Noise
levels from turbines are generally low and, under most operating conditions, it is likely that turbine
noise would be completely masked by wind generated background noise.”
‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-1997) describes a framework for
the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels which aim to offer a
reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable
restrictions on wind farm development. This document is endorsed by the Government as a basis
for the assessment of noise from a wind farm. The recommended noise limits proposed in ETSU 97
are:
•
•
Quiet daytime (weekday evenings 18:00-23:00, Saturday 13:00-18:00 and Sunday 07:0018:00) 5dB(A) above background or in low noise environments 35-40dB(A) L90 10 min.
Night-time (23:00- 07:00) 43dB(A) L90.
As the proposed turbine is predicted to have noise levels of well below the minimum thresholds,
only the nearest property, Hill Farm, was subject to noise monitoring. This is in line with best
practice advice and the Environmental Health Officer has confirmed this approach is acceptable.
The noise levels at this receptor property were below 35dB thereby meeting with the
recommendations of the ETSU 97. Some objections have been made on the grounds that Hill
Harm, the receptor may well have a financial interest in the site because the grid connection could
take place here. It is claimed that this property has a vested interest in the development and that
noise monitoring should take place elsewhere.
However, Hill Farm is outside of the land controlled by the applicant and there is no certainty that
the grid connection will take place here, as this does not form part of this application nor indeed is
it required to. In any event, I consider that the occupiers of Hill Farm, who are not the applicant
for the turbine, are entitled to the same level of noise protection as other residents in the vicinity.
Whether the noise monitoring site (which was agreed to be the nearest dwelling) is or is not
financially linked to the application site does not in itself affect the validity of the background
noise readings obtained or affect the noise climate. Your Environmental Health Officers have
advised that the methodology used is appropriate and concludes that the proposal will not have a
detrimental impact from a noise perspective. The proposal in this regard accords with Policy PU8
of the Local Plan plus ETSU 97, PPS22 and PPS24 which are material planning considerations.
Reference is made by some objectors to an appeal decision where one of the key issues was noise,
and the uncertainty of the noise because of the turbine model was not specified. In that case the
Inspector having balanced all the issues dismissed the appeal. However I have studied this decision
and find that there are material differences to the scheme and as such I do not consider that this
affects my recommendation. It is standard industry practice to utilise candidate turbines and in
any event I recommend the use of conditions to control the maximum noise emissions from the
final turbine specification.
Members will note that a resident of Carlton suffers from an acute hearing disability, Hyperacusis
which means their hearing is acutely sensitive, making everyday noises intolerable causing pain,
distress and panic attacks. Confirmation of this condition has been received from the affected
person’s medical consultant.
Case Law indicates that in exceptional situations, the personal circumstances of a resident can be
capable of being considered as a material planning consideration. The role of the Local Planning
Authority is to assess impacts such as noise in the public interest. Clearly this is a private interest.
Whilst the affected persons hearing condition is clearly a matter of concern and very distressing
for them, I do not consider that the Council can be expected to refuse any permission solely on the
basis of the affected person’s residence in the vicinity. The condition cannot override all other
considerations, since to do so would call into question whether any development should ever be
allowed. The separation distance between the turbine and the affected persons dwelling is over
2km away with the high speed railway line and A1 trunk road, both of which would be noise
generators, intervening between. Taking all of these matters into account, whilst I sympathise with
the affected person, I do not consider that this matter has sufficient weight to warrant a reason
for refusal.
Highway and Rights of Way Issues
The majority of traffic associated with this development would be at construction phase, which
would typically last for around 4 months. Detailed vehicle movements and the routes have been
provided and neither the Highways Authority nor the Highways Agency have raised any concerns.
Once operational, only routine maintenance and servicing traffic would be required which would
be minimal. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with Policies SP7, T21, and PU8 of
the Development Plan.
Some concerns have been raised by objectors suggesting that the turbine would create a driver
distraction and that the construction traffic would damage the roads. Again neither of the
statutory consultees have objected to this aspect and the Companion Guide to PPS22 is clear at
paragraph 54 that drivers are faced with various distractions on any normal journey and are
excepted to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ safety. It says that turbines
should not be treated any differently from other distractions a driver must face and should not be
considered particularly hazardous. They point out that there are now a large number of wind
farms adjoining or close to road networks and there has been no history of accidents at any of
them.
Given this advice in PPS22 and that neither statutory consultees have raised objections in terms of
highway safety, I do not consider that this proposal would result in a significant hazard to road
safety as a result of driver distraction.
The Rights of Way Officer has raised objection to the turbine on the basis of an adverse impact to
equestrian users of the bridleway. This is because equestrian users approaching from the west
would only be able to gain access to the bridleway number 8 by passing by the turbine along
Ossington Road which is 100 metres from the turbine. British Horse Society (BHS) guidance
suggests a distance of 200 metres.
Paragraph 56 of PPS22 states: “The British Horse Society, following internal consultation, has
suggested a 200 metre exclusion zone around bridle paths to avoid wind turbines frightening
horses. Whilst this could be deemed desirable, it is not a statutory requirement, and some
negotiation should be undertaken if this is difficult to achieve.”
Paragraph 57 goes on to say that “Similarly there is no statutory separation between a wind
turbine and a public right of way. Often fall over distance is considered an acceptable separation
and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to
oversail a public right of way.”
As you will see the 200 metres is not based on any statutory guidance and this guidance does not
differentiate between the different heights of turbines, with this equally applying to much larger
turbines. Members will note that the BHS have (at the time of writing this report) not commented
on this application and the Highways Authority raise no safety objections. For these reason I do
not consider that this concern warrants a reason for refusal in this instance.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
The turbine is sited within an arable field. The most sensitive ecological features are the trees and
hedgerows surrounding the field and the proposed siting maintains a minimum 50 metre buffer
zone from these. This approach follows Natural England’s guidance for other wind farm
developments and in this case they offer their standard comment.
The scheme would involve the removal of some hedgerow to Ossington Road for essential site
access. However the detailed mitigation measures to plant up nearby boundary hedgerows to
offset the loss are considered appropriate and will provide suitable foraging habitat to benefit
birds and bats. I also suggest that some native, deciduous trees are planted to the south–western
corner of the field in which the turbine would be sited to enhance ecology and to help screen the
views from the south-west.
The Ecological Survey concludes that it is unlikely any protected species will be adversely affected
by the scheme. Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust had originally raised some concerns that further
bat detector surveys at turbine height should be undertaken. The applicant has responded in
detail on this matter, pointing out that the latest best practice guidance does not require this
approach and NWT have withdrawn their objection on this matter. I do not consider it reasonable
to impose bat related conditions on this development simply because there is a lack of national
research on the subject, although I suggest other conditions are imposed to ensure the mitigation
measures as suggested by the ecologists are delivered. I have noted that some residents have
raised concerns regards the impact on other wildlife including protected species. However, the
impacts have been considered by the applicants and it has been concluded that there are no
significant risks. Taking into account these conclusions I consider that on balance the need to
provide renewable resources carries considerable weight, over and above the potential low
impacts on ecology and nature conservation.
Shadow Flicker
Shadow flicker is an effect that under certain combinations of geographical position and time of
day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring
properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off. It only occurs inside buildings
where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening. It is noted that some residents have
raised this issue and its impact on health and epileptic sufferers as a concern. In respect of this,
the Companion Guide to PPS22 is clear that the effects from shadow flicker are on residential
amenity rather than having the potential to affect the health and well being of residents.
The Companion Guide to PPS22 also confirms that flicker can only occur within 130 degrees either
side of north relative to the turbines’ position, as turbines do not cast long shadows on their
southern side. Advice is that this is most likely to occur within 10 rotor diameters of a wind
turbine. In this case 10 rotor diameters equates to 480 metres. There are no properties within this
proximity and I am satisfied that this matter does not require any further assessment.
Property Values
Some objectors haves raised concerns that the turbine may adversely affect property values. This
matter has been discussed elsewhere in recent appeal decisions and current guidance which
found that property values are not significantly affected in the long-term. Guidance on this matter,
however, confirms that private interests such as this are not a planning matter. I therefore do not
consider any possible effect on property prices to be a reason for refusal.
Aviation and Telecommunications
Members will note from the consultation section of this report that various organisations have
been consulted with regard to aviation safety. None of these have raised any safeguarding
concerns. However, the MoD and NMHSU request that an aviation warning light is fitted to the
turbine. This is standard practice and can be secured by condition.
Due to the potential for such development to interfere with telecommunications links, the
applicants have consulted various bodies such as Ofcom. None of the responses indicate there
would be any adverse impacts.
Television Reception
The applicant’s research suggests that terrestrial television in up to 601 properties may be
affected by the development. However they state that all properties have an alternative
transmitter available and that the area will switch to digital this year which is less susceptible to
such interference. It is standard practice within the industry, that a condition be imposed to
require any effects on television receptors that arise as a result of the development will be
remedied and paid for by the developer. I am therefore satisfied that any such adverse impacts
can be addressed and this is in line with PPS22 and its companion guide, a material consideration.
Cumulative Impacts and Precedence
Some concerns have been expressed by objectors that the granting of planning permission might
lead to further wind farm applications in the area. Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004 clearly states that each application should be determined on its own merits and
this advice is also repeated in the Companion Guide to PPS22 which states that this argument is
not sufficient enough grounds for refusal (Paragraph 39: Page 167). Cumulative impacts are only
such if two turbines could be visible in the same landscape. An application for a wind turbine, 102
metres to tip, has been received at Little Carlton (planning reference 11/00279/FUL) which is
within the zone of theoretical visualisation. This is likely to come before Members for
consideration at September Committee. The applicants have given an undertaking to produce a
visual wireline showing how the two turbines would sit together within the landscape, which will
be reported verbally at Committee.
Climate Change
The comments from some residents challenging the viability and usefulness of turbine technology
are not considered reasonable grounds of objection, as is made clear by Government policy.
However, the developer states the proposal has the potential to prevent approximately 817
tonnes of CO₂ from being released into the atmosphere annually. Based on average consumption
this would provide for the energy needs of 425 homes. Put into context, Carlton-on-Trent
comprises 106 dwellings so the output would be sufficient to provide the energy needs for a
village of this size four times over. This positive environmental benefit would accordance with the
Council’s commitment to helping to tackle climate change as set out in Core Policy 10.
Conclusions
For the reasons set out above, I do not consider that there are any material considerations arising
out of the site specific issues or consultation responses that outweigh the Government’s clear
objectives for tackling climate by promoting renewable energy. I therefore recommend that the
application should be approved.
Taking into account the Secretary of State’s intention to revoke the RSS as a material
consideration, I do not believe in this instance that it effects the recommendation set out below.
RECOMMENDATION
That full planning permission is approved subject to the conditions and reasons shown on the
attached recommendation sheet.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Clare Walker on Ext: 01636 655841
Colin Walker
Director of Growth
Appendix B - Late Items (received up until noon on 1st August 2011) – Summary of matters already presented to Planning Committee.
Correspondent
Date
Points Raised (Summary)
Carlton on Trent 21/07/11
Parish Council
Response to letter regarding Rights of Way. No comments other than did this letter
satisfy the comments from the objector?
This has been dealt with in
the report
George VereLaurie
(applicant)
“As a horse owner and from a family of keen equestrians, I don't agree that the BHS
represents me or other equestrians. It has an anti wind farm agenda and furthermore
is clearly a special interest group that makes a tactical policy of demanding more from
public bodies than is necessary. This policy may be understandable but nonetheless is
on display in this instance.
Noted
22/07/11
The proposed turbine will be visible to horses from a distance and will not be a
surprise. Therefore the question of a sudden shock panic does not arise. The horse's
reaction will be clear well before the stretch of Ossington Road within 200m of the
turbine. The situation can be addressed by a competent rider if the horse is nervous.
In addition the verge is wide and so the rider could choose the north side avoiding the
risk of a shying horse skittering onto the road.
I draw your attention to riot control horses, horse resilience to traffic and the local
hunt's ability to easily deal with the Hockerton turbine. It will be a minority of the
equestrian minority that can't deal with the turbine. Possibly that hypothetical less
competent rider shouldn't be on the Ossington road with its traffic?
In the interest of balanced advice to the Committee, I request that you add to your
advice:A)
the verges are very wide, wider than national average. Using the North side will
be 2nd nature.
B)
the turbine will be visible to horses well before the stretch of Ossington Road in
question.
1
Correspondent
Date
C)
that there are equestrians from Carlton on Trent that are unconcerned about
the proposed turbine.
D)
In extremis, un-trainable horses that are also good in traffic (small minority!)
can change their route so that they ride back and forth on the bridleway
accessing from another entrance. This is an option that riders often take
anyway especially if their horses are nervy.
It is absolutely right that you highlight some worst case scenarios, but also please take
into account my assessment of the general position which I don't think is reflected in
your recent advice to Clare Walker. It is the first that you have heard from me so it is
more than understandable!
This turbine application is made by a horse lover with affected bridle paths (that he uses) on his
land.”
Agent
25/07/11
An additional photo montage showing the cumulative impact of the turbine with a
proposed wind turbine at Little Carlton (which will be presented to Committee in
September for determination) has been provided.
the report
Neighbour
26/07/11
Object on the grounds of noise, impact on health, interference with TV and radio,
disruption to wildlife, and effects of icing.
the report
Neighbour
26/07/11
Sending objection for a second time because they failed to get an acknowledgement
previously, but also because the Case Officer’s report has failed to make reference to
the lack of the iterative process.
Noted
The Case Officer in their report has said that the applicant does not have to show why
they have selected this position, however, the applicant has in a previous scoping
2
Correspondent
Date
opinion indicated that this is not the best site and therefore the iterative process or
lack of it is relevant.
Neighbour
Resident on
behalf of TTOG
28/07/11
02/08/11
The Committee Report is incorrect. The distances quoted in the Committee Report are Noted and corrected.
queried between Castle Hill, the East Coast railway line and the turbine. Their house is
down-wind of the turbine, but up-wind of the railway and A1, so they do not get much
noise from the latter but may well be subject to AM from the turbine.
It is noted that in the proposed conditions relating to noise, the Council has
attempted to protect Hill Farm from noise nuisance issues. The neighbour wishes to
know why the Council feel that the Castle Hill properties should not be afforded the
same protection.
the report
Comments that the visual assessment in respect of the cumulative impact was only
made available on 22nd July 2011.
the report
Requests an explanation as to why the applicant was not asked to do this for other
approved turbines, including a turbine outside the district (within Bassetlaw) who
have recently approved a 100m turbine just north of Egmanton.
Cllr C Rose
08/07/11
Members will note that the Cllr Rose referred the application to Planning Committee.
For the avoidance of doubt, Cllr Rose has requested that Members consider the
following comments in determining the application.
“I am sorry that I am unable to attend this meeting as this is a very important issue for
my ward. Whilst the proposed turbine would be located in Carlton it will have a visual
impact in other villages in my ward, Norwell and Sutton.
I know that Councillors will have been to the site of the development and I have
requested that it be approached from Kneesall so that Councillors can appreciate the
3
Noted.
Correspondent
Date
scale and beauty of the landscape of the Trent valley and its open aspect. Whilst there
are distant views of power stations and some pylons cross the landscape currently it is
generally unspoilt with wide, extensive and very attractive vistas. In planning terms
the area is classed as mid Nottinghamshire Farmland and Core policy 13 is to
conserve this type of landscape.
I have over the last few months had many, many people contact me regarding this
application and it has caused discussion and some division in the Community. Parish
Councillors at Sutton on Trent and Norwell voted unanimously against the proposal
and Councillors were split at Carlton.
The application has been slowed up because the applicant did not submit all the
required photo montages from viewpoints or define the planning application
boundary clearly.
In Carlton itself I have had representations from people in the parish for and against
this development and there have been several parish meetings to discuss it as
amendments and clarifications have been added.
Some people within the parish have written to me with their support for the
application and for wind energy and their concerns regarding climate change which
are important for all our futures.
I have also had very strong representations against the development. The residents
within about one kilometre of the site at Castle Hill and Park Liggett are very
concerned about the visual appearance and noise at their properties. Norwell Parish
Council is also concerned about the visual effect from Norwell. The height is about
the same as Newark church.
There is a very serious problem for one young resident of 23 years. who lives in
Carlton and has hyperacusis which is a very rare condition diagnosed when she was a
young child. It is a chronic disorder where there is a decreased threshold to
4
Correspondent
Date
discomfort from sound and in this patients case she would be unable to tolerate the
sounds from a wind turbine and would have to move.
Residents are concerned about the visual impact and the fact that it would change the
landscape and character of the area and be contrary to policy NE1 of the local plan
which is against development in the countryside. They are also very concerned about
a precedent being set, once one turbine is in this location the view will be very
different and they feel other turbines could follow more easily.
There are many applications for wind turbines in our district and I am sure for both
economic and environmental reasons this will only increase. The key issues in this
case are the effect on residents and the impact on this relatively unspoilt and
beautiful landscape. I would ask you to consider carefully the impact of allowing this
turbine.
I also urge the committee to think about the current piecemeal development of
turbines in the district and develop a policy which both permits turbines where these
meet agreed local policy criteria, and avoids damaging significant landscapes .A
strong and clear policy from the District with clear guidelines would avoid any
detrimental development from taking place and would preserve the best of the
District.”
5
Appendix C - Late Items since noon on 1st August 2011 – Summary of Matters Reported Verbally and New Matters Since Committee on 2 nd August 2011.
Correspondent
Cllr C Rose
Date
Officer Response
08/07/11 Members will note that the Cllr Rose referred the application to Planning
Noted.
Committee. For the avoidance of doubt, Cllr Rose has requested that Members
consider the following comments in determining the application.
“I am sorry that I am unable to attend this meeting as this is a very important
issue for my ward. Whilst the proposed turbine would be located in Carlton it
will have a visual impact in other villages in my ward, Norwell and Sutton.
I know that Councillors will have been to the site of the development and I
have requested that it be approached from Kneesall so that Councillors can
appreciate the scale and beauty of the landscape of the Trent valley and its
open aspect. Whilst there are distant views of power stations and some pylons
cross the landscape currently it is generally unspoilt with wide, extensive and
very attractive vistas. In planning terms the area is classed as mid
Nottinghamshire Farmland and Core policy 13 is to conserve this type of
landscape.
I have over the last few months had many, many people contact me regarding
this application and it has caused discussion and some division in the
Community. Parish Councillors at Sutton on Trent and Norwell voted
unanimously against the proposal and Councillors were split at Carlton.
The application has been slowed up because the applicant did not submit all
the required photo montages from viewpoints or define the planning
application boundary clearly.
In Carlton itself I have had representations from people in the parish for and
against this development and there have been several parish meetings to
discuss it as amendments and clarifications have been added.
Some people within the parish have written to me with their support for the
application and for wind energy and their concerns regarding climate change
which are important for all our futures.
1
Correspondent
Cllr C Rose
Cont’d
Date
Officer Response
08/07/11 I have also had very strong representations against the development. The
residents within about one kilometre of the site at Castle Hill and Park Liggett
are very concerned about the visual appearance and noise at their properties.
Norwell Parish Council is also concerned about the visual effect from Norwell.
The height is about the same as Newark church.
There is a very serious problem for one young resident of 23 years. who lives in
Carlton and has hyperacusis which is a very rare condition diagnosed when
she was a young child. It is a chronic disorder where there is a decreased
threshold to discomfort from sound and in this patients case she would be
unable to tolerate the sounds from a wind turbine and would have to move.
Residents are concerned about the visual impact and the fact that it would
change the landscape and character of the area and be contrary to policy NE1
of the local plan which is against development in the countryside. They are
also very concerned about a precedent being set, once one turbine is in this
location the view will be very different and they feel other turbines could
follow more easily.
There are many applications for wind turbines in our district and I am sure for
both economic and environmental reasons this will only increase. The key
issues in this case are the effect on residents and the impact on this relatively
unspoilt and beautiful landscape. I would ask you to consider carefully the
impact of allowing this turbine.
I also urge the committee to think about the current piecemeal development
of turbines in the district and develop a policy which both permits turbines
where these meet agreed local policy criteria, and avoids damaging significant
landscapes .A strong and clear policy from the District with clear guidelines
would avoid any detrimental development from taking place and would
preserve the best of the District.”
2
Correspondent
Resident on
behalf of TTOG
Date
Officer Response
01/08/11 Submissions comprising;
Dealt with in the Committee Report.
Letter from Mike Sibthorpe, Planning Advisor. Attached in full.
In summary this sets outs his client’s substantive concern is noise; comment
the raw noise data has not been provided as requested, indicate that Appendix
1 of the Noise Report is not available and indicate concerns that consultation
was not carried out in respect of Appendix 1.
Also attached were:
Appeal Decision from Dover District Council
Lord Rix Consent Order
Letter from Dick Bowdler, Acoustic Expert
Explanation of Dick Bowdlers qualifications
Appendix 1 has been provided as a
matter of fact. There is no statutory
obligation to consult on this. There
has been time prior to the previous
Committee and time since to look at
this and we are satisfied that this is
sufficient to make a decision on this
basis.
Agent
02/08/11 Response from Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd (Noise Consultants) to
comments from Dick Bowdler (TTOG’s noise expert) and Mike Sibthorpe
(TTOG’s planning advisor). Attached in full.
Resident on
behalf of TTOG
02/08/11 Comments that the visual assessment in respect of the cumulative impact was
only made available on 22nd July 2011.
Requests an explanation as to why the applicant was not asked to do this for
other approved turbines, including a turbine outside the district (within
Bassetlaw) who have recently approved a 100m turbine just north of
Egmanton.
Resident
04/08/11 Comments that properties at Castle Hill are upwind of the turbine and would
like this making clear to the Committee.
Noted and dealt with in the
Committee Report.
Request that the applicant provide the raw noise data for public viewing.
Concern that because the noise conditions discussed at the Committee were
not finalised these were not open for public viewing.
3
Correspondent
British Horse
Society
Date
Officer Response
08/08/11 “I am Regional Access Officer for the British Horse Society (East Midlands)
and have a lifetimes experience of riding and training horses. I have
looked carefully at the map and see that the proposed turbine site is close
to FP 7 and BR8 Carlton on Trent.
Noted and dealt with in the
Committee Report.
The guidelines are clear on the proximity of turbines to Rights of Way used
by horseriders. Current British Horse Society Guidelines state “Wind
turbines should be no less than three times overall height from all other
routes, including roads.....” These distances are likely to be increased as
more accident statistics are known.
In this case, access to BR8 is from the Ossington to Carlton on Trent Road.
As the only access at this end, riders wishing to use the Bridleway would
be forced to go within 100m of the proposed turbine on the lane. I gather
the route is very well used by riders and the close proximity of the turbine
both on the road and on the Bridleway will be a problem for horses. The
movement, noise and moving shadow of the blade will frighten horses.
Young horses and novice or young riders will be particularly vulnerable to
this hazard. Horses will shy or ‘spook’ and possibly be out of control either
on the bridleway or on the road. Horses and their riders will not only be a
danger to themselves but to all categories of other users. Contact with
motor vehicles could be catastrophic.
I object to the proposed wind turbine Planning Application on the grounds
of safety. Please keep me informed of your decisions and of any other
planning proposals that affect Public Rights of Way.”
Resident
09/08/11 Request for copies of the response by NERL.
4
NATS/NERL have responded as one
and raised no safeguarding
objections as set out in the
Committee Report.
Correspondent
Resident
Resident on
behalf of TTOG
Nottinghamshire
Wildlife Trust
Date
Officer Response
10/08/11 Request for Noise Raw Data
&
18/08/11
12/08/11 The Environmental Study is referred to frequently in the Ecology Report
Appendix 3, by Wild Frontier Ecology. They make references to the Full EIA
study that was carried out for the five wind turbine project
(10/00001/SCO) which has not gone ahead, but have said that this is relevant
information, but then not included it in their own appendices. This is
particularly important as they make references to The Great Crested Newt
which has been found in this area but they have not said where. Furthermore
Wild life Frontier have referred to a pond which they said could not be studied
because there was no access. It should be noted that this pond is within 500m
of the proposed turbine and on land that is part of Hill Farm, which is linked
with this application. We cannot therefore see why access would not be
allowed. As you are aware The Great Crested Newt is a fully protected species
(both aquatic and land habitats) and if found a 500m 'none development' zone
is automatically enforced.
Dealt within the Committee Reports.
16/08/11 We wish to make the following additional observations with regard to birds
and bats:
The condition has been amended as
requested.
With regard to your proposed condition 17 “No hedge or tree that is to be
removed as part of the development hereby permitted shall be lopped,
topped, felled or otherwise removed during the bird nesting period
(beginning of March to end of August inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority”, we would be grateful if you could
amend the wording to state “any vegetation that is to be removed…” This
is so that there is a reduced risk of ground nesting birds (lapwing, skylark
etc) being disturbed by construction activities.
5
Ecology issues have already been
covered in the Committee Report.
For clarity I would point out that Hill
Farm is not linked (it does not form
part of the land holding of the
applicant) to this application. It is
not considered reasonable to
impose conditions requiring great
crested newt surveys on land which
the applicant has no control over
and indeed which is some distance
from the turbine site.
The second matter is addressed in
the Committee Report under the
section ‘Ecology and Nature
Conservation’.
Correspondent
Date
Officer Response
Nottinghamshire
Wildlife Trust
16/08/11
Resident on
behalf of TTOG
17/08/11 A letter of complaint has been received relating to the processing of the
application. The matters raised are not pertinent to Members consideration of
the application. However the letter does request that Members defer the
application until the raw noise data is provided.
We pointed out in our most recent correspondence that the Bat
Conservation Trust now seek operational monitoring and we fully support
this stance (but when considering future turbine applications this shouldn’t
be viewed as a substitute for carrying out full, detailed surveys prior to
submission). We don’t think our recommendation for post development
monitoring was included in your report to committee, and we still
recommend such monitoring should be made a condition, should the
application be approved.
Requests for information were also received by email by the same resident.
6
The complaint is being dealt with
under the Council’s formal
complaints procedure. The request
for raw noise data is dealt with in
the report.
PLANNING APPLICATION 11/00508/FUL
WIND TURBINE SOUTH OF OSSINGTON ROAD, CARLTON-ON-TRENT
Andy McKenzie, Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd
2nd August 2011
1.
This note has been submitted for submission to the planning committee in respect of comments
by Dick Bowdler, Acoustic Consultant, and Mike Sibthorp, Mike Sibthorp Planning, on the
above application.
DICK BOWDLER
Raw Data
2.
It should be noted by the Committee that a formal request for raw data, beyond that contained in
Appendix 1 to the report, has never been received by the applicant or by ourselves from Newark
& Sherwood Council. There is no suggestion from Dick Bowdler that the background noise
data is deficient in any way.
Conditions
Condition 11
3.
Planning Condition 11 is not necessary since noise limits at properties are already given at
Condition 14. The applicant is, however, prepared to consider a limit restricting the turbine
noise to no more than 38 dB LA90, the lowest noise level permitted under the proposed
Condition 14, in order to circumvent any perceived uncertainty connected with the background
noise measurements.
Condition 12
4.
The Condition restricting the amount of variation in the noise is quite simply too onerous since
PPG24 makes it quite clear that a change of 3 dB(A) is the ‘minimum perceptible under normal
conditions’. It will also be impossible to verify whether or not this condition is being met since
ordinary ambient noise will vary by at least this amount and probably significantly more.
Condition 13
5.
Since there is a restriction on noise levels at the nearest property as specified in Condition 14,
there is no need to additionally restrict the turbine noise at source since it serves no purpose.
Tonal noise should be covered within Condition 14 since this applies at residential properties
not at the turbine.
Condition 14 (as proposed by Bowdler)
6.
Condition should stay as originally proposed although it is suggested that the words ‘and noise
level’ should be removed from the second sentence since all noise measurements will be made
at a height of 1.2 – 1.5 metres. It should be noted that the measurement, and any conversion, of
wind speeds will not be required if a fixed limit is used as proposed at Paragraph 3 (above).
MIKE SIBTHORP
Raw Data
7.
Reference is made to the comments at Paragraph 2 (above) where it is noted that no request for
raw background noise data was ever received. Furthermore the Appendix containing the full set
of measurements by 10 minute interval over the measurements period was submitted to the
Council, and is available from the officers.
8.
If, however, a planning condition requiring the turbine to meet a fixed limit, which is proposed
here as an alternative to Condition 14 (and Condition 11 which is considered unnecessary), then
the background noise data forms no part of setting the limits.

Mike Sibthorp Planning
Logan House, lime Grove, grantham, NG31 9jd
TEL: 01476 569065 MOB: 07983 470950
Clare Walker
Planning Services
Newark & Sherwood District Council
Kelham Hall
Kelham
Newark
NG23 5QX
Our ref: MSP.785/mjs
1 August 2011
Dear Ms Walker
PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 11//00508/FUL; INSTALLATION OF 1 WIND TURBINE,
WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO TIP OF 74M, A NEW ACCESS TRACK, A
HARDSTANDING, A SMALL SUBSTATION, AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE; FIELD
REFERENCE NUMBER 8199, OSSINGTON ROAD, CARLTON ON TRENT
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
I am writing on behalf of Mrs L Hopkins of TTOG in connection with the above planning
application. I am advised by my client that the application is to be considered at the
Planning Committee meeting tomorrow. I have seen a copy of the relevant report to
Committee.
My clients substantive concern relates to matters of noise. The purpose of this letter is to
comment on a number of issues relating to this matter from within your report, and to
address the issue of the raw noise data.
My clients have requested the provision of the raw noise data in this case for some
considerable time and to date have not received nor had the opportunity to comment upon
it. Reference is made to the collection of the raw noise data in the Hayes Mackenzie Noise
Assessment and the Noise Assessment refers (at Para. 4.15) to the data being available at
Appendix 1 of the report. That Appendix 1 document is not available. My clients have not
therefore had an opportunity to comment upon the information, or, to utilise that
information to verify the validity of the applicant’s subsequent claims in respect of noise.
The attached appeal decision from the Dover District Council area highlights the
importance of raw background data to the overall assessment of noise impact and, as
relevant, the formulation of noise conditions. Planning conditions relating to noise typically
refer back to background noise levels and if that noise data is not in the public domain,
enforcement of the condition will be problematic, and lack transparency. Indeed, as the
attached (Hulme / Den Brook) case illustrates (Para.8), one might infer some suspicion of
an applicant who is unwilling to make the raw data available.
The Den Brook wind farm proposals in Devon are a salutary reminder of the importance of
providing raw noise data as part of an application. In that particular case, following the
grant of permission for a wind farm proposal at Den Brook, a local opposition group
launched an appeal, under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to the
High Court, which was heard in March 2008 by Justice Mitting. A key issue in that appeal
was the refusal of the applicant to release the background noise data to the claimant, to
allow independent analysis. Although he criticised the approach taken by the applicant,
Justice Mitting refused to overturn the result of the inquiry, since the planning inspector had
not made a legal error in coming to his decision. However, subsequent to the High Court
case (and indeed largely as a result of it), the applicant, RES, released the noise data, and
errors were subsequently discovered by the opposition group, although the applicant
denied that they were significant. The opposition group then took their case to the Court of
Appeal, and permission to appeal was granted in June 2008. To avoid the need for another
court hearing a Consent Order was agreed between the opposition group and the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (the defendant in the case),
which had the effect of overturning the planning inquiry, and returning the matter to the
Planning Inspectorate. A copy of the Consent Order is attached. A second public inquiry
was then held.
This case very much highlighted the importance of the raw noise data being made available
at the outset of an application. It is the view of our specialist acousticians that post-Den
Brook, applicants as a matter of course are prepared to provide raw noise data as part of a
planning application. Indeed, in many cases, data is shared before an application is even
submitted. Paragraph 7 of the Judge Mitting ruling attached makes clear that there are no
sound reasons to withhold the data.
My client, since the submission of the application, has repeatedly requested the
information, and to date, the raw data has not been provided. We see no reason why this
data should not be provided. We would request that this data is sought, provided and
made available on the Council’s web-site and that a further period of public consultation be
permitted, in order that my clients may then assess the validity of that data, and the
assessments that flow from it.
Given that this raw data is specifically referred to as being supplied in Appendix 1 of the
Hayes Mackenzie Noise Assessment report, we consider that the data should already
have been provided and that the application should have been invalidated without this
important piece of information. In effect, the Noise Assessment is incomplete without it.
There is no doubt that the information exists. It is important information and data upon
which third parties and consultees should have the opportunity to respond. The Den Brook
case would suggest that the absence of this data, and the lack of opportunity for parties to
consider and assess it and make comment thereon, represents a robust basis for a legal
challenge of any decision. We ask the Council to note this, and would urge the Committee
to defer consideration of this application pending receipt and further consultation upon this
information.
Whilst the Council’s SCI is absent on the issue of re-consultation, Paragraph 25 of Circular
15/92 offers clear guidance. Whilst it is accepted that there is no statutory obligation upon
LPA’s to publicise changes to applications once validated, changes (or in this case, more
accurately, information referred to but not provided) represent matters that are often of
great concern to objectors. LPA’s have a discretion to decide whether further consultation
is desirable, taking into account the following considerations;
a. Were objections raised at an earlier stage substantial and, in the view of the local
authority enough to justify further publicity?
Yes. There has been substantial objections in this case, and these have
consistently, since October 2010, sought information on the raw noise data.
b. Are the proposed changes significant
Yes. In the light of the Den Brook case, it is clear that the availability of raw noise
data is of fundamanetal importance to the consideration of wind energy proposals.
This is also confirmed in the Dover decision attached.
c. Did earlier views cover the matters now under consideration?
No. the absence of the data has clearly precluded comment on this point
d. Are the matters now under consideration likely to be of concern to parties not
previously notified?
Potentially yes.
The above clearly suggests that there are sound reasons why re-consultation should take
place in this case. Indeed, it would appear unreasonable not to re-consult. The terminal
date of the application has already passed, and thus no prejudice (to the Council or
applicant) would arise by further consultation.
The absence of noise data is also referred to in the attached letter from Mr D Bowdler, a
noise expert, with recognised expertise in wind energy proposals, who has been engaged
by my client. This letter also identifies issues relating to the proposed conditions. In this
respect, it is important to note that the conditions make reference to the background noise
data. In this respect it is essential that this data is placed in the public domain. If it is
available, third parties should have opportunity to see the data and comment upon it. If it is
not available, we would question whether the Council can reasonably reached informed
conclusions with respect to noise matters.
Reference is made on page 23 of your report to there being material differences between
the present application and the Thackson’s Well appeal decision in relation to the use of a
candidate turbine. We would seek clarification of these differences, and indeed, would
request that these differences are elaborated to the Committee. Para 13 of the Thackson’s
Well decision states;
Even though the consultant’s calculations have been based on the noisiest
of the two modes, predictions based on a “candidate turbine” leave any
conclusions open to criticism that the model of turbine actually installed may
have a different noise emission profile, less effective noise control
mechanisms or altered relationships between blade diameter and tower
height. These matters are of particular importance in relation to the very few
cases in which amplitude modulation of aerodynamic noise (AM) is
encountered. This, being unpredictable and intermittent, might fall outside
the normal planning condition regime.
Paragraph 16 continues;
…….in the interests of public confidence in the decision-making and
enforcement process, it is in my view necessary for the noise limits and
choice of turbine to be founded upon data which has, and can be seen to
have been, carefully and accurately compiled before full permission has
been granted, rather than afterwards. That is, after all, a purpose of
statutory Environmental Assessment, and the judgement in Newport County
Borough Council-v-The Secretary of State for Wales and Browning Ferris
Environmental Services Ltd (1998) Env LR 174 reinforces the point.
This suggests that the Council are suggesting a contrary approach to that adopted a
Thackson’s Well, something that we feel should be justified.
For these reasons, we feel that the absence of raw noise data, and the absence of
opportunity for third parties and their noise specialists to consider data and the
assessments that flow from it, is severely prejudicial to third parties in this case. In the
absence of the data, we feel the application should have been invalidated. We would
request that the application is deferred from consideration by Committee pending the
submission of this information.
Yours sincerely
Mike Sibthorp
M ike Sibthorp Planning
APPENDIX D
Committee Item 9
Application No:
11/00508/FUL
Proposal:
Installation of 1 wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 74m, a new
access track, a hardstanding, a small substation, and associated
infrastructure.
Location:
Field Reference Number 8199, Ossington Road, Carlton on Trent
Nottinghamshire
Supplementary Comments from the Director of Growth
Cumulative Impact
Members will be aware from the Committee Report that a planning application for a single
turbine at Little Carlton is currently being considered. Notwithstanding that this turbine is
not committed, because this lies within the ZTV and in order to ensure we adopt a robust
approach an additional visual assessment and further photomontages were requested. This
assessment, including 3 additional photomontages, have now been received and assessed.
The proposed turbine at Little Carlton would be 102 metres to tip whilst this turbine at
Carlton-on-Trent is 74 metres to tip. Taking into account that this relates to single turbines
rather than wind farms, the separation distance of 6 km which means there are
considerable distances between the sites, the intervening features within the landscape
(such as pylons, woodlands etc) which reduce the opportunities for the turbines to be seen
together, I share the view with the applicant’s Landscape Consultants ‘Open’ that there
would be no significant cumulative landscape or visual effects in this case.
Noise Data
Comments from a Planning Consultant, Mike Sibthorpe, acting on behalf of local residents,
were received yesterday after the deadline for late items. Nevertheless these have been
considered.
Appendix 1 to the Noise Report has been provided notwithstanding any confusion on behalf
of the objectors. This contains the full set of measurements by 10 minute interval over the
measurements period. Your Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the data
provided to us forming Appendix 1 has sufficient details for their purposes in assessing the
noise impact of the application.
In any event, as Condition 14 requires the turbine to meet a fixed noise limit, the
background noise data is irrelevant as it forms no part of setting the limits.
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 6 SEPTEMBER 2011
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
Application No:
11/00807/FUL
Proposal:
Erection of agricultural barn, polytunnels and underground water
tank
Location:
Field Reference Number 8708, Gravelly Lane, Fiskerton,
Nottinghamshire
Applicant:
T & S Nurseries - Mr Philip Kerry
Registered:
24.06.2011
The Site
The application site is situated on the northern side of Gravelly Lane within the countryside
and Environment Agency defined Flood Zones 2 and 3. It comprises approximately 1.4
hectares of grassland described as a small cider orchard plantation by the applicant. It is
enclosed by a mix of post and rail fences and vegetation and contains several hundred
immature trees. The closest dwelling lies some 30 metres to the east along Gravelly Lane with
the main built-up area of the village being a further 250 metres in the same direction. Public
Footpath No. 12 runs along the southern boundary of the site and beyond this, and on the
opposite side of Gravelly Lane to the north is open countryside with scattered dwellings.
APPLICATION
NUMBER
11/00386/FUL
PROPOSAL DETAILS Erection of 1 barn for rabbit breeding, 3
polytunnels, mobile poultry houses and 1 septic tank
DECISION Withdrawn
DECISION DATE 03.05.2011
The Proposal
The application proposes the utilization of the existing access off Gravelly and the erection of
an agricultural barn, 3 No. polytunnels and an underground rainwater harvesting tank in the
northern and southern third of the site. The height of the barn has been reduced during the
course of the application and now has proposed external dimensions of 13.65 metres in width
by 24.9 metres in length and 6 metres maximum height. The building is shown as containing a
vehicle and tool store, feed and grain store and hydroponic unit for the growing of barley
grass for feed. Optional external materials of timber or profiled metal cladding are offered for
consideration. The proposed polytunnels have external dimensions of 5 metres in width by 8
metres in length and 2.6 metres maximum height. The underground water tank would have
an approximate volume of 14.5 cubic metres and be used to collect rainwater from the barn.
The proposal for consideration forms part of a free range rabbit operation on the overall site
that does not require planning permission.
The occupier of one neighbouring property has been individually notified by letter and a site
notice has been displayed at the site.
PPS 25 – Development and Flood Risk
PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Please Note: 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.
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 3
• Policy 35
Regional Core Objectives
Distribution of New Development
A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk
Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (adopted March 2011)
• Spatial Policy 1
• Spatial Policy 3
• Core Policy 9
Settlement Hierarchy
Rural Areas
Sustainable Design
• Policy NE4 – Agricultural Development
• Policy PU1 - Washlands
Consultations
This application has been referred to Committee by Councillor R V Blaney for the following
reasons: I consider that the Fiskerton-cum-Morton Parish Council have expressed concern
about the size of the proposed barn and other planning issues that warrant the decision
being considered and determined by the Committee.
The following summaries of consultation responses are of those relating to the application
being considered by Members. Some consultation responses contain comments relating
to the free range rabbit operation on the overall site, do not form material considerations
in determining this application and therefore have not been summarized.
Fiskerton cum Morton Parish Council
Object on grounds of:
• size and consequent visual impact and possible
overshadowing of nearby properties (both
before and after reduction in height of building).
• Siting being too close to neighbouring residentia
property and infilling between Morton and
Fiskerton.
• Difficulty of access by large vehicles.
• Dispute applicant’s assertions over level of tree
cover on the site.
Nottinghamshire County Council
Highways
No objection. Request condition controlling
construction of access.
The Environment Agency
No objection subject to conditions controlling
finished floor levels, surface water drainage and no
raising of ground levels.
Neighbours/interested parties 57 communications received objecting on grounds of:
• Unsuitability of Gravelly Lane for greater/larger vehicle movements leading to highway
safety issues and in particular conflict with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
• Development out of character with other development on Gravelly Lane.
• Barn being out of character and visually intrusive due to its size. (Comments received both
before and after reduction in height of building).
• Unsuitable location in principle.
• Too close to dwellings resulting in over-bearing impact.
• Possible light and noise pollution depending on hours of operation.
• Inadequacy of landscaping.
• Infilling between Fiskerton and Morton.
• Inadequate water supply.
• Increased flood risk.
• Possible precedent for future development.
• Over intensive development.
• Adverse impact on Morton Conservation Area.
• Being contrary to planning policy.
• Being unsustainable development.
Communications also question the applicant’s assertions over the existing use of this site in
justifying this proposal and the impact on adjacent public footpath.
In considering this application, it is firstly important to make clear that it is only the
development described in the proposal that is being considered by this application and not
the wider free range rabbit operation it would serve. The keeping of animals on agricultural
land including the provision of fencing and mobile structures does not require planning
permission and could be carried out regardless of the outcome of this application.
In light of this, I consider that the main issues to assess in determining this application are the
principle of the development and its impacts on flood risk, highway safety, the amenities of
nearby residents and the appearance of the surrounding countryside. The proposed barn and
polytunnels are some 25 metres away from the public footpath and therefore would not
present any obstruction.
Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy DPD restricts development in the open countryside to
that which requires a rural setting, such as agriculture. As this proposal meets that definition I
consider it is appropriate in principle and suitable to assess against the site specific
considerations identified above.
In terms of flood risk, as this application cannot control the location of the wider free range
rabbit operation that it is intended to serve, it follows that there is no need to carry out a
search of other sites at lesser risk of flooding for the proposed development and therefore the
proposal passes the sequential test as set out in PPS 25. The Environment Agency are satisfied
that subject to the conditions set out on the recommendation sheet the development would
not place eventual occupiers at undue risk from flooding nor exacerbate risk in the
surrounding area and therefore the exception test is also satisfied.
Although vehicle movements to the site would no doubt increase as a result of the overall free
range rabbit operation, the total impact of these cannot be considered in determining this
application as they would be partly generated by operations not requiring planning
permission. I consider it is, however, reasonable to assume that as the proposed barn is
intended to store and grow feed, a certain amount of vehicle movements would be directly
associated with this and therefore it is reasonable to make an assessment of these as part of
this application. The design and access statement describes one transit type van delivering
feed and bedding to the site twice a week and bringing livestock to and from the site once or
twice a week. In addition to this it states there would be the vehicle movements associated
with the equivalent of 2.5 full-time employees. The Highway Authority have assessed the
vehicle movements associated with the site as a whole and make no objection, but request
control over the means of access and of vehicle movements associated with the construction
process.
The closest dwelling to the site would be some 30 metres from its boundary and some 150
metres from the proposed barn. I consider that this separation distance combined with the
intervening vegetation, which will further mature over time, would prevent any overbearing
impact on the occupiers of this dwelling. The proposed use for storage and hydroponics would
not present any environmental impacts for consideration. Its future usage for the keeping of
livestock could be controlled though planning condition.
In common with most agricultural buildings, the proposed barn would have a visual impact
within the surrounding area, being most visible from Gravelly Lane itself and Wilsons Lane.
The polytunnels would have much less, if any, visual impact outside the site due to their lower
height. The immature landscaping already on the site would provide a degree of screening
initially and more so as it matures. Whilst the proposal would give rise to a visual change,
mainly due to the lack of development in the surrounding area, I do not consider that this
would cause visual harm significant enough to warrant refusal for this reason alone.
In response to the other objections received, not forming part of the main considerations set
out above, I can respond as follows:
•
•
The capacity of utility services is not a planning consideration - utility providers have the
power within their own legislation to require the up-grading of services in response to
development if and where necessary.
The proposal lies in excess of 300 metres from the Morton Conservation Area and given
the height of the building and intervening vegetation, I do not consider it would have any
adverse impact on the setting.
In light of the above, I consider that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Development Plan and there are no material considerations that warrant determining it
otherwise.
I do not consider that the Secretary of State’s intention to revoke Regional Strategies as a
material consideration has any effect on the recommendation set out below.
RECOMMENDATION
the attached recommendation sheet.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Richard Exton on Ext: 5847.
C Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
APPROVE
01
this permission.
Reason:
To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
02
No development shall be commenced until details of the external colour/finish of the barn
hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development 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:
03
The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in
accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the following mitigation
measures detailed within the FRA:
1.
Finished floor levels are set no lower than 15.2m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
Reason:
To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development.
04
No development shall take place 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. The scheme
to be submitted shall demonstrate:
•
The utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques;
•
The limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates;
•
The ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100
year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon the
submission of drainage calculations; and
•
Responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features.
Reason:
To prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water
quality; to improve habitat and amenity; and to ensure the future
maintenance of the sustainable drainage structures.
05
There shall be no raising of ground levels within the site unless otherwise agreed in writing
with the local planning authority.
Reason:
To prevent the risk of increasing flood risk elsewhere.
06
No livestock shall be accommodated within the barn hereby permitted unless otherwise
agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To allow the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact on neighbouring
land uses.
07
No external lighting shall be erected on the buildings hereby permitted unless first agreed
in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To allow the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact on neighbouring
land uses.
08
No development shall take place until a construction method statement has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall
be adhered to during the construction period. The statement shall provide for and indicate:
•
The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors.
•
Number of vehicles generated during the construction period.
•
Loading and unloading of plant and materials.
•
Wheel washing facilities.
•
Measures to control the emission of detritus onto the highway during construction.
Reason:
To reduce the possibility of deleterious material being deposited onto the
public highway (loose stones etc.)To ensure that adequate off street parking
provision is made to reduce the possibility of the development leading to on
street parking during in the area during the construction phase.
Note to Applicant
01
You are advised by the Environment Agency that all sewage and other contaminated
effluents shall be discharged to sewer. This includes the wash down from any
contaminated yards. If any trade effluents, for example wash down of contaminated areas,
are intended to be discharged to foul sewer the applicant should contact the sewerage
undertaker, to discuss this.
It is stated that rainwater will be harvested. Only clean, uncontaminated water should be
reused on site.
The applicant is advised to have regard to the Defra document "Protecting our Water, Soil
and Air: Code of Good Agricultural Practise for Farmers, Growers and Land Managers"
(DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
02
Policies 1, 3 and 35
Saved Policies NE4 and PU1
March 2011)
Core Policy 9
Spatial Policies 1 and 3
03
The applicant’s attention is drawn to those conditions on the decision notice, which should
be discharged before the development is commenced. It should be noted that if they are
not appropriately dealt with the development may be unauthorised.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
Application No:
11/00628/FUL
Proposal:
Change of use from workshops and storage to a vehicle hand wash
and valet use (Retrospective)
Location:
Unit 3 Manners Road Newark
Applicant:
Super Shiny Car Wash Ltd
Registered:
17.05.2011
The Site
The application site is situated within the main built-up area of Newark on the western side
of the Great North Road, in a mixed residential and non-residential area. The site is occupied
by a large industrial building that measures approximately 610 square metres in area.
Manners Road serves the site and is a private access road that leads from Kelham Road. The
industrial unit has two large doors facing onto Manners Road.
Each side of the application site are other attached industrial buildings, one has permission
for office and storage for museum artifacts and the other has permission for the
manufacture and warehousing of pine furniture. To the south of the application site is open,
undeveloped land. To the north of the site are dwellings that front Kelham Road, which are
positioned approximately 45 to 50 metres from the application site, and in between are the
long rear gardens and the private access road, Manners Road. Many of the rear gardens
have garages that are served by Manners Road, providing rear vehicular access. The site is
located within an area at high risk from flooding, defined within Flood Zones 2 and 3 of the
Environment Agency Flood Maps.
APPLICATION NUMBER PROPOSAL DETAILS CHANGE OF USE STORAGE/WORKSHOP TO
FUL/950154
MANUFACTURE/WAREHOUSING OF PINE FURNITURE
DECISION APPROVED
APPLICATION NUMBER PROPOSAL DETAILS Replace existing sliding doors with new
07/00683/FUL
rendered facade with roller shutter double doors and 2 windows
DECISION APPROVED
The current authorised use of the application premises is specifically for the manufacture
and warehousing of pine furniture, which would normally represent a Class B2 use, but a
condition was imposed on the permission granted in 1995, stating that the premises shall
not be used other than for the specific purposes defined in the application, or within Class
B1, B8 of the 1987 Order. This condition prevents the site being used for any open Class B2
use without further permission to protect the amenities of nearby residents. This condition
was imposed because the proposed use was previously operating at a different site in
Newark and therefore measurements were made of the likely noise that would be
emanated from the use before the application site was occupied for pine furniture
manufacturing.
There were also conditions restricting the times that power tools could be used and
restricting the times the use could operate. These conditions were later amended on appeal
and the current existing conditions relating to these issues state the following:
“No power tools or machinery shall be operated on the premises before 0800 hours on
weekdays and Saturdays nor after 2000 hours on weekdays and 1800 hours on Saturdays,
nor at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.” and
“No process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site
outside the hours 0730 hours to 2000 hours on weekdays, 0730 hours to 1930 hours on
Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.”
There were two other conditions imposed relating to the noise attenuation of the doors of
the unit as well as a condition being required to be kept shut at all times during the
operation of any machinery or the playing of radios or background music within the building
that were imposed in the interests of residential amenity.
The Proposal
Retrospective planning permission is sought to change the use of the building from
manufacture/warehousing of pine furniture (the former part of which is a Class B2 use) to a
vehicle hand wash and valet use (which represents a sui generis use, meaning it does not fall
within any of the defined Use Classes). The submitted plans show 8 parking spaces situated
externally at the front of the building, two roller shutter doors and a pedestrian door in the
elevation fronting Manners Road, and within the building itself, one pressure wash facility is
shown adjacent to the north-west elevation and a vacuum cleaner is shown adjacent to the
rear elevation. A new drainage system is also shown as being installed within the floor of
the building to deal with water disposal. There is a waste storage area identified on the
outside of the building.
The uses operates with 9 part-time employees and the operating hours are 0800 to 1800
Mondays to Fridays, 0900 to 1700 on Saturdays and 0900 to 1600 on Sunday and Bank
Holidays. The applicants have also confirmed that operating inside the building will reduce
noise and visual impact of use, they use environmentally friendly chemicals, the effluent will
drain into the mains drain and the pressure washer is of the highest technology, with low
noise and water output. The applicant has agreed to repair the surface of Manners Road
and operate a 50% discount for local neighbours and businesses to foster friendly
relationships.
The applicant has, on request, submitted a Noise Impact Assessment.
Occupiers of 9 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site
notice has been displayed at the site.
Draft National Planning Framework
PPS1:
Delivering Sustainable Development
PPG24: Planning and Noise
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.
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 2
Policy 3
Policy 20
Policy 32
Policy 35
Promoting Better Design
Regional Priorities for Employment Land
A Regional Approach to Water Resources and Water Quality
A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk
•
•
•
•
•
Spatial Policy 1
Spatial Policy 2
Core Policy 9
Core Policy 10
NAP 1
Spatial Distribution of Growth
Sustainable Design
Climate Change
Newark Urban Area
• Policy E25
• Policy PU5
Impact on nearby Residents
Water Environment
Consultations
This application has been referred to Committee by Councillor Bickley for the following
reasons:
•
•
•
•
•
Residents complaints on noise;
open seven days a week;
working all hours;
traffic problems.
Site Visit Requested.
Newark Town Council: Object to proposal on grounds that this is not the correct area for
this type of use, the noise impact on the local community is not acceptable, there have been
many public complaints about the operation.
Nottinghamshire County Council – Highways: Manners Road is an unadopted road and the
application site is situated approximately 80 metres from its junction with Great North
Road. In view of this, it is expected that there will be no impact on the public highway,
therefore there are no highway objections.
Severn Trent Water: No objection subject to condition requiring details of foul sewage and
surface water disposal have been submitted and approved.
The Environment Agency: No objection subject to the trade effluent draining to a public foul
combined sewer and providing Severn Trent Water are satisfied with this connection.
Internal Drainage Board: It is noted on the application that surface water will be directed
to the existing mains sewer. The Council will need to be satisfied that the existing main and
the system downstream, into which it discharges, has sufficient capacity without
disadvantaging other land and properties.
Newark & Sherwood District Council - Environmental Health Section: Given the concerns
over noise impact raised by local residents, it would be appropriate to ask for a detailed
noise impact assessment to be undertaken by a competent person. The information
provided will aid the decision process, not least the suitability of the proposed hours of
work. Following the submission of a Noise Impact Assessment: The report has been
prepared with reference to PPG24 Planning and Noise 1994 and BS4141, 1997 - Method for
Rating Industrial Noise affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas. Overall the report
shows that noise levels from the development will be of marginal significance according to
BS 4142, 1997, a finding that I can agree with in general terms. As a consequence, noise is
not likely to have a significant impact on the nearby residents and therefore I would not
object to an approval being issued.
Neighbours/interested parties – Nine letters of objection have been received from nearby
residents raising the following concerns:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Not a suitable use so close to residential properties;
Excessive noise, amplified by the building from power washer and loud radios;
Increased traffic in the private road and resulting wear and tear on the road surface;
Parking congestion and obstructions;
Large bright yellow unauthorized adverts displayed are a danger to road users;
Possible unsafe storage, use and disposal of chemicals causing hazard to health and local
water;
Concern for safety and security to rear of dwellings on Kelham Road;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Large blue wooden doors have been removed and replaced with industrial metal
shutters;
Loss of privacy;
Use has been operating without planning permission;
Building is unsafe, hardboard has been used to make the ceiling;
The use should be restricted at the weekends;
Increased water usage and consequent waste water can only exacerbate the existing
foul water disposal with regular flooding;
Danger of additional vehicular use of Manners Road and the congestion likely leaving a
difficult road turning in close proximity to the railway crossing;
Only B1 uses should be allowed in this residential area;
Vehicles have been washed and shined outside the building which detracts from the
residential setting;
Increases risks of odours and pollution;
Opening and closing times are earlier and longer in practice than they have stated in
their application;
Adverse impact on the surrounding conservation area and historic core;
Personal and community loss or reduction in use of existing garden facilities;
Increased light pollution;
Vibration;
Dust;
Reduce employment prospects as other businesses are unlikely to want to operate in
the vicinity of such a use;
It is encouraging the use of unsustainable forms of transport;
Site welfare – not aware of any toilets being provided on site.
The application site is situated within the main urban area of Newark, but contrary to a
comment made by one local resident, is not located within a Conservation Area. The site is
therefore situated in a sustainable location for new development which includes changes of
use of existing buildings. Although the site is located in an area at high risk of flooding, the
Environment Agency does not object to the proposal on flooding grounds. I therefore
conclude that the principle of the use in this location is considered acceptable.
In terms of the impact on the character of the area, the site is located in an area of mixed
use characterised by both residential terraced dwellings fronting Kelham Road and
substantially larger industrial units fronting Manners Road. The adjoining unit to the west is
authorised for office and storage use and the unit to the east is specifically for pine furniture
manufacture and warehousing only or Class B1 or B8 use. It seems clear from the planning
history that these industrial units have been predominantly used for B1 and/or B8 use but
under special circumstances and with very restrictive conditions, a specific Class B2 use was
previously granted at this and the adjoining site. It is evident that careful assessment has
been undertaken in the past which examined the impact of a proposed Class B2 use and
given the proximity to residential dwellings a number of restrictive conditions were
imposed. A vehicle wash and valet service does not fall within any specific use class as
defined by the 1987 Use Classes Order, and as such is defined as “sui generis.” Given the
nature of the proposed use, there is potential for noise to be created either from the power
wash, vacuum or from engine noise of vehicles wishing to use the facility. This impact is
discussed in greater detail below. The proposed use would operate within the existing
building and there has been little requirement for change to the external building from its
original form as a result on this proposal. There appears to be ample room within the
building, so as to avoid the need for operations to be carried out externally. Therefore, in
terms of the direct impact of the proposal on the character of the area I consider it to be
acceptable.
The existing unit had been vacant for some time before the applicants occupied it and so
levels of activity at the site had been reduced to none. It is acknowledged that the proposed
use will create some noise from the power washer, vacuum cleaner, vehicle engine noise,
doors slamming and associated radios and voices. But it is whether the levels of noise
created can be considered as detrimental to the amenities of residents. There is a distance
of approximately 45 metres between the application site and the closest houses, given the
length of the properties’ rear gardens. The submitted Noise Impact Assessment has been
prepared with reference to PPG24 Planning and Noise 1994 and BS4141, 1997 - Method for
Rating Industrial Noise affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas. Overall the report
shows that noise levels from the development will be of marginal significance according to
BS 4142, 1997 and this is a finding that the District Council’s Environmental Health Officer
can agree with in general terms. Both the planning case officer and a number of the
Council’s Environmental Health Service’s officers have visited the site, even during the
weekends, to ascertain the level of noise and disturbance created by the operations, given
the concerns raised by occupiers of adjacent dwellings. I have been advised by the
Environmental Health Service that noise is not likely to have a significant impact on the
nearby residents and therefore no objection has been raised. The submitted plan shows a
“waste storage” area outside the building on one of the proposed car parking spaces. No
details have been submitted and I am concerned that if waste is not properly secured it
could cause an amenity issue. A condition therefore needs to be imposed requiring details
to be submitted and approved and a restriction that there shall be no other storage on the
open areas of the site, to protect the visual amenities of the area.
The Highway Authority has not raised any objection to the parking provision or turning and
manoeuvring facilities provided by the application site and therefore do not raise a highway
objection to the scheme. I appreciate that the presence of additional vehicles that may
cause obstructions may be frustrating and inconvenient for local residents in getting access
to the rear of their properties, but I can find no substantive reason as to why the proposal
should be rejected on highway grounds. Given the above it is not considered that the
highway improvement works offered by the applicant are necessary albeit in the interests of
planning gain a condition is recommended to secure these. The Environment Agency and
Severn Trent Water raise no objection in terms of flooding, drainage and the potential for
water pollution and I therefore conclude that the scheme is acceptable in this regard,
subject to a detailed condition.
The signs that have been displayed at the site will be appropriately dealt with once the
principle of whether the use is going to be approved is established through the
determination of this application.
To conclude, the principle of the proposed use in this sustainable location is acceptable and
the use will not have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the area as a
whole. The impact of the development on the amenities of local residents has been
carefully assessed and subject to conditions I am satisfied that the use would not have such
a significant detrimental impact to warrant refusal of planning permission. The Highway
Authority is satisfied with the traffic implications of the proposal. I therefore conclude that
the development accords with the Development Plan and there are no other material
considerations that would outweigh the policy stance.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Julia Lockwood on Ext 5902.
C Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
APPROVE
01
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance
with the following approved plans,
Site Plan (scale 1:100)
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.
02
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 unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenity.
03
The use hereby permitted shall not take place outside the following:17:00 hours to 09:00 Monday - Friday
16:00 hours to 09:00 Saturdays
and not at all on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
04
Within two months of the date of this permission, drainage plans for the disposal of surface
water and foul sewage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
in writing. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within
four months of the date of this permission.
Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage
as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to
minimise the risk of pollution.
05
Within two months of the date of this permission, details of the works to be carried out to
repair Manners Road shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in
writing. Within six months of the date of this permission the repair works shall be fully
completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and visual amenities of the area.
Note to Applicant
01
The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that the permission only relates to the change
of use of the site. If you propose to carry out any further development, including works such
as external alterations, further planning permission may be required and you should contact
the Development Control Service of Newark and Sherwood District Council before starting
the work to discuss the matter (tel: 01636 650000).
Policies 2, 3, 20, 32 and 35
Saved policies E25 and PU5
March 2011)
Core Policies 9 and 10
Area Policy NAP1
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
Application No:
11/00296/FUL
Proposal:
Proposed mix use development to include A1, A2, A5 & D1 uses,
new estate road and associated vehicular parking provisions
following demolition of existing warehousing units.
Location:
Merkur House Bowbridge Road Newark On Trent Nottinghamshire
Applicant:
Mr Christopher Wilson
Registered:
28.02.2011
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 part of a commercial premise, Merkur House on the western side of
Bowbridge Road. The existing single-storey warehouse building is constructed of brick,
cladding and concrete roof sheeting and has a triple gable facing Bowbridge Road. The
building appears to be currently unoccupied.
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 slices
through the building, with only the eastern part of the building being within the actual
application site boundary.
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.
‘One Stop’ convenience store (which is also a Post Office), ‘Ladbrokes’ betting office and
‘Hawtonville Chippy’ lie between 370m-390m to the south east.
The previously defined ‘Central Shopping Area’ is located some 570m (as the crow flies) to
the north-west although is approximately 650m away by taking the shortest walking route.
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.
The Proposal
This application seeks full planning permission for a retail development comprising 5 units,
following demolition of the existing warehouse building on site.
These units comprise a total gross floor space of 836.3 square metres broken down as
follows:
A1
A1
A2
A5
D1
food retail convenience store
non-food retail
(financial and professional services)
(hot food takeaway)
(non-residential institution)
Total:
376 sq m
96.5 sq m
100.7 sq m
100.7 sq m
162.4 sq m
836.3 sq m
Whilst the plans indicate that the A1 unit could be a pharmacy and the D2 a dental practice,
the applicant has stated this is a speculative development with the end users unknown.
The development is physically broken into two parts separated by the vehicular access point
from Bowbridge Road. The convenience store, the A2 and A5 units would be sited to the
north of the access in one block whilst the non-food retail and D1 unit (again as one block)
would be sited south of the access adjacent to the hospital complex.
The buildings adopt a modern, contemporary design with split level intersecting mono-pitch
roofs. Both are single-storey.
Parking for 35 vehicles would be provided; 21 of these spaces are to the frontage and side of
the northern part of the development (convenience store etc) whilst 14 spaces would be
provided at the rear to serve the two units adjacent the southern boundary. Both have
separate servicing areas to their rears.
The application form indicates that the employment generated by this development is
unknown although a latter email from the agent indicates this development could create up
to 70 jobs.
The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, a Transport Assessment
and Travel Plan, a Site Investigation Report, an Ecological Appraisal and a Retail Assessment.
An addendum to the Retail Assessment was received during the course of the application in
an attempt to address concerns raised.
Occupiers of fourteen 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.
PPS4: Planning For Sustainable Economic Growth. In particular;
• Policy EC10: Determining planning applications for economic development
• Policy EC14: Supporting evidence for planning applications for main town centre uses
• Policy EC15: The consideration of sequential assessments for planning applications 20
for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance
with an up to date development plan
• Policy EC16: The impact assessment for planning applications for main town centre 21
uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date
development plan
• Policy EC17: The consideration of planning applications for development of main town
centre uses not in a centre and not in an up to date development plan
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)
Nb – with reference to Policy 22, I attach this little weight, as within the body of the text, it
refers to now superseded government advice.
• 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)
•
• Policy S12
• ECH3
(Local Shopping Provision in Newark and the Larger Settlements)
(Hospital/Healthcare uses on Land at Bowbridge Road, Newark)
Consultations
Newark Town Council – ‘No objection was raised to this application’.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – No objections.
They initially sought further information in respect of the car parking provision and its
management and requested further accident data. This was provided and they have now
confirmed they have no objections to the scheme subject to conditions if the Council is
minded to approve the application. They also have indicated that a S106 contribution for
Integrated Transport is not required.
Natural England – No objections and support the recommendations in terms of breeding
birds and bats.
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – No objections subject to demolition being undertaken
outside of bird breeding season and to an informative to point out the legal obligation in
respect of bats. They also request that consideration be given to ecological enhancements
such as bat/bird boxes etc.
Nottinghamshire Police – Comment as follows:
“With regard to the above planning application I should like to draw your attention to the
following points.
Commercial and retail crime accounts for approximately 25% of all reported crime. It is
important that a high level of physical security is incorporated into the building
construction.
When there are a number of retail units located together safety and security are essential
elements in providing a successful sustainable business environment. Freedom from crime
and the fear of crime improves the quality of life for the staff and increases the number of
service users.
Unfortunately after reading the support planning and retail statement no reference has
been made to the impact on crime the new development will have and the measures that
need to be implemented to reduce it.
The principles of designing out crime must be incorporated. Providing a safe and secure
environment should always be a prime objective.
Safety and security are essential to an environment, which caters for members of the
community. Where safety and security are compromised then all too readily a few people
can cause disruption for the service users and physical damage to the retail development.
Crime reduction considerations need to be taken into account in the layout of the
development. It is therefore recommended that the development meets the requirements
of “Secured by Design” to prevent the development becoming a “Hot Spot” for crime.
1.
It is essential that during the development of the site all necessary steps are taken to
provide adequate security measures to prevent the theft of plant and equipment.
2.
From the drawings supplied it is hard to determine what if any perimeter security
measures are to be implemented. It is recommended that a suitable 2.4m high close
weld mesh boundary fencing be erected. All fencing shall incorporate measures to
prevent tunneling. An anti-climb topping may also have to be incorporated.
3.
The use of thorny shrubs planted adjacent to the perimeter fence enhances security.
Examples of this type of planting include pyracantha, berberis and hawthorn.
4.
To prevent arson attacks it is important that all bin storage areas are secure.
5.
Adequate lighting to be provided to cover the vehicle parking facilities especially the
spaces which are to the rear of the retail units in front of the pharmacy. Lighting should
be designed to provide a uniform spread of light, clear colour rendition, avoid deep
shallows and minimising light pollution. Luminaries should be sturdy and resistant to
vandalism, tampering and adverse weather conditions. A good lighting scheme will also
enhance the personal safety of the late night customers.
6.
It is recommended that the external walls of the units have an anti-graffiti coating
applied.
7.
Other retail outlets on Bowbridge Road suffer from instances of anti-social behaviour. It
is important that these units do not generate the same problem. It is therefore essential
that the developer makes provision for the installation of a suitable monitored CCTV
system which may be required if the area becomes a congregational point for possible
offenders.
8.
As there is a school located near the development it is advisable that the developer
provides suitable waste bins for customers to use after visiting the retail units.
9.
Rainwater down pipes can provide a convenient scaling aid onto the roof or to reach
windows above ground floor level. Rainwater pipes should be either flush fitting,
internal or contained within the building construction. As the roof line of the building is
low it is essential that access onto the roof is denied to unauthorised members of the
public.
10. There is no mention of the use of roller shutters to protect the glazed units. It would be
advisable to provide the retail units with external shutters. These would need to be
certified to LPS1175 security rating 1 and installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s specification.
11. All external door sets for the units need to meet PAS 24-1:1999.
12. Ground floor windows and those that are easily accessible to entry must be successfully
tested to BS 7950: and the appropriate performance standard.
13. A suitable monitored intruder alarm system to be installed in all of the units in
accordance with BS 4737/EN 50131.
14. From the drawings provided it is not certain which preventative measures are being
taken to stop vehicles driving into the large windows of the retail units. It is therefore
recommended that anti-ram raid posts are installed or that there is a substantial
difference in the kerb height between the road and pavement.
15. Due to the extra traffic flow which the retail units will cause there is concern over the
congestion the development may cause on Bowbridge Road as vehicles park both sides
of the road and any extra traffic may cause substantial queues.
If the following recommendations are not adopted then it may impact negatively on the
possibilities for reducing crime.
Under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act there is an emphasis to create a safe
environment. It is therefore important to take into account the material consideration of
reducing crime and preventing any area becoming a “Hot Spot” for crime.
Crime prevention advice is given freely without the intention of creating a contract. The
advice given cannot of course guarantee to eliminate or indeed necessarily reduce crime.”
Newark & Sherwood District Council - Environmental Health Section - Make comments in
respect of contamination. In summary they indicate there are unlikely to be any major
issues from a contamination perspective although await completion of the further
exploratory works. If approval is granted they recommend the use of our standard condition
to control this matter
Neighbours/interested parties – One comment has been received which states that this site
and the one next door are a blight on the neighbourhood.
In assessing this application I consider the main issue relates to whether the principle of a
development which comprises town centre uses of this scale and in this location is
acceptable.
In policy terms the application site is classed as ‘out of centre’. Members will be aware that
the previously defined Central Shopping Area has now fallen along with Policy S1 of the
NSLP. However in the absence of a defined town centre whilst we prepare our Allocations
Document, it is reasonable to rely on the previous Central Shopping Area in assessing this
application. This is located within walking distance of the site, some 650m to the northwest.
This nearest defined centre in this case would be Newark’s ‘Central Shopping Area’ which is
located within walking distance of the site, some 650m to the north-west.
Saved Policy S12 of the NSLP is supportive of development that would serve local shopping
needs provided it is in keeping with the scale and location of existing provision in the vicinity
and is assessable to local residents by public transport, by cycle or on foot.
The Core Strategy identifies the retail hierarchy and directs town centre uses to the subregional centre of Newark. There are currently no specific allocations for new local centre or
sites allocated for retail use in the up-to-date Development Plan. In such circumstances the
national policy is set out in PPS4.
In assessing this scheme, specialist independent retail advice has been sought from GVA
Grimleys who have undertaken previous studies on retail and the town centre as part of the
evidence base for our Core Strategy. In looking at this scheme they have concluded that the
application does not comply with PPS4. These are views I share and are set out as follows.
The uses proposed are all ‘main town centre uses’ as defined by PPS4 and as the application
site is not located within a defined centre, there is a requirement to look at the impact of
the proposal (on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre
or centres in the catchment area of the proposal) and to adopt the sequential approach.
The proposals fall below the threshold (2500 sq m) identified in PPS4 as requiring an impact
assessment. Notwithstanding this, PPS4 advocates that a proportionate approach should be
taken for town centre uses, which in this case total 836.3m2. The applicant has undertaken
an assessment as there is no locally defined threshold set out in any up-to-date
Development Plan and the assessment is directly relevant to consideration of the sequential
test which does apply to the proposals.
The Retail and Town Centre study undertaken by our consultant identifies some capacity for
additional convenience goods floor space arising after 2014 but no short term need, taking
into account existing and committed proposals in the area.
The applicant’s own analysis demonstrates there are no local shopping facilities within the
immediate vicinity of the site but within the 600m local catchment, which the applicant
reports will serve this proposal, there are existing facilities and a degree of overlap occurs
between this area and the town centre and the catchment area of other local shopping
facilities. Our consultants have undertaken their own analysis of the available expenditure
within the 600m radius. This shows that the development would rely on diverting trade
from existing local shopping facilities and existing and committed proposals in the town
centre.
Our consultants consider the applicant’s Impact Assessment to be proportionate and
appropriate to the issues raised by the proposal. They broadly concur with the estimated
likely turnover and trade assumptions drawn, suggesting that whilst there would be an
impact that this would be modest on neighbouring local shopping facilities within the
catchment area and a very modest impact on the town centre, which would not give rise to
any significant adverse impact against the criteria in PPS4. As such there is no justification to
refuse the application due to the impact of the proposal.
The applicant’s view is that as they are meeting a clearly defined local need (in accordance
with our Policy S12) they do not have to undertake the sequential approach as required by
Policy EC15 of PPS4. The applicant has defined the catchment area as a radius of 600m.
Within this are the One Stop/Post Office, Ladbrokes and Chip Shop to the south-east, the
Post Office at Whitfield Street and Netto’s on London Road. Just outside of the catchment
area they identify the Co-op and Mayfields Newsagent on Barnbygate and the Premier
Express Off-licence at Cromwell Road. They conclude there is ‘limited convenience retail
provision within a 600m radius of the site’ and ‘this area is not served by a defined local
centre or district centre’.
However it is my view (shared by our consultant) that the applicant’s analysis does not
demonstrate a clearly defined need for a new local centre of this scale, in which case the
sequential test should apply. The 600m radius overlaps with the equivalent catchment areas
of other nearby local shopping facilities and the town centre to the north. In practice a
significant proportion of those living within the catchment area would be as close or closer
to the other shopping facilities identified by the applicant.
In simplistic terms the concern is that the proposals, when taken together, are too large and
too close to the town centre. This is compounded by the level of car parking proposed. With
the provision of 35 spaces, this indicates that this is a destination in its own right and is
intended to serve a much wider catchment. As such the proposal is considered
disproportionate to purely local needs. Therefore the applicants have not complied with the
requirements of the sequential approach. Whilst not undertaking a full sequential approach
ourselves, it is my view (again shared by our consultants) that it would likely reveal there
would be opportunities to accommodate units of the sizes proposed in or on the edge of the
defined town centre, both for the foodstore and the other elements of the proposal. For
instance there are various units that have remained empty at the London Road Reel cinema
complex, in addition to those numerous empty units within the primary shopping frontage
and Central Shopping Area. In addition there are various committed retail units associated
with the committed ASDA development that will shortly be available.
To summarise, the application has failed to undertake the sequential test, as required by
PPS4. This clearly sets outs at Policy EC17 that ‘planning applications for main town centre
uses that are not in an existing centre and not in accordance with an up-to-date
development plan should be refused planning permission where; the applicant has not
demonstrated compliance with the requirements the sequential approach (policy EC15)’.
Turning now to other matters. In terms of the demolition of the existing building, there is no
objection to this and indeed this has already been established by the granting of the care
home to the west of this scheme which also relies on its demolition. I consider that the
design approach is acceptable and would enhance the appearance in the street-scene.
However I do not consider that this sufficiently outweighs the harm I have identified above.
In terms of security, whilst I note the Crime Reduction Manager makes comments, I am
satisfied that these issues do not warrant a reason for refusal as they could be adequately
dealt with by condition if minded to approve. In terms of amenity, I do not consider that this
scheme would give rise to unacceptable impacts on local residents in terms of noise and
general disturbance. Nor are there any highway safety issues with this scheme.
Finally, whilst I am mindful that this development would bring about jobs in times of
economic uncertainty and mindful also of the advice contained in the CLG letter (Planning
for Growth, March 2011), equally it is important to ensure that the right development is
delivered in the right location to ensure we protect the vitality and viability of Newark.
Taking all of the 5 units together, I consider that cumulatively this is simply too large and too
close to the town centre, contrary to the advice in PPS4. For these reasons, taking into
account all material considerations, I consider that the scheme is unacceptable and as such
recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION
That full planning permission is refused for the reasons shown below.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Clare Walker on Ext: 01636 655841
Colin Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
REFUSE
With the Following Reasons
01
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) the proposal fails to demonstrate that
the development would serve a clearly defined local shopping need due to its
disproportionate scale and its proximity to existing shopping provision. As such there is a
requirement to adopt the sequential approach as set out in PPS4, which the applicant has
failed to consider. Therefore the proposal is considered to be contrary to Saved Policy S12
(Local Shopping Provision in Newark and the Larger Settlements) of the Newark and
Sherwood Local Plan, Core Policy 8 (Retail Hierarchy) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood
Core Strategy DPD which together form part of the Development Plan and is also contrary to
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth which is a material planning consideration.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8
Application No:
11/00651/FUL & 11/00652/LBC
Proposal:
Householder application for alterations comprising of new roof to
rear courtyard and relocation of existing iron railings.
Location:
The Lodge, Halam Road, Southwell, Nottinghamshire
Applicant:
Mr John Cheeseman
Registered:
30.06.2011
The Site
The application site is occupied by a Grade II listed lodge, listed in 1992 as Lodge Cottage at
Norwood Park. The lodge dates back to 1882 and was built for the Grade II* listed country
house at Norwood Park, which dates to c 1763. The Lodge is built of brick with stone
dressing, with slate roof. On its principle elevations it has a plinth, first floor band, corner
pilasters, moulded eaves and pedimented gables. The windows are mostly glazing bar
sashes.
To the rear/west of the property a small courtyard is formed, which is enclosed by a c3.25m
high brick wall, attached to the main building. A single storey lean-to extension
(approximately 1.5m x 4m) was added to the rear of the Lodge, within the courtyard,
following an approval in 1983. On the outer face of the west wall of the courtyard is a C20
timber and Perspex lean-to structure.
The building is occupied as two dwellings with both entrances under a shared verandah on
the south west corner. This application relates to Number 2 The Lodge.
Surrounding the building are communal gardens, open to the driveway to the east and
enclosed by a mixture of timber post and rail and black metal estate fencing on the other
elevations.
The property sits alone, bounded to the south by Halam Road and within the open parkland
of Norwood Park estate to the north, east and west. It is accessed from a driveway to the
east which leads through Norwood Park. This driveway is off Halam Road.
The building is located outside but adjacent to the defined envelope of the town of
Southwell.
APPLICATION NUMBER PROPOSAL DETAILS
83 283
EXTENSION TO DWELLING TO FORM BATHROOM AND KITCHEN
DECISION Approved
The Proposal
The applications are seeking planning permission and Listed Building Consent for a variety of
works comprising: removal of single storey lean-to bathroom extension and erection of new
single storey lean-to extension, approximately 3m x 2m, to create new bathroom; lay
decking in courtyard with water feature and glazed structure over the courtyard, facilitated
by demolition of outbuilding within the courtyard area; insertion of two new windows into
rear/west wall of courtyard; demolition of corrugated timber and Perspex lean-to shed to
rear of courtyard wall; creation of en-suite in bedroom 2; re-position and reuse a 15m
stretch of wrought iron boundary fence, currently running north to south within the garden,
to then run east to west to divide the garden areas of Number 1 and 2 The Lodge.
The majority of this application is retrospective with the following works having already
been carried out: demolition of the outbuilding within the courtyard; demolition of old lean
to bathroom extension; partial erection of replacement bathroom extension; 2 new
windows installed into rear/west wall of courtyard; decking in courtyard; erection of
support structure for glazed roof covering over courtyard; creation of en-suite in
bedroom 2.
Members should be aware that the following details have not been built in accordance with
the submitted plans; the use of plastic guttering and soil pipes; the use of a fascia board for
the eaves detail. The applicant has confirmed that the plans as submitted are to be
considered and not these features as already built.
The application was initially registered 2nd June 2011 with a target date of 28th July 2011.
The application was re-registered on the 30th June 2011 following the submission of an
amended ownership certificate.
Occupiers of two neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter. A site
notice has been displayed at the site and an advert placed in the local press.
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment
below:
Policy 2 – Promoting Better Design
Policy 27 – Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment
•
•
•
Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design
Core Policy 13 Landscape Character
Core Policy 14 Historic Environment
Supplementary Planning Document – Extensions to dwellings, October 2005
•
•
•
Policy C9
Policy C10
Policy H24
Demolition of Listed Buildings
Alterations, Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings
Extension of Dwellings
The Courts have accepted that Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does
not apply to decision on applications for Listed Building Consents or Conservation Area
Consents, since in those cases there is no statutory requirement to have regard to the
provisions of the development plan. However, Local Planning Authorities are required to be
mindful of other material planning considerations in determining such matters.
Consultations
Southwell Town Council – Support the proposal
Southwell Civic Society – Support the proposal
Neighbours/interested parties – six communications from four interested parties, objecting
on the grounds that:
•
An incorrect ownership certificate has been submitted and that there is an additional
beneficial interest at the site.
•
Work is being carried out without the correct consents.
•
The works are not in keeping with the architectural and historic interest of the building,
specifically – that the proposed extension is visible above the courtyard wall; that the
proposed extension is built over the first floor brick band; that the proposed extension
does not respect the historic value of the rear courtyard; that the existing dentil course
is not replicated and that the use of a timber fascia board eaves detail in the extension
is inappropriate; that the new windows in the rear/west wall of the courtyard are
inappropriate, being of a non-flush fitting design with drip moulding and projecting sills
instead of stone; use of inappropriate materials in the form of plastic soil pipes; that no
drainage outlet is shown for the proposed new parapet gutter; that the use of an
exposed concrete lintel is inappropriate; that the plastic roof covering on the extension
can be seen from the drive.
•
Demolition of a historic outbuilding has been carried out without any justification or
permission.
•
The iron fence which comprises part of this application is under a different ownership
and they do not consent to the fence being moved, for this reason they object to the
applications insofar as they relate to the movement of the iron fence. Also that the
boundary fence is historically and functionally significant, providing a clear division
between the grounds of the Lodge and the wider estate.
•
The decked area contains steps which would be unsuitable for any future tenants of
limited mobility.
The initial problem with the ownership certificate has been resolved by its resubmission. It
is also clear that any additional beneficial interest is fully aware of this application and has
had the opportunity to comment on the applications.
As part of this application the applicant was made aware that works were being carried out
without the necessary consents and has been requested to cease work. Any enforcement
action would be separate to this application and whilst disappointing when works take place
without consent, Members are reminded that these applications must be determined on
their own planning merits.
In determining the applications the main issues to address are whether the proposals
preserve the wider landscape setting of the building and whether the design and scale of
the works is appropriate for the host building, especially in the context of it being a listed
building.
With regards to Policy H24 of the Local Plan the proposed extensions will have no visual
impact on any neighbouring premises, being almost entirely hidden within an existing
courtyard wall. The apex of the proposed lean to projects 80cm above the top of the
courtyard wall but is not adjacent to any neighbouring properties. While the courtyard is
being enclosed by the proposed glazed roof structure there is still adequate open garden
area beyond. The lodge is outside the main built up area of Southwell but the proposed
works, being contained within the existing domestic curtilage of The Lodge and almost
entirely hidden from view, would have no adverse impact on the appearance of the
surrounding landscape or openness of the countryside. In this respect the proposal accords
with Policy H24 of the Local Plan and also Core Policy 13 of the Newark and Sherwood Core
Strategy.
The following discussion of the whether the proposed works reflect the character of the
area and existing dwelling in terms of design, scale and materials is to be assessed against
Local Plan Policy H24 and the Supplementary Planning Document on extension to dwellings,
policies C9 and C10 relating to listed buildings and Core Policies 9 and 14 of the Newark and
Sherwood Core Strategy.
There is no objection to the loss of the 1980s bathroom extension, which was of no
architectural or historic merit. The replacement structure is of brick and slate and of a
steeper roof pitch than its predecessor, being slightly deeper in plan (although both
structures have similar footprints, the previous covering c6 square meters, the replacement
structure being c5 square meters). The change in roof pitch means that the ridge of the lean
to extension is now visible above the height of the courtyard wall, at its apex being c80cm
above the height of the courtyard wall. While it is accepted that the proposed extension is
partially visible it is not felt to cause any negative impact - the host building has a number of
projections and roof slopes and the visibility of a slate and brick lean-to in the ancillary area
of the building is acceptable. While the extension is to be built above the height of the first
floor band this feature has been carried through into the gable of the extension (the current
proposed plans have omitted this feature and revised plans are to be submitted to
accurately show this) and stone coping has also been used, to replicate this feature as seen
in the main building. A lean-to extension of this form is a fairly typical and ‘organic’
extension to a building of this age and type, especially to the rear of properties. The
principle elevations are not affected and the extension is built of a complementary form and
materials. As such there is no harm to the special architectural or historic interest of the
listed building.
The courtyard space itself is of limited special architectural or historic interest and is simply
there to enclose the more domestic and ancillary functions of the building, as such the
glazed extension within this area does not harm the character of this space. The glazed
structure is supported independently and the eaves are set below the top of the boundary
wall of the courtyard. The ridge of the glazed structure is just visible in elevation above the
top of the boundary wall to the courtyard, however it is not actually visible from the ground,
when standing outside the courtyard.
It is accepted that the eaves detail as constructed, which uses a fascia board, is not
appropriate or acceptable, not being reflected at any other part of the building. To the rear
of the building the traditional eaves detail is a dentil course and this sort of detail would be
acceptable on the extension. The plans as submitted have not included the proposed eaves
detail and this can be controlled by condition. Notwithstanding the eaves detail as built,
therefore, a condition can be imposed to control the detail of the eaves and ensure its
implementation as part of the development.
Similarly, the plans as presented show that cast iron is to be used for all new pipes.
Notwithstanding the use of plastic on site, the detail as proposed in the plans is acceptable
and a condition can be imposed to control the detail of any new pipes and ensure their
implementation as part of the development.
The two new windows in the rear/west wall of the courtyard have already been inserted
into historic openings (the existing plans inaccurately show these window openings to be in
line with the windows next door, which is not the case, and revised plans are to be
submitted to accurately show their position) and are non-flush fitting casements with
wooden drip mould sill. This is a less traditional design than a flush casement, however,
non-flush casements are already in place on this west elevation wall at the neighbouring
dwelling, as such it is not appropriate to negotiate a different window design in this case.
These neighbouring windows actually have a concrete, and not stone, sill, which in all
likelihood replaced or encased a wooden sill at some point. As such the use of a wooden sill
here is acceptable. The windows are timber and not yet glazed. The final glazing can be
controlled as part of a standard joinery detail condition.
Concern has been raised about the use of a concrete lintel – all new windows and doors and
their surrounds can be controlled by condition.
A condition can also be used to control the location of any new drainage outlets for the
glazed courtyard roof.
The plastic roof covering currently visible from the drive is actually a temporary roof
covering and would be replaced with slate as part of this application.
The proposed timber and Perspex shed to be demolished to the rear of the courtyard is a
modern structure of no architectural or historic interest and its removal would improve the
appearance of the building as a whole. A condition can be used to ensure any damage is
made good following its removal.
An en-suite has been created in bedroom 2, using and slightly extending a narrow space
created over the stairs. The stud work used to create this en-suite does not affect any
architectural features in the room. The en-suite does not impact negatively on the
proportions of this room.
It is accepted that a historic outbuilding, believed to have been constructed at the same
time as the Lodge, has been demolished. This would have been a curtilage listed structure
and Listed Building Consent should have been obtained prior to any demolition. The
applicants attest that the structure was extremely dilapidated. However, there is no
evidence about the appearance or condition of this structure upon which to make an
informed decision and the structure was already removed prior to any visits to the site by
Newark and Sherwood District Council officers. As such there is no evidence upon which to
base an Enforcement Notice to reinstate the structure. By default any objection to its
demolition cannot be implemented. The water feature pond which has been partially
constructed on the site of this outbuilding is a simple structure and has no impact on the
architectural or historic interest of the Lodge.
The iron fence which forms part of this application is a traditional estate fence common
throughout Norwood Park, as such its retention and re-use is important. As part of this
proposal the fence is to be reused and relocated within the garden area. Being a visually
permeable and traditional structure this will not alter the setting of the listed building and
being within the existing garden area will have no impact on the character divisions
between the grounds of the Lodge and wider estate. As such, this proposal is felt to be
acceptable. Ownership interests are not a material consideration in planning decisions and
all interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the applications.
While there are steps within the decked area this is not creating a new change in level and
would bring the decking level with the back door. If accessibility was to become a problem it
would need to be looked at throughout the whole building and not just with regards the
decking.
Conclusions
The proposed extension is sited within the existing domestic curtilage of The Lodge and is
only partially visible, though not to any neighbouring properties. As such the proposal does
not have any negative impact on any neighbouring properties or on the wider landscape
setting of the building.
The proposed extension is of a traditional form and replicates materials and details
(notwithstanding the eaves detail and plastic soil pipes, which are can be controlled by
condition) seen on the main building. While the extension is more visible than then the
previous extension it is not out of character or scale and does not negatively impact on the
special architectural or historic interest of the building.
The demolition of the historic outbuilding has been carried out without Listed Building
Consent but in the absence of any evidence regarding its original form or condition it is not
expedient to take enforcement action.
The relocation of the metal estate fencing within the existing garden area ensures this
traditional feature is re-used and its new position has no significant impact on the setting of
the listed building or the wider parkland of Norwood Park.
RECOMMENDATION
That full planning permission and listed building consent is approved subject to the
conditions and reasons shown on the attached recommendation sheets.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Amy Schofield on Ext. 5862
C Walker
Director of Growth
Application No:
11/00651/FUL
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Conditions
01
with the following approved and revised plans, reference 2178/AA (2) 03 received
30.06.2011, plans of the metal fence received 02.06.2011, elevations from within courtyard
received 05.05.2011, 2178/AA(2) 01, 02 and 04 received 05.05.2011 and 02.07.2011 unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a nonmaterial amendment to the permission.
Reason: So as to define this permission
02
No further development following the date of this approval shall be commenced until
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.
•
•
Bricks
Roofing tiles
Reason: To safeguard the special architectural or historical appearance of the building.
03
No further development following the date of this approval shall be commenced until a
brick sample panel showing brick bond, mortar mix and pointing technique has been
provided on site for inspection and approval has been received in writing by the local
planning authority. The brick work shall be flush jointed using a lime based mortar mix.
Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building.
04
details of the mortar to be used for re-pointing (including materials and ratios, colour,
texture and pointing finish) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning
authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed
details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
05
No further development following the date of this approval shall be commenced in respect
of the features identified below, until details of the design, specification, fixing and finish in
the form of drawings and sections at a scale of not less than 1:10 have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall thereafter be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the local planning authority.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
External windows including roof windows, doors and their immediate surroundings,
including details of glazing and glazing bars.
Treatment of window and door heads and cills
Verges and eaves
Rainwater goods
Coping
Extractor vents
Flues
Airbricks
Soil and vent pipe
Any fixings required where the metal estate fence abuts the listed building
Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historical appearance of the
building.
06
No further development, including the demolition of the timber and Perspex shed marked
as 'store' on the existing plans, following the date of this approval shall be commenced until
a methodology for undertaking repair works has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. This shall include a full schedule of works which addresses
any repairs required following demolition of the timber and Perspex shed. Development
shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning application.
Note to Applicant
01
be discharged before any development following the date of this approval is commenced. It
should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be
unauthorised.
02
The unauthorised works shall be removed as soon as reasonably practicable otherwise the
Local Planning Authority will consider instigating enforcement proceedings.
(GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2003
03
In the opinion of the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted accords
Core Policies 9, 13 and 14 of Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (March 2011),
Policies C9, C10 and H24 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan 1999 and Policies 2 and 27
of the East Midlands Regional Plan.
Application No:
11/00652/LBC
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Conditions
01
with the following approved and revised plans, reference 2178/AA (2) 03 received
30.06.2011, plans of the metal fence received 02.06.2011, elevations from within courtyard
received 05.05.2011, 2178/AA(2) 01, 02 and 04 received 05.05.2011 and 02.07.2011 unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority through the approval of a nonmaterial amendment to the permission.
Reason:
So as to define this consent
02
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.
•
•
Bricks
Roofing tiles
Reason:
To safeguard the special architectural or historical appearance of the building.
03
No further development following the date of this approval shall be commenced until a
brick sample panel showing brick bond, mortar mix and pointing technique has been
provided on site for inspection and approval has been received in writing by the local
planning authority. The brick work shall be flush jointed using a lime based mortar mix.
Development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason:
To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building.
04
details of the mortar to be used for re-pointing (including materials and ratios, colour,
texture and pointing finish) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning
authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed
details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason:
05
No further development following the date of this approval shall be commenced in respect
of the features identified below, until details of the design, specification, fixing and finish in
the form of drawings and sections at a scale of not less than 1:10 have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall thereafter be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the local planning authority.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
External windows including roof windows, doors and their immediate surroundings,
including details of glazing and glazing bars.
Treatment of window and door heads and cills
Verges and eaves
Rainwater goods
Coping
Extractor vents
Flues
Airbricks
Soil and vent pipe
Any fixings required where the metal estate fence abuts the listed building
Reason:
In order to safeguard the special architectural or historical appearance of the
building.
06
No further development, including the demolition of the timber and Perspex shed marked
as 'store' on the existing plans, following the date of this approval shall be commenced until
a methodology for undertaking repair works has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. This shall include a full schedule of works which addresses
any repairs required following demolition of the timber and Perspex shed. Development
shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning application.
Reason:
Note to Applicant
01
be discharged before any development following the date of this approval is commenced. It
should be noted that if they are not appropriately dealt with the development may be
unauthorised.
02
The unauthorised works shall be removed as soon as reasonably practicable otherwise the
Local Planning Authority will consider instigating enforcement proceedings.
(GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2003
03
In the opinion of the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted accords
Core Policies 9, 13 and 14 of Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (March 2011),
Policies C9, C10 and H24 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan 1999 and Policies 2 and 27
of the East Midlands Regional Plan.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9
Application No:
11/00276/FUL
Proposal:
Installation of a 500kW wind turbine with hub height of 75m, blade
diameter of 54m blade to a maximum height of 102m to tip.
Transformer station building at turbine base and all ancillary
works.
Location:
Land Off (Field Reference 1719) Ollerton Road Little Carlton
Nottinghamshire
Applicant:
Arlington Farming Ltd - Mr M Arlington
Registered:
09.06.2011
The Site
The site lies in the open countryside approximately 1.7 km from Little Carlton and
approximately 1.2 km from Bathley, the nearest settlements. The conservation villages of
Caunton and Norwell are located just over 2 km north-west and approximately 3 km northeast of the site respectively.
The application site comprises the western corner of an arable field, some 340 metres from
the nearest section of (Ollerton Road) the A616. The site is elevated, being situated on a
ridge (land contour of 50) with the land gradually falling away around it. Located in an area
of undulating topography, with the exception of some pastoral land use, the majority of
land use in the area is dedicated to intensive arable agriculture. The field patterns are
generally of irregular geometric pattern and tend to be bounded by hawthorn hedgerows.
These are by and large well maintained, although some are fragmented in places, especially
along the boundaries of larger fields.
Along with some linear sections of woodland along field boundaries, there are many
fragments of mixed deciduous woodland throughout the area. These include Worner Wood
which lies approximately 550 metres to the north of the application site. This is a ‘Site of
Interest for Nature Conservation’ (SINC).
The red line of the application site is drawn in a circular shape, does not reflect any features
on the ground and spans 54 metres in diameter. The red line also includes the access track
(a length of approximately 635 metres) to the turbine site from the A616.
Lines of electricity pylons (approximately 65 metres in height) run north to south
approximately 1.06 km to the west and from south-east to north approximately 1.5 km to
the east.
The nearest public right of way is over 1 km to the south and the nearest bridleway is over
1 km to the north-east
The nearest residential properties are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Four properties at Debdale Hill Farm, Caunton are located approximately 630 metres to
the south-west;
Dean Hall Farm, Caunton is located approximately 840 metres to the north-west;
Cold Harbour, Caunton is approximately 920 metres to the south-west;
Hillside, Ollerton Road, Little Carlton is located approximately 810 metres to the southeast;
Hunger Barn, Caunton Road, Bathley is approximately 1.2 km to the north;
Villa Farm, Bathley is approximately 1.1 km to the north-east;
Middlethorpe Grange (owned by the applicant) is approximately 1.3 km to the northwest.
Properties at Hopyard Lane in Bathley are all over 1 km from the site.
11/SCR/00010
In August 2011, the applicant sought a screening opinion (under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) for a wind turbine
comprising 1 turbine, 102 metres to tip at this site. The Local Planning
Authority has issued a response confirming that an EIA would not be
required in this instance.
The Proposal
This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a single, three bladed
turbine mounted on a tapering cylindrical tubular steel tower. It would have a hub height of
75 metres and rotor diameter of 54 metres, giving a maximum height of 102 metres to
blade tip. The base of the turbine would measure 3.75 in width, tapering to 1.75 metres at
the hub. The finish and colour of the turbine is likely to be light grey. The candidate turbine
is an ‘EWT DIRECTWIND 54/52 500kW’ and would have an energy output of 500kw.
A concrete foundation is required to support the turbine which would measure
approximately 14 metres in diameter with a depth of between 1 to 2.5 metres depending on
site conditions.
A crane hard standing would be located adjacent to the turbine and would typically measure
20 metres wide by 30 metres long to a fill depth of 0.35 to 0.5 metres. The fill is comprised
of layers of compacted crushed stone laid on top of a geo-grid. The proposal utilises an
existing farm access and the applicant has confirmed that some minor alterations would
need to be made, which involves trimming a hedge or worst case scenario removing
2 metres of hedgerow to allow construction vehicles into the site. Details of the treatment
of the access track (approximately 630 metres in length) have not been submitted.
The applicant has clarified that a transformer cabinet and a sub-station will be required for
the turbine. The transformer cabinet would be sited close to the turbine, under the swept
path of the blades. Precise details have not been submitted but the applicant states this
would be a maximum size of 4 metres by 2.4 metres to a height of 2 metres. The sub-station
will need to be located a minimum distance of 20 metres from the transformer. Again no
precise details have been submitted but the applicant has indicated that this would be a
maximum of 4 metres by 4 metres to a height of 2 metres and would be installed
approximately 30 metres to the south of the turbine adjacent to the access road.
The materials of the transformer cabinet and sub-station are indicated as being glass reenforced plastic in a green colour. Cables leading from the turbine to the transformer and
from the transformer to the sub-station would be buried underground.
It is industry standard practice that a candidate turbine is specified. This is because the wind
turbine market is fast moving with models being constantly updated. However, the impacts
from the candidate turbine represent the ‘worst case scenario’ and the final specification,
controlled by condition, would be 102 metres to tip and have no greater environmental
impacts in terms of noise etc. This same principle applies for the transformer cabinet and
sub-station which are ‘typical’ but again represent the greatest impact the development
would have.
With an output of 500kw, the applicant states the development has the potential to
produce 1470MWh of electricity per year and would provide energy equivalent needs of
368 homes each year for its 25 year operational period. The electricity produced will feed
into the national grid. The applicant has now clarified that grid connection would take place
by connecting into an overhead power line on land to the west, within the land holding of
the applicant.
In addition to the standard submission requirements, the application is accompanied by a
supporting statement assessing a range of environmental matters including noise, ecology,
aviation, landscape and heritage impacts.
The application has been screened and it has been established that an Environmental
Impact Assessment is not required in this instance.
Occupiers of five properties have been individually notified by letter. A site notice has been
displayed at the site and an advert placed in the local press.
The Government’s energy policy is set out in the UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 which
states that the UK is committed to sourcing 15% of its energy from renewable sources by
2020 and aims to reduce the UK’s emissions of carbon dioxide by over 750 million tonnes
between now and 2030.
In the Government's Energy Review, which was published in July 2006, the Government
announced its intention to give greater clarity to strategic issues relating to renewables.
Annex D of the Energy Review seeks to renew the commitment of the Government to
renewables and clarifies the role of the planning system in realising renewable projects.
Annex D states that:
“New renewable projects may not always appear to convey any particular local benefit, but
they provide crucial national benefits. Individual renewable projects are part of a growing
proportion of low carbon generation that provides benefits shared by all communities both
through reduced emissions and more diverse supplies of energy, which helps the reliability
of our supplies. This factor is a material consideration to which all participants in the
planning system should give significant weight when considering renewable proposals.”
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development was adopted as national policy in 2005. PPS1:
Planning and Climate Change (Supplement to PPS1) was adopted as national guidance in
December 2007. This guidance supplements the advice contained in PPS1 and sets out the
Government’s national policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the
planning system. It sets out how Local Authorities should contribute to reducing emissions
and stabilising climate change and identifies tackling this as a key priority for the planning
system.
'Delivering Sustainable Development' places spatial planning in a key role in helping tackle
climate change. It states that used positively, planning has a pivotal and significant role in
helping to “secure enduring progress against the UK’s emissions targets, by direct influence
on energy use and emissions, and in bringing together and encouraging action by others and
in creating an attractive environment for innovation and for the private sector to bring
forward investment in renewable and low-carbon technologies and supporting
infrastructure” (Paragraph 7).
Specifically, it has key planning objectives, which include a role for planning authorities to
prepare and deliver spatial strategies that “make a full contribution to delivering the
Government’s Climate Change Programme and energy policies and in doing so contribute to
global sustainability.”
In terms of Renewable and low-carbon energy generation, the PPS states that:
“Planning authorities should:
•
•
Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need
for renewable energy and its distribution nor question the energy justification for why a
proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location;
Ensure any local approach to protecting landscape and townscape is consistent with
PPS22 and does not preclude the supply of any type of renewable energy other than in
the most exceptional circumstances.”
The supplement states in relation to Determining Planning Applications, that before the
development plan is updated to reflect the policies in this PPS, planning authorities should
ensure proposed development is consistent with the policies in this PPS. In addition at
paragraph 40 it states that “An applicant for planning permission to develop a proposal that
will contribute to the delivery of the Key Planning Objectives set out in this PPS should expect
expeditious and sympathetic handling of the planning application.”
Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) outlines the key principles to
which regional planning bodies and Local Planning Authorities should adhere in their
approach to planning for renewable energy. More specific and detailed guidance on wind
energy is contained in the accompanying Companion Guide to PPS22 issued in August 2004.
PPS 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, adopted 2004, advocates the sensitive
exploitation of renewable energy resources and also makes reference to development in the
Green Belt; It states that whilst the Policies in PPG2 continue to apply, Local Planning
Authorities should ensure that planning policies address the particular land use issues and
opportunities to be found in the countryside.
PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Policy HE1 ‘Heritage Assets and Climate
Change’ is relevant which identifies the historic environment as a non-renewable resource in
its own right and sets out national policy in relation to this. Specifically it highlights that
where there is conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage
assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be
weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets in accordance with the
development management principles in this PPS and national policy on climate change.
Other relevant national policy:
PPS4:
PPS9:
PPG24:
PPS25:
Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Planning and Noise
Development and Flood Risk
below:
•
•
•
•
Policy 24 (Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification)
Policy 26 (Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s National and Cultural Heritage)
Policy 27 (Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment)
Policy 40 (Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation)
Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (DPD) (adopted March 2011)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Core Policy 9: Sustainable Design
Core Policy 10: Climate Change
Core Policy 12: Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure
Core Policy 13: Landscape Character
Core Policy 14: Historic Environment
Spatial Policy 3: Rural Areas
Spatial Policy 7: Sustainable Transport
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Policy C11
Policy NE1
Policy NE3
Policy NE6
Policy NE17
Policy T21
Policy PU8
(Setting of Listed Buildings)
(Development in the Countryside)
(Agricultural Land)
(Farm Diversification)
(Species Protection)
(Heavy Goods Vehicles)
(New Public Utilities)
Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy July 1999
The Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was prepared under the previous
development plan system in 1999. Whilst the SPG forms a material consideration and
should be used in assessment of the application, it should also be recognised that it was
prepared twelve years ago and, therefore, some of its provisions may be superseded by
newer development plan policies, as well as national planning policy. The policies in the SPG
are supplementary to the Development Plan and, therefore, cannot be used in themselves
as stand-alone reasons for refusal.
The document contains research, using a Department of Trade and Industry database, which
found that the windiest parts of the District are to the west. The guide sets out a number of
policies for the consideration of proposals for wind turbines within the Newark and
Sherwood District.
Policy W1: Wind Turbines in the Countryside
Policy W2: The Impact of Wind Turbines on Wildlife and Human Heritage Designations
Policy W3: Wind Turbines associated with existing or proposed Employment Development
Consultations
This application has been referred to Committee by Councillor Saddington and a request
for a site visit has been made due to the visual impact on the surrounding parishes.
South Muskham (and Little Carlton) Parish Council – Support the application. (21.07.11).
North Muskham Parish Council – Support the application but wish to express concern that
this may be seen as setting a precedent and hope it is not viewed that way. Furthermore the
PC would like to request further guidance from the LPA on such matters and would
welcome a workshop or other informative arrangement to facilitate this. (04/07/11)
Bathley Parish Council – Object (30/06/11) on the grounds of:
•
•
•
•
•
Visual impact;
Noise;
Vibration;
Electrical interference with the TV aerial;
Safety issues (ice throw).
Caunton Parish Council – No objection (14/07/11).
Newark Town Council – Support the application (13/06/11).
Norwell Parish Council – No response has been received to date.
Kelham Parish Council - No response has been received to date.
Highways Agency – No objections. (19/08/11).
Nottinghamshire County Council (Highways Authority) – No objection (24.06.11) and
comment as follows:
“There is no objection to the proposed site of the wind turbine as it is far from any public
highway and the field track, which the turbine would be constructed adjacent to, is neither a
right of way nor bridle way, therefore no distance separation between the wind turbine and
field track is required.
The applicant does not state in any of the documents the proposed route for materials and
plant being delivered to the site. The applicant must also liaise directly with the Highway
Agency (which is in control of A1) for approval prior to any works commencing as the access
route to the A616 via B6325 is from the A1 slip roads and might cross the bridge structure
over the A1, which is part of the ‘Trunk Road’ Network for which Highway Agency is the
road authority. There are no highway objections to this planning application in principle,
subject to the following conditions:
Condition: No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the
access is altered to accommodate construction traffic coming onto the site with details first
submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
Condition: Details of measures to prevent the deposit of debris upon the adjacent public
highway shall be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any works
commencing on site. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to any other works
commencing on site.
Notes to applicant:
The details required by the Highways Authority before any works shall commence on site
are as follows:
1.
Details of the construction phases of the wind turbine, e.g. is the wind turbine of a
modular design to allow for convenient container transport by truck as well as efficient
installation using one regular-sized lifting crane or different and how would the turbine
(components) be transported on site.
2.
Details of HGV access onto the site and lorry routing to facilitate access during the
construction phase as well as details of vehicle access to allow future maintenance after
the construction phase; any modifications to the public highway should be identified
whether temporary or permanent access.
3.
Provision of wheel washing facility and a road sweeper to remove mud, dirt or other
debris from the public highway during the construction phase should be proposed as it
is an offence under Section 148 and Section 151 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit
mud on the public highway.
4.
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.
These works shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. You are,
therefore, required to contact the County Council’s Highways Area Office tel. 01623 520023
to arrange for these works to be carried out. Alternatively, in order to undertake the works
you will need to enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Act. Please contact
Mr David Albans on 01623 520735 for details.”
Nottinghamshire County Council Rights Of Way Officer – No response has been received to
date, although has verbally indicated there would be no objections.
Nottinghamshire County Council Archaeologist – No response has been received to date.
English Heritage – Offer no comments (06/07/11).
Natural England – Have issued their standardised response 23/06/11) as follows:
“This proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes, or
have significant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development. It
appears that Natural England has been consulted on this proposal to offer advice on the
impact on a protected species.
Natural England’s advice is as follows:
We have adopted national standing advice for protected species. As standing advice, it is a
material consideration in the determination of the proposed development in this
application in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England
following consultation and should therefore be fully considered before a formal decision on
the planning application is made.
The protected species survey has identified that bats, a European protected species may be
affected by this application.
Our Standing Advice Species Sheet: ‘Bats’ provides advice to planners on deciding if there is
a “reasonable likelihood” of bats being present. It also provides advice on survey and
mitigation requirements. The standing advice has been designed to enable planning officers
to assess protected species surveys and mitigation strategies without needing to consult us
on each individual application. The standing advice was issued in February 2011 and we
recognise that it will take a little while for planners to become more comfortable with using
it and so in the short-term will consider species surveys that affect European protected
species against the standing advice ourselves, when asked for support by planners.
We have not assessed the survey for badgers, barn owls and breeding birds, water voles or
white-clawed crayfish. These are all species protected by domestic legislation and you
should use our standing advice to assess the impact on these species.
How we used our standing advice to assess this bat survey and mitigation strategy
We used the flowchart on page 10 of our Standing Advice Species Sheet: ‘Bats’ beginning at
box (i) and came to the following conclusion:
Box (i) - Using Nature on the Map we determined that No, the application is not
within/close to a SSSI or SAC notified for bats. This took us to Box (v). Box (v) - We looked at
the survey report and determined that Yes, it did highlight that there are suitable features
for roosting within the application site (e.g. buildings, trees or other structures) that are to
be impacted by the proposal. This took us to Box (iv). Box (iv) – We determined that No,
detailed visual inspections (internal and external where appropriate) had not been
undertaken and found evidence of a roost. This took us to Box (vii). Box (vii) – We
determined that No, the application does not involve a medium or high risk building as
defined in our standing advice. This took us to Box (iii). Box (iii) advises the authority that
“Permission could be granted (subject to other constraints)” and that the authority should
“Consider requesting enhancements”.
We also recommend referring to Natural England Technical Information Note TIN059 Bats
and
single
large
wind
turbines:
Joint
Agencies
interim
guidance
http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/TIN059
Impacts on birds and other protected species
Please refer to our standing advice for further information in relation to birds and other
protected species.
For future applications, or if further survey information is supplied, you should use our
standing advice to decide if there is a “reasonable likelihood” of protected species being
present and whether survey and mitigation requirements have been met.
If you would like any advice or guidance on how to use our standing advice, or how we used
the standing advice to reach a conclusion in this case, please contact us on the number
above.
Landscape
The principles of the European Landscape Convention (ELC), which the UK Government
ratified in November 2006, need to be taken into account in assessing the impacts of any
development on the landscape. The ELC covers all landscapes, not just designated ones, and
recognises the tangible and intangible values which local landscapes have for the people
who live in them.
Natural England endorses the European Landscape Convention definition of landscape as
“an area perceived by people whose character is the result of the action and interaction of
natural and/or human factors”. As our landscapes are a key resource, Natural England
advocates that the changing landscape should be managed sustainably, be highly valued and
a distinctive expression of local identity. We recommend that local authorities take all
aspects of landscape, including landscape character and quality and townscape, into
consideration when determining planning applications. Further information on all aspects of
landscape and landscape planning can be found on our website via the link below:
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/landscape/default.aspx
As mentioned previously, the proposal does not fall within any protected landscapes and we
are unable to provide detailed comments about this proposal, however when determining
this application the authority should consider:
•
•
•
•
Relevant national, regional, sub-regional and local landscape planning policies,
strategies, assessments and guidance documents;
On-site assessment of the landscape effects of the proposals;
Effects on landscape character and long-distance views, views from urban settlements,
and views from recreation and tourist facilities and routes;
Cumulative effects with other operational, consented or proposed wind power
developments.
Local wildlife sites
If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, e.g. Site of Nature Conservation
Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has
sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife
site before it determines the application.”
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust – No objections.
“We are pleased to see that Natural England guidance TIN51 & TIN59 has been taken into
consideration and the proposed turbine is to be located over 50 metres away from the
nearest ecological feature.
We are also generally satisfied with the level of bird surveys conducted and the conclusion
that the impact on the wind turbine on birds will be minimal.
A programme of post-installation monitoring should be put in place and be conducted by an
appropriately qualified ecologist. This is to provide information to better evaluate the risk of
single turbines to bats and birds. We strongly recommend that a 5 year programme of postinstallation monitoring is secured by way of an appropriately worded condition.” (24/06/11)
British Horse Society – No response has been received to date.
Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds - No response has been received to date.
Civil Aviation Authority – state:
“There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which
exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales
required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites
other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for
clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in
accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in
particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed
in Annex 3 of the above documents, as well as appropriate guidance and policy
documentation. Should the Council be minded to grant consent to an application despite an
objection from one of the bodies listed in the circular, then the requisite notifications should
be made. In addition, consultation should be undertaken with any aerodrome particularly if
it has lodged an unofficial safeguarding map with the Council, including local emergency
service Air Support Units (e.g. Police Helicopter or Air Ambulance).
• There is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet
(91.4 metres)* or more to be charted on aeronautical charts.
• Any structure of 150 metres* or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation
Order and should be appropriately marked. Smaller structures may also be required to
be lit by aviation stakeholders particularly if they fall under Section 47 of the Aviation Act.
• Cumulative effects of turbines may lead to unacceptable impacts in certain geographic
areas.
The Ministry of Defence will advise on all matters affecting military aviation.
Should the Council still have a specific query the CAA will help in the clarification of aviation
matters and regulatory requirements. Site operators remain responsible for providing
expert testimony as to any impact on their business and the lack of a statement of objection
or support from the CAA should not be taken to mean that there are no aviation issues, or
that a comment from an operator lacks weight.
More generic comment relating to the CAA involvement in the planning process is described
at:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/DAP_GuidanceOnCAAPlanningConsultationRequirements.p
df”
Ministry Of Defence Safeguarding - No objections. They comment that in the interests of
safety the turbine should be fitted with a safety light at its highest practical point. They also
state that if granted we must tell them 1) the date construction starts and ends, 2) the
maximum height of construction equipment and 3) the latitude and longitude of the
turbine. (21 June 2011)
National Air Traffic Services – No safeguarding objections. (17/06/11)
Caunton Airfield – state:
“This turbine will not affect Caunton Airfield, therefore no objection.”
Midlands Air Ambulance - No response has been received to date.
Derbyshire, Leicestershire And Rutland Air Ambulance - No response has been received to
date.
Nottingham East Midlands Airport – state:
“The proposed development has been examined from an aerodrome safeguarding aspect
and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, this department has no
safeguarding objection to this proposal.
We would however, wish to register our concern that the cumulative impact of wind turbine
generation developments, which are in relatively close proximity, could compromise the
safe control of aircraft in this area.”
Clarification has been sought regarding the comments on cumulative impacts. They have
confirmed their comments relate to future potential turbines (not approved turbines they
have already been consulted on) and have clarified that this is a standard paragraph they
always include.”
Lincs & Notts Air Ambulance Charitable Trust – No response has been received to date.
North Midlands Helicopter Support Unit – No objections provided the hub is fitted with a
safety light. (24/06/11)
C P R E - No response has been received to date.
Nottinghamshire Police - No response has been received to date.
Newark & Sherwood District - Environmental Health Section - Comment as follows:
“I have had a look at the noise report and it is fine. The author has suggested some noise
conditions which you may feel are appropriate. A note of caution in relation to the proposed
night time level, this is as set out in the ETSU R 1997 report, WHO have changed their
criteria for night time disturbance so it should be 38 instead of 43dB (A). I have discussed
this and agreed it with the noise consultant. This is only important if you think conditions
are appropriate. One further point is that one of the properties, financially linked to the
development may be tenanted, if so the occupants could not be said to be financially linked
and there is an argument (which is rearing its head more and more) that they are entitled to
the same protection from their landlord’s proposals as anyone else. Again though this is not
important for this scheme. On the basis of the report they have demonstrated that the
scheme will have little or no noise impact, and on that basis I would have no objection on
noise grounds.”
Neighbours/interested parties – Twelve communications of objection have been received
in relation to this application, from a total of 8 households. Of these objections, 3 are
double signed making the total number of objectors to 15. The concerns (the numbers in
brackets are intended to give Members an indication of the number of comments made on
each topic) are summarised as follows:
Visual Impact (11)
•
•
•
•
•
Rural charm of the area should be protected.
Would compromise landscape character, being a blot on the landscape.
Visible from long distances as located at one of the highest point for miles.
Will spoil views of the countryside.
Would blight a landscape already overburdened with pylons and power stations.
Noise (4)
•
•
Prevailing wind is from the south-west taking any noise pollution away from
Middlethorpe Grange leaving Bathley in the path of such pollution.
Object to noise the blades make when turning.
Others
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Concern regarding precedent and cumulative impacts should further applications be
lodged. (7)
The Committee should take account of the privately run airfield at Caunton as there are
lots of low flying gliders and aircraft in this area. (6)
The site is close to the RAF flight path.(6)
No community benefit from the turbine, this is a business opportunity that will no doubt
benefit from government subsidy. (5)
Turbines are inefficient. (5)
Loss of property values. (4)
Adverse impact on greenbelt. (4)
Health complaints; such as noise, sleep disturbance. (2)
Driver distraction. (2)
Does not confirm to policy. (1)
Site has been selected without due regard to social impacts. (1)
The LPA should establish a policy where wind farms could be established for public
benefit where they have minimal environmental impact. (1)
Having regard to the provisions of all relevant planning policies, the nature of the proposed
development and the representations received, there are a range of issues which need to be
considered in the determination of this application. These are discussed below.
Planning Policy Context
A reasonable starting point for consideration of this application is the Government’s
commitment to electricity generation by renewable sources set out in the Renewable
Energy Strategy and in particular the target that 15% of national electricity production
should be derived from renewable sources by 2020. This target has been maintained under
the coalition Government.
This commitment is supported by other Government guidance and of particular significance
is the supplement to PSS1 which was adopted in December 2007. This PPS: 'Planning and
Climate Change' places spatial planning in a key position to create a successful response to
climate change. It states that spatial planning has a significant role in helping by “direct
influence on energy use and emissions and in creating an attractive environment for
innovation and for the private sector to bring forward investment in renewable and lowcarbon technologies and supporting infrastructure."
Specifically, it has key planning objectives, which include a role for planning authorities to
prepare and deliver strategies that “make a full contribution to delivering the Government’s
climate change Programme and energy policies.” It states that: “An applicant for planning
permission to develop a proposal that will contribute to the delivery of the Key Planning
Objectives set out in this PPS should expect expeditious and sympathetic handling of the
planning application.”
The District Council’s commitment to tackling climate change is set out in Core Policy 10.
This provides that we will encourage the provision of renewable and low carbon energy
generation within new development.
In determining this application, I therefore consider it is necessary to balance the strong
policy presumption in favour of wind turbines against the site specific impacts.
Landscape and Visual
The impact upon the landscape is a key consideration for this scheme and Members will see
that eleven of the twelve objections received raise concerns on this matter. This is the
largest single turbine application to be submitted to this Council to date. Clearly at
102 metres in height, located on a ridge, the turbine will be visible in the landscape and the
significance of this impact and its harm has been carefully considered in assessing this
application.
The application is accompanied by an assessment of the visual impacts. Following concerns
raised regarding the accuracy and scope of the initial visual representations provided, the
applicants have confirmed that there was a software error with the initial photomontages.
As a consequence a full set of computer generated images which illustrate the proposal
from a total of 27 viewpoints has now been provided. A Zone of Theoretical Visualisation
(ZTV) has also been submitted, which shows the extent of land where the turbine could
theoretically be visible from. I am now satisfied that sufficient images have been submitted,
that these are a fair representation and that the information is adequate to enable a proper
and considered assessment to be undertaken.
There are no special landscape designations within the immediate vicinity of the site. The
site lies within the Mid-Nottinghamshire Landscape character area MNPZ 30 Knapthorpe
Village Farmlands with Ancient Woodlands with a policy action of Conserve, according to
Core Policy 13.
It is an area of undulating topography and as such the views tend to be medium to long
distance, aside from where vegetation and topography limits them giving a generally
moderate and intermittent visibility value. With the exception of some pastoral land use,
the majority of land use is dedicated to intensive arable agriculture. There are many
fragments of deciduous woodland throughout the area, including Worner Wood to the
north.
In the Landscape Character Appraisal, the landscape condition is described as very good as
the area has a coherent pattern of elements composed of arable fields, permanent pasture,
blocks of deciduous woodland. There are few detracting features including the A616 and
A617, pylon lines and pylons, poultry sheds and some horseyculture. Overall this gives a
visually unified area. In ecological terms the area provides a strong habitat for wildlife.
The Core Strategy states that National and Regional policy requires Councils to move from
local landscape designations to a comprehensive assessment of Landscape Character. This
has the benefit of looking at the landscape holistically rather than focusing on particular
locations. CP13 states the LDF will introduce a comprehensive landscape character
assessment of Newark and Sherwood which will identify the landscape character condition
and sensitivity of each Policy Zone. It provides that the District Council will expect
development proposals to positively address the implications of the Landscape Policy Zones
in which proposals lie and demonstrate that such development would contribute towards
the meeting landscape conservation and enhancement aims for the area. In my opinion this
proposal will clearly have a visual impact on the landscape.
Visually this application for a large wind turbine would appear as a dominant feature within
this landscape and would not strictly conserve the rural character of this landscape.
However, the existing landscape does include some existing detracting features as described
above, and the balance is whether this turbine would be one step too far.
The Council’s Landscape Architect has examined the turbine from viewpoints using the
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which looks at the degree of effects
on visual amenity, their significance and sensitivity. There are three viewpoints that have
been identified as causing a significant deterioration in the existing view, two of which are
located in areas that have been identified as being sensitive to change. These viewpoints are
the junction of the A616, nr Green Oaks (viewpoint 3), from Caunton (viewpoints 14/15) and
from the footpath between Bathley Hill Cottages and Fallows End (Viewpoint 9).
The degree of magnitude is in most cases dependent on the distance away from the turbine
and clearly where views are close and there is a clear view there is an adverse impact on the
landscape. However another important factor is the visual impact of the existing two large
pylon lines which cross the A616, A617 and A612 to link to Staythorpe. The ‘Significance’
impact for visual effects is based upon the quality of the landscape and the amount of
detractors in the landscape.
Therefore whilst I have some concerns about the sensitivity of this landscape to wind farm
developments, I also consider that the need to provide renewable resources in this instance
carries considerable weight. Taking into account that this is for a single turbine, appearing as
a slim structure in the landscape and taking account of its streamlined design, on balance, I
therefore consider that this application is acceptable bearing in mind the existing pylon lines
that have a greater impact than a single turbine and need to provide renewable resources.
This view is supported by the Council’s Landscape Architect. I have also taken into account
the support of the scheme received by the primary Parish Council (Little Carlton, whose
parish this falls within) and the support that has also been received by most of the
surrounding parishes.
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
The impact on the historic environment has been carefully considered in conjunction with
our specialist Conservation Officers.
National Policy PPS5 sets out the policies for dealing with heritage assets, which is reinforced
by Policies 27, CP14 and C11 of the Development Plan.
The impact upon the conservation villages of Caunton and Norwell has been carefully
considered. Whilst the turbine would be visible from some locations, mainly the fringes of
the settlements as the settlements themselves tend to be well enclosed, given the distances
involved and the land contours, it would be no more visible relatively than a telegraph pole
and less prominent that the pylons in the landscape. As such the impact upon the setting of
these settlements is considered to be acceptable and would not in my view cause any
significant harm that would warrant a reason for refusal. Indeed the applicant has
undertaken further assessment work including the submission of various further
photomontages from these villages which confirm the impact will be minimal.
The impact on other heritage assets has also been considered, including a detailed
examination of listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments with the surrounding
settlements. No significant harm has been identified. As a tall landmark feature, with its
spire at 78 metres tall, the impact upon the setting of Newark’s St Mary Magdalene Church
has also been considered. However the quality of this is somewhat impinged upon as the
building is flanked by the British Sugar Factory and Staythorpe Power Station. There is also
the A1 road and the East Coast Mainline visible within the landscape, as well as a number of
electricity pylons as viewed from the application site. As such I would not consider in this
instance that the setting of the Church is adversely affected.
Whilst I appreciate that, overall, long distance views of the proposed structure will be seen,
as a single turbine only, I consider that this is acceptable and under PPS5, the perceived
harm is offset by this development being in the public interest. The actual turbine is a simple
structure which is minimalist and fairly ‘architectural’ in design. In conclusion I do not
consider that the addition of a single turbine in this area will have a negative impact in
accordance with PPS5.
The County Archaeologist is yet to make comments although the application indicates the
proposal would have a low potential for archaeology and as such mitigation would not be
required in this instance. Due to the distances involved and the design of the turbine I do not
consider there would be any harmful impacts upon any scheduled ancient monuments or
Registered Parks and Gardens.
Noise
Four of the local objections refer to loss of amenity as a result of noise from the turbines.
The Companion Guide to PPS22 outlines the types of noise which can be generated by wind
turbines (paragraph 42) and states: “There are two quite distinct types of noise within a wind
turbine. The mechanical noise produced by the gear box, generator and other parts of the
drive train and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the
air.”
The Guide also states that since the early 1990’s there has been a significant reduction in
mechanical noise, which is now at a similar level to aerodynamic noise. It also states that:
“Noise levels from turbines are generally low and, under most operating conditions, it is
likely that turbine noise would be completely masked by wind generated background noise.”
‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-1997) describes a
framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels which
aim to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing
unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. This document is endorsed by the
Government as a basis for the assessment of noise from a wind farm. The recommended
noise limits proposed in ETSU 97 are:
•
•
Quiet daytime (weekday evenings 18:00-23:00, Saturday 13:00-18:00 and Sunday
07:00-18:00) 5dB(A) above background or in low noise environments 35-40dB(A) L90 10
min.
Night-time (23:00- 07:00) now changed to 38 dB from 43dB(A) L90.
Noise monitoring has been undertaken at six locations which are deemed to be the most
noise sensitive locations for the turbine. This is in line with best practice advice and the
Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that this approach is acceptable. The noise
levels at the receptor properties are well within the derived limits for both daytime and
nighttime noise levels thus meeting with the recommendations of the ETSU 97.
Your Environmental Health Officers have advised that the methodology used is appropriate
and concludes that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact from a noise
perspective. Subject to Conditions 9 to 12, the proposal in this regard accords with Policy
PU8 of the Local Plan plus ETSU 97, PPS22 and PPS24 which are material planning
considerations.
Highway Issues
The majority of traffic associated with this development would be at construction phase,
which would typically last for around 4 months. The applicant has not provided details of
vehicle movements or the routes that construction traffic would take. However this could
be controlled by condition and in this respect the Highways Authority raise no concerns.
Once operational, only routine maintenance and servicing traffic would be required which
would be minimal. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with Policies SP7, T21,
and PU8 of the Development Plan.
Some concerns have been raised by objectors suggesting that the turbine would create a
driver distraction and that the construction traffic would damage the roads. Again neither of
the statutory consultees have objected to this aspect and the Companion Guide to PPS22 is
clear at paragraph 54 that drivers are faced with various distractions on any normal journey
and are excepted to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ safety. It says
that turbines should not be treated any differently from other distractions a driver must
face and should not be considered particularly hazardous. They point out that there are now
a large number of wind farms adjoining or close to road networks and there has been no
history of accidents at any of them.
Given this advice in PPS22 and that the statutory consultees have raised no objections in
terms of highway safety, I do not consider that this proposal would result in a significant
hazard to road safety as a result of driver distraction.
Members will note that the Highways Agency has been consulted. This is because the
deliveries of the turbine components to the site may require abnormal loads and the routes
to the site and from where, are currently unknown. However they raise no objections
although request that he applicant contact them to discuss the routes once known.
No bridleways or rights of way would be adversely affected by this proposal by virtue of the
considerable distances involved.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
The turbine is sited within an arable field. The most sensitive ecological features are the
trees and hedgerows surrounding the field and the proposed siting maintains a minimum
50 metre buffer zone from these. This approach follows Natural England’s guidance for
other wind farm developments and in this case they offer their standard comment.
The scheme would involve the trimming back of a small section of hedgerow to Ollerton
Road for essential site access. In the worst case scenario the applicants state that 2 metres
of hedgerow would be removed in addition. The applicants Ecological Survey concludes that
the impact on habitat and species is predicted to be low and due to its location on a ridge
the risk of bird strike is also low. As such mitigation is not required. Notwithstanding this,
the applicant has since indicated he would be willing to undertake a scheme for ecological
enhancement which may, for example, include reinforcing existing hedgerows to encourage
foraging habitat and this could be subject to a condition.
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust raise no objections to the scheme although have requested
some post-installation bat monitoring. I do not consider it reasonable to impose bat related
conditions on this development simply because there is a lack of national research on the
subject. Natural England has issued their standard response. Having considered the impacts
on ecology, it has been concluded that there are no significant risks. The proposal is
therefore in accordance with Policies CP12 and NE17 of the Development Plan and PPS9
which is a material consideration.
Shadow Flicker
Shadow flicker is an effect that under certain combinations of geographical position and
time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over
neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off. It only
occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening. It is
noted that some residents have raised this issue and its impact on health and epileptic
sufferers as a concern. In respect of this, the Companion Guide to PPS22 is clear that the
effects from shadow flicker are on residential amenity rather than having the potential to
affect the health and well being of residents.
The Companion Guide to PPS22 also confirms that flicker can only occur within 130 degrees
either side of north relative to the turbines’ position, as turbines do not cast long shadows
on their southern side. Advice is that this is most likely to occur within 10 rotor diameters of
a wind turbine. In this case 10 rotor diameters equates to 540 metres. There are no
properties within this proximity and both the Environmental Health Officer and I are
satisfied that this matter does not require any further assessment.
Property Values
Some objectors haves raised concerns that the turbine may adversely affect property
values. This matter has been discussed elsewhere in recent appeal decisions and current
guidance which found that property values are not significantly affected in the long-term.
Guidance on this matter, however, confirms that private interests such as this are not a
planning matter. I therefore do not consider any possible effect on property prices to be a
reason for refusal.
Aviation, Telecommunications and Television Reception
Members will note from the consultation section of this report that various organisations
have been consulted with regard to aviation safety. None of these have raised any
safeguarding concerns. However, the MoD and NMHSU request that an aviation warning
light is fitted to the turbine. This is standard practice and can be secured by condition. It is
noted some local residents have raised concern due to the proximity of a locally operated
airfield. However Caunton Airfield raise no objection to the application.
Due to the potential for such development to interfere with telecommunications links, the
applicants have consulted various bodies such as Ofcom. None of the responses indicate
there would be any adverse impacts.
It is standard practice within the industry, that a condition be imposed to require any effects
on television receptors that arise as a result of the development will be remedied and paid
for by the developer. I am therefore satisfied that any such adverse impacts can be
addressed and this is in line with PPS22 and its companion guide, a material consideration.
Cumulative Impacts and Precedence
Concerns have been expressed by objectors that the granting of planning permission might
lead to further wind farm applications in the area. Section 38 of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 clearly states that each application should be determined on
its own merits and this advice is also repeated in the Companion Guide to PPS22 which
states that this argument is not sufficient enough grounds for refusal (Paragraph 39: Page
167). Cumulative impacts are only such if two turbines could be visible in the same
landscape. As Members will be aware, an application for a wind turbine, 74 metres to tip,
has been received and considered at Carlton-on-Trent (planning reference 11/00508/FUL)
which is within the Zone of Theoretical Visualisation (ZTV). Notwithstanding that this turbine
is not committed, because this lies within the ZTV and in order to ensure we adopt a robust
approach an additional visual assessment and further photomontage in respect of this
specific issue.
The proposed turbine at Carlton-on-Trent would be 74 metres to tip whilst this turbine at
Little Carlton is 102 metres to tip. Taking into account that this relates to single turbines
rather than wind farms, the separation distance of 6 km which means there are
considerable distances between the sites, the intervening features within the landscape
(such as pylons, woodlands etc) which reduce the opportunities for the turbines to be seen
together, I take the view that there would be no significant cumulative landscape or visual
effects in this case.
Climate Change
The comments from some residents challenging the viability and usefulness of turbine
technology are not considered reasonable grounds of objection, as is made clear by
Government policy. However the developer states the proposal has the potential to provide
the energy needs for 368 homes per year, based on average consumption. Put into context,
Little Carlton with South Muskham and Bathley (the two closest settlements) comprise
243 dwellings (based on the 2001 Census, taking into account completed dwellings since
and committed dwellings with consent) and 125 dwellings respectively, also a total of
368 households. As such the turbine would be able to provide for the energy needs of an
equivalent area. This positive environmental benefit would be in accordance with the
Council’s commitment to helping to tackle climate change as set out in Core Policy 10.
Conclusions
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that, on balance, the visual harm is not so
significant that it would outweigh the Government’s clear objectives for tackling climate by
promoting renewable energy. I therefore recommend that the application should be
approved.
Taking into account the Secretary of State’s intention to revoke the RSS as a material
consideration, I do not believe in this instance that it effects the recommendation set out
below.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Clare Walker on ext 5841.
Colin Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Conditions
01
this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
02
No development shall be commenced until full details of the turbine specifications including
its make, model, power rating, external dimensions, colour and finish have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall
comprise a three bladed turbine no larger than the maximum dimensions submitted as part
of the application. No part of the structures shall carry any logo or lettering other than as
required for health and safety reasons. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with such details as approved.
Reason: To ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory in the interests of
the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
03
No development shall be commenced until precise details of the transformer cabinet and
substation, including precise locations, the types and colours of materials to be used on
their external elevations, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the development has a satisfactory appearance by virtue of the
materials used.
04
No development shall be commenced until the operator of the wind turbine has provided
written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of Defence and Civil Aviation
Authority:
i) Proposed date of Commencement of Development;
ii) The maximum extension height of any construction equipment.
Within 14 days of the date on which electricity is first exported from the development, the
Company shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Ministry of
Defence (MOD), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Local Planning Authority:
i) Earliest possible date of completion of construction;
ii) The height above ground level of the highest potential obstacle;
iii) The position of that structure in latitude and longitude.
In the event that the anticipated date of completion of construction varies from that which
has been notified to the MOD and CAA, an update shall be provided in writing to both
parties prior to construction extending beyond the date of which they have been notified.
Reason: In the interests of air traffic safety.
05
No development shall be commenced until the following details have been submitted to
and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority.
•
•
•
Full details of the construction phases of the wind turbine and details of how the
components will be delivered and by which routes. This should include details of any
abnormal loads;
Full details of HGV access onto the site and lorry routing to facilitate access during the
construction phase as well as details of vehicle access to allow future maintenance after
the construction phase; any modifications to the public highway should be identified
whether temporary or permanent access.
Full details of the provision of a wheel washing facility and a road sweeper to remove
mud, dirt or other debris from the public highway during the construction phase.
The scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
06
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the access is
altered to accommodate construction traffic coming onto the site with details first
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
07
Details of measures to prevent the deposit of debris upon the adjacent public highway shall
be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any works
commencing on site. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to any other works
commencing on site.
08
No development shall be commenced until details of an aviation warning light to be fitted to
highest practicable point (25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with
an optimized flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration) of the
turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
light shall thereafter be installed as approved.
Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.
09
The peak to trough sound modulation produced by the wind turbine shall not exceed
2-3dB(A) above background levels when measured at noise sensitive properties.
Reason: To ensure that residential amenities are safeguarded.
010
The Sound Power Level produced by the turbine shall be no greater than 100dB (A) at wind
speed of 10m/s.
Reason: To ensure that the sound power levels predicted for the candidate turbine are
adhered to in order to safeguard residential amenity.
011
The noise emitted from the wind turbine subject to this consent, when measured or
calculated in free field conditions at noise sensitive properties (in existence at the time of
this consent) as measured in accordance with the ETSU R 97 requirements shall not exceed:
i)
During Night Time hours, the greater of the night hours background noise level plus
5dB(A) or 38 dB(A) at wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second, at Cold Harbour
and Debdale Hill Farm at 10 metres above ground level. Night time (23:00 - 07:00);
and at all other times:
ii)
The greater of the quiet waking hours LA90 background noise level plus 5 dB(A) or
40dB(A) at wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second at Cold Harbour and
Debdale Hill Farm at 10 metres above ground level. Quiet daytime (weekday evenings
18:00 - 23:00, Saturday 13:00 - 18:00 and Sunday 07:00- 18:00).
(The noise levels relate to the wind speeds measured on site and referenced to a height of
10 metres above ground level. Where it is necessary to convert between measured wind
speeds and the wind speed and noise levels at 10 metre height, this conversion shall be
undertaken using a methodology to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority).
At the request of, and following a complaint to the Local Planning Authority, the operator of
the development shall measure and assess the level of noise from the wind turbine
generator at one or more specified locations in accordance with the procedures stated
above and shall provide the results to the Local Planning Authority. The operator of the
development shall agree all such measurement locations with the Local Planning Authority
prior to such measurement and assessment. Guidance within the document ETSU-R-97 shall
be used to agree such measurement locations.
Reason: To ensure that residential amenities are safeguarded.
012
The turbine shall not produce an audible tone requiring a correction as set out in "The
Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" - ETSU-R-97.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of residential properties.
013
Prior to the commencement of any development a scheme shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out the protocol for the
assessment of TV interference during construction and operational phases in the event of
any complaint, including the remedial measures to be taken. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved protocol.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of surrounding residents.
014
All electrical cabling between the turbine and the sub-station shall be located underground
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
015
No hedge or tree that is to be removed as part of the development hereby permitted shall
be lopped, topped, felled or otherwise removed during the bird nesting period (beginning of
March to end of August inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the protection of nesting birds on
site.
016
If the wind turbine hereby permitted ceases to operate for a continuous period of
12 months then a scheme for the decommissioning and removal of the wind turbine and
ancillary external housing shall be submitted within six months of the end of the cessation
period to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
017
Not later than six months before the date on which the planning permission hereby granted
expires, the wind turbine and external housing shall be dismantled and removed from the
site and the land reinstated to it former condition in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to the commencement
of the development. The scheme to be submitted shall include the dismantling and removal
of the turbine and external housing above existing ground levels and the removal of the
turbine base and foundations.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
018
The planning permission hereby granted shall be for a temporary period only to expire
25 years after the date of the commissioning of the development. Written confirmation of
the date of commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Local Planning
Authority within one month after the event.
Reason: The proposal is not suitable for a permanent permission and in accordance with
the applicants expressed intent.
019
No development shall be commenced until ecological enhancement scheme, including a
management plan and a timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include: a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
description and evaluation of the features species to be managed;
ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management;
aims and objectives of scheme and management;
appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;
prescriptions for management actions;
preparation of a work schedule (including a 5 year project register, an annual work plan
and the means by which the plan will be rolled forward annually);
g) personnel responsible for the implementation of the plan;
h) monitoring and remedial/contingency measures triggered by monitoring.
All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the protection and enhancement of natural habitat on the application
site, in the interests of nature conservation and in line with Core Policy 12 of the
adopted Core Strategy.
Note to Applicant
01
The Highways Authority and Highway Agency comments are attached for your information.
02
It is very important that no development takes place on site before any conditions requiring
the prior approval of plans or the completion of works prior to commencement, have been
fully discharged by the Local Planning Authority.
(GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2010
Policies 24, 26, 27 and 40.
Saved policies C11, NE1, NE3, NE6, NE17, T21, PU8
March 2011)
Core Policies 9, 10, 12, 13, 14
Spatial Policies 3, 7.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10
Application No:
11/00199/FUL
Proposal:
Erection of 2 Bedroom bungalow & detached garage
Location:
Rear Garden Of Everest Main Street Kirton Nottinghamshire
Applicant:
Mr Mark Maisey
Registered:
01.08.2011
The Site
The application site is situated on the western side of Main Street and southern side of
Windmill Close within the main built-up area of Kirton and comprises part of the rear garden
of Everest, a detached bungalow accessed off Main Street. The site measures some
16.5 metres in length by 8.2 metres in width, is bounded by a mix of fences and vegetation
to a maximum height of 3 metres and has ornamental planting within. There is a bungalow
to the west and a further three opposite, all served off Windmill Close which is a private
road.
APPLICATION
NUMBER
11/00156/FUL
PROPOSAL DETAILS
Householder application for dormer window and erection of
detached garage
DECISION Refused
The Proposal
This application proposes the formation of an access off Windmill Close and the erection of
a two-bedroom bungalow set back some 3.8 metres from the road and with maximum
external dimensions of approximately 10.4 metres in length by 7.2 metres in width and
5 metres in height. A single garage is also proposed in the south-eastern corner of the site.
Proposed materials for both are facing bricks and roof tiles to match Everest.
Occupiers of 6 neighbouring properties have been individually notified by letter.
PPS3 – Housing
below:
• Policy 1
• Policy 3
• Policy 13a
Regional core Objectives
Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire)
•
•
•
•
Spatial Policy 1
Spatial Policy 3
Core Policy 3
Core Policy 9
Rural Areas
Housing Mix, Type and Density
Sustainable Design
In this instance, no policies are directly relevant to this application.
Newark and Sherwood District Wide Housing Needs Study (2009)
Consultations
Kirton Parish Council
Object on grounds of
•
•
•
•
Impact on neighbouring properties.
Over-intensification of site.
Impact on sewerage system.
Adverse impact on appearance and
characteristics of village.
• Increased localised flood risk.
• Inability to gain access off private road
(Windmill Close).
Highways
No objection
Neighbours/interested parties –
8 communications received objecting on grounds of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inability to gain access off private road (Windmill Close).
Adverse impact on existing residents arising from increased use of Windmill Close.
Adverse impacts arising out if increased use of Windmill Close.
Impact on sewerage system and consequent increased localised flood risk.
Increased localised flood risk due to greater run-off.
Increased noise.
Loss of privacy.
Inadequate privacy for eventual occupiers.
Overshadowing.
Communications also contain non-planning objections.
In determining this application I consider that the main issues to assess are the principle of
residential development in the context of the current development plan and the impacts on
highway safety, flood risk, the appearance of the surrounding area and the amenities of
neighbouring residents.
Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy – Rural Areas, makes provision for new housing that
meets local needs and is within the main built-up area of villages that have local services
and access to higher tier settlements, subject to satisfactory site specific assessment.
The District Wide Housing Needs Study identifies a requirement for privately owned twobedroom bungalows within the geographic area of the application site that this proposal
would help to fulfill. Kirton borders large areas of allocated employment land, is very close
to the Service Centres of Ollerton and Boughton and therefore I consider is suitable to
receive the small-scale residential development Spatial Policy 3 is intended to deliver.
Nottinghamshire County Council as Highway Authority comment that Windmill Close is of
adequate width to serve another dwelling and the on-site parking provision is satisfactory.
The ownership status of Windmill Close and the applicants’ ability to gain access of it are
matters of civil law rather than planning considerations.
The site does not lie within Environment Agency defined flood zones and therefore there is
no formal requirement to assess flood risk. Severn Trent Water and the relevant Internal
Drainage Boards have the ability to respond to planning applications and request conditions
in respect of surface water disposal and/or foul drainage but have not done so in this
instance and therefore I have to conclude that there are no drainage issues forming material
planning considerations that should influence the determination of this application. Site
specific drainage is in any case dealt with under the Building Regulations.
PPS3 – ‘Housing’ has been amended since its adoption to remove domestic gardens from
the definition of brownfield land and consequently take away the presumption in favour of
their development and give planning authorities greater control over determining the
character of development in their area. The area surrounding the application site is
characterised by bungalows following well-defined building lines and within this context I do
not consider the proposed bungalow would appear out of character. Everest has a relatively
large garden in comparison to surrounding bungalows and consequently its sub-division by
this application would not result in uncharacteristically small plots for either Everest or the
proposed bungalow. The proposed bungalow has similar proportions and appearance to
those nearby, particularly on Windmill Close itself, and so would not appear out of character
for this reason either.
I consider that the siting of the proposed bungalow maintains sufficient separation from
neighbouring dwellings to avoid any loss of light or overbearing impacts and the absence of
first floor windows negates any issues of overlooking and loss of privacy. I consider the plot
size is adequate relative to the size of the bungalow and is capable of providing adequate
private amenity space for eventual occupants by use of either the existing or new boundary
treatments.
In response to the objection relating to noise I do not consider that the construction process
(which would involve relatively short term impacts) nor the extra vehicle movements
generated by this proposal would generate sufficient noise to carry sufficient weight in itself
which would warrant refusal of the application.
In light of the above I consider that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Development Plan and there are no material considerations that warrant determining it
otherwise.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND PAPERS
C Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Conditions
01
this permission.
Reason:
To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
02
The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials details
submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason:
Note to Applicant
(GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE)(ENGLAND)(AMENDMENT) ORDER 2003
01
Policies 1, 3 and 13a
March 2011)
02
03
The proposed development lies within an area which could be subject to current coal mining
or hazards resulting from past coal mining. Such hazards may currently exist, be caused as a
result of the proposed development, or occur at some time in the future. These hazards
include:
•
•
•
•
Collapse of shallow coal mine workings.
Collapse of, or risk of entry into, mine entries (shafts and adits).
Gas emissions from coal mines including methane and carbon dioxide.
Spontaneous combustion or ignition of coal which may lead to underground heatings and
production of carbon monoxide.
• Transmission of gases into adjacent properties from underground sources through
ground fractures.
• Coal mining subsidence.
• Water emissions from coal mine workings.
Applicants must take account of these hazards which could affect stability, health & safety,
or cause adverse environmental impacts during the carrying out of their proposals and must
seek specialist advice where required. Additional hazards or stability issues may arise from
development on or adjacent to restored opencast sites or quarries and former colliery spoil
tips.
Potential hazards or impacts may not necessarily be confined to the development site, and
Applicants must take advice and introduce appropriate measures to address risks both
within and beyond the development site. As an example the stabilisation of shallow coal
workings by grouting may affect, block or divert underground pathways for water or gas.
In coal mining areas there is the potential for existing property and new development to be
affected by mine gases, and this must be considered by each developer. Gas prevention
measures must be adopted during construction where there is such a risk. The investigation
of sites through drilling alone has the potential to displace underground gases or in certain
situations may create carbon monoxide where air flush drilling is adopted.
Any intrusive activities which intersect, disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings
or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) require the prior written permission of the Coal
Authority. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations,
piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings
and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes.
Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities is trespass, with the potential
for court action. In the interests of public safety the Coal Authority is concerned that risks
specific to the nature of coal and coal mine workings are identified and mitigated.
The above advice applies to the site of your proposal and the surrounding vicinity. You must
obtain property specific summary information on any past, current and proposed surface
and underground coal mining activity, and other ground stability information in order to
make an assessment of the risks. This can be obtained from The Coal Authority’s Property
Search Service on 0845 762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11
Application No:
11/00791/FUL
Proposal:
Erection 2 No. two-storey terraced houses
Location:
3 Railway Cottages, Oldbridge Way, Bilsthorpe
Applicant:
Mr Steve Smart
Registered:
06.06.2011
The Site
The application site is situated on the south side of Oldsbridge Way within the main built-up
area of Bilsthorpe, as defined in the Local Plan. It comprises a 0.046 hectare parcel of land
forming part of the garden area of the end dwelling in a row of three, two-storey terraced
houses. The site is generally level and enclosed by a mix of fences and vegetation. There is
modern residential development to the south and a residential estate has been commenced
but construction work stopped on land to the west. Amenity open space containing a war
memorial lies to the east.
APPLICATION NUMBER PROPOSAL DETAILS Erection of two-storey detached dwelling
06/00195/OUT
DECISION Refused for reason of DECISION DATE 27.04.2006
the housing oversupply situation
that prevailed at the time.
APPLICATION NUMBER PROPOSAL DETAILS Two terraced houses
07/01325/OUT
DECISION Approved
APPLICATION NUMBER PROPOSAL DETAILS Erection of two terraced houses (extant
11/00402/OUT
outline permission)
DECISION Approved
The Proposal
This application proposes the erection of two, two-storey terrace houses forming a
continuation to the north eastern end of the existing row. The depth and width of each plot
would be similar to the dwellings in the connected row. Ridge height and depth from main
front to rear elevation would match the existing row and single-storey porches would
project 1.8 metres from the front elevation and single-storey extensions would project
3 metres to the rear on each dwelling. Each dwelling would be served by a tarmac parking
area within its front garden. Proposed materials are red facing bricks and grey roof tiles.
Occupiers of 3 properties have been individually notified by letter.
PPS 3 – Housing
below:
•
•
•
•
Policy 1
Policy 2
Policy 3
Policy 13a
Regional Core Objectives
Promoting Better Design
Regional Housing Provision
•
•
•
•
Spatial Policy 1
Spatial Policy 2
Core Policy 3
Core Policy 9
Spatial Distribution of Growth
Housing Mix, Type and Density
Sustainable Design
• Policy H13
Housing Development in Large Villages
Consultations
Bilsthorpe Parish Council
Object on grounds of overdevelopment and
overlooking of war memorial.
Highways
No objection.
Neighbours/interested parties: One communication received, objecting on grounds of
development being out of character with adjoining dwellings and increase in vehicle
movements. Communication also contains objection on non-planning matter in relation to
property values.
In determining this application I consider the main issues to consider are the principle of
development, the standard of residential amenity created for eventual occupants and the
impacts on highway safety, the amenities of neighbouring residents and the appearance of
the surrounding area.
Bilsthorpe is identified as a Principal Village within the Core Strategy intended to receive
25% of Principal Village Housing Growth. This proposal would assist in meeting this target
whilst not compromising the consideration of larger sites through the Allocations and
Development Management DPD and therefore I consider the principle of development is
acceptable.
The proposed dwellings would have a relatively large amount of private amenity space
compared to many new build dwellings of a similar size and this would be subject to the
same level of mutual overlooking as the adjoining and surrounding dwellings.
Oldbridge Way is suitable to serve the large residential estate with planning permission to
the west and therefore the extra vehicle movements generated by two more dwellings
would not give rise to any significant extra impact on highway safety. There would be
adequate on-site parking for each dwelling and consequently the Highway Authority raise
no objections.
Existing levels of overlooking between the adjoining dwellings and those to the south would
be replicated by the proposal and therefore I do not consider that there would be any loss
of amenity. There would be sufficient separation between the proposed dwellings and those
to the south to avoid any overbearing impact on the occupiers.
PPS3 – Housing has been amended since its adoption to remove domestic gardens from the
definition of brownfield land and consequently take away the presumption in favour of their
development and give planning authorities greater control over determining the character
of development in their area. In this case, the density of development created by the
proposal would be similar to the connected terrace and less than the more modern
development in the surrounding area. The form of development follows that of the
connected terrace and therefore overall I do not consider that it would be out of character.
Although not strictly a planning consideration, I accept that a war memorial generally
commands a degree of reverence but do not consider that any overlooking created from the
proposed dwellings would detract from this, particularly given that it is otherwise open to
public view.
In light of the above, I consider that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
development plan and there are no material considerations that warrant determining it
otherwise.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND PAPERS
C Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
APPROVE FULL PLANNING PERMISSION
Conditions
01
this permission.
Reason:
Purchase Act 2004.
02
The parking areas shown on block plan 3 of 3 received by the Local Planning Authority on
3rd June 2011 shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby
permitted and thereafter retained for the life of the development.
Reason:
For the safety and convenience of all road users.
03
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension
hereby permitted shall match those used in the adjoining terrace in terms of type, colour
and texture, size, profile and bonding pattern unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
Note to Applicant
01
Policies 1, 2 and 3
Saved Policy H13
March 2011)
Core Policy 9
02
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12
Application No:
11/00867/FULM
Proposal:
Re-roofing and cladding of buildings on site to be retained.
Location:
Flowserve Pump Division Hawton Lane Balderton Newark On Trent
Applicant:
Flowserve
Registered:
12.07.2011
The Site
The application site is situated on the southern side of Hawton Lane, within the built-up
area of Balderton, as defined in the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. The site comprises a
range of Flowserve factory buildings on over 2 hectares of land. Flowserve manufacture and
assemble pumps used in many industries. The industrial use on-site is long-standing dating
back to the Nineteenth Century.
The existing operational part of the site, comprising component stores, assembly and testing
areas, associated offices and welfare facilities are set back from Hawton Lane and provide
employment for approximately 300 people. The two factory buildings currently in main
operation are covered in asbestos sheeting and were last clad approximately 75 years ago.
To the south and west of the operational area is a redundant foundry, pattern stores and
offices. To the north is the company’s sports and social facility, including its sports ground
and pitches. A public footpath crosses the site in this area, running east to west.
Access to the site is from a lengthy tree lined drive off Hawton Lane. This access runs
through attractive landscaped grounds and alongside a watercourse.
To the north and east of the site is suburban residential development. Elsewhere, the site
borders the countryside, with the exception of an isolated pocket of residential
development at the south-eastern corner which formerly provided workers’
accommodation. The Sustrans cycleway, following the line of the former railway, passes to
the west.
APPLICATION
NUMBER
06/SCR/00004
PROPOSAL DETAILS Screening opinion for redevelopment of the
site
DECISION : EIA not required
APPLICATION
NUMBER
06/01639/OUTM
PROPOSAL DETAILS Demolition of existing factory, erection of
new factory, relocation of sports facilities and erection of up to 210
new dwellings together with associated works
DECISION Refused
APPLICATION
NUMBER
07/01840/OUTM
PROPOSAL DETAILS Demolition of existing factory, erection of
new factory, relocation of sports facilities and erection of up to 210
new dwellings together with associated works
DECISION Approved
The Proposal
The scheme has now been amended to exclude the demolition of the buildings from the
description of development as planning permission is not required for demolition works
given that they comprise ‘excluded demolition’.
Following a recent legal judgment it has been qualified that in circumstances where there is
outstanding planning permission on a site for its re-development, that no permission would
be required for the demolition of any buildings or structures on that site as it falls within the
definition of ‘excluded demolition.’ In this case the previous outline consent is extant until
22nd April 2012 and therefore provided buildings are demolished before that time no further
consents are required.
The scheme now simply seeks full planning permission for the re-roofing and external
cladding of two factory buildings which are to be retained on site.
The proposal is to vertically re-clad the external elevations of the buildings in order to
reduce energy bills and to comply with current building regulations requirements.
The walls would comprise grey metal sheeting, whilst the roof would comprise a darker grey
sheeting. Roof lights would cover 15% of the roof areas and the doors and flashings would
be red, in line with the company colour scheme.
No changes are to be made to the site layout or parking.
Occupiers of three 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.
None specifically relevant to this application.
below:
•
Policy 2 (Promoting Better Design)
•
•
Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design)
Core Policy 10 (Climate Change)
There are no policies directly relevant to this application.
Consultations
Balderton Parish Council – Object
“Members are concerned that the water drainage culvert on the drawing does not show
where it goes. Photo’s have been taken showing the very overgrown culvert and a map
extract is enclosed from 1935 Sanderson Map showing the original line of the water course.
The culvert does not fill the adjacent pond as possibly believed.
There are also concerns about the demolition of the older, classified industrial buildings
which have local historical interest. There are biodiversity issues – could bats be roosting on
the site?”
In response to the amended consultation (removing demolition elements from the scheme)
they continue to object and refer to their previous concerns regarding the water course
through the site.
The Environment Agency – Do not wish to offer any comments on this scheme.
Comments from three neighbours/interested parties have been received; one supporting
the scheme and two objections which are summarised as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Objection to demolition of the landmark Erecting Shop and two-storey office
accommodation and a great loss to Balderton’s industrial heritage.
Other uses could be found for these buildings.
Concern raised about waste and removal of materials from the site and hazardous
substances.
Some windows are to be overclad – comment that work areas should have sufficient
artificial illumination.
Comments on flooding and drainage.
Concern regarding biodiversity and geological conservation.
This application seeks full planning permission for the re-roofing and re-cladding of two
factory buildings that are currently in use by Flowserve. Originally the scheme also included
the demolition of all the other redundant commercial buildings on site. However it has been
established that consent has already been sought and granted for demolition of all of the
buildings on this site in April 2009. This permission is still extant and remains so until
22 April 2012. As such the applicant does not need to re-apply for demolition and has
consequently withdrawn this element of the scheme. It is my understanding that the
applicant intends to demolish these buildings prior April 2012.
As such, the remaining element of the scheme, being the upgrading of the factory buildings,
is the key consideration in this case.
The existing factory buildings which are to remain are of no special or architectural merit.
These visually appear tired and would in my view benefit from being upgraded with modern
materials. As well as improving the facade of the factory buildings this would have the
added benefit of improving the sustainability of the buildings thus complying with Policy 2
and Core Policies 9 and 10 of the Development Plan.
Members will note that the objections from the Parish Council and the interested parties
relate, in part, to the loss of the more traditional industrial buildings. As set out above, this
matter is not open for consideration as the applicant is able to rely on a previous grant of
permission or ‘excluded demolition’. Likewise this is also the case in terms of ecological
issues.
In terms of drainage, whilst noting these matters, I do not consider that this application is
the correct vehicle nor would it be reasonable to address matters of drainage or flooding as
this application is simply to improve the external appearance of the buildings and will not
increase the floor area or have any impact on the issues raised. Indeed the Environment
Agency offers no comments on this application.
In summary, whilst noting the concerns raised, I would reiterate that most objections
received are outside of the scope of this application. I consider that the proposed
alterations would improve the appearance of the site, enable the factory to reduce costs
and thereby continue to function effectively and provide valued local employment. The
proposal accords with the Development Plan and I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact Clare Walker on Ext: 5841.
Colin Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Conditions
01
this permission.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004.
02
The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials details
submitted as part of the planning application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of visual amenity.
03
This permission shall be read in accordance with the following drawing numbers:
3690/P/001, 3690/P/201, 3690/P/202, 3690/P/203
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
Note to Applicant
(GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE)(ENGLAND)(AMENDMENT) ORDER 2003
Policy 2
None relevant
March 2011)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13
Application No:
11/00701/FULM
Proposal:
Change of use to outside quad bike track and erection of vehicle
storage and archery building
Location:
Center Parcs, Sherwood Forest Holiday Village, Old Rufford Road,
Rufford
Applicant:
Centre Parcs Ltd – Mr Steve Robinson
Registered:
09.06.2011
The Site
The site is part of the Sherwood Forest Holiday Village of Centre Parcs, near Rufford village,
accessed via its own internal road network, and connected to the public highway at a point
north of the park, running south from the B6034 between Rufford and Edwinstowe. The
park is within a dense area of woodland making up part of Sherwood Forest, the site of the
quad bike track and the new buildings is proposed for the eastern corner, adjacent the
boundary of the site with the A614, part of a semi-wooded and part cleared area of unused
park.
There is a very varied and extensive planning history associated with the site since its
inception in the early 1980s and there is an existing smaller quad bike track adjacent the site
of the proposal. There is however no directly relevant planning history to this proposal.
The Proposal
The proposals relate to the change of use of part of the land in the eastern corner to an
extended adult sized quad bike track and the erection of ancillary storage
buildings/relocated enclosed archery centre. It is part of the park’s increasing depth of
activity provision on site and an expansion of the existing children’s track immediately
adjacent. The site will cover an area of just under 1.5 hectares of new track, which itself will
be rough and loose-surfaced ground cutting through trees. Removal of selected trees is
proposed to allow for the route which is twisting. Removal and replacement of trees, which
are mainly pine in this area, would be performed in accordance with Centre Parcs adopted
woodland management strategy.
A site notice has been displayed at the site to expire on 18 July 2011 and an advert was
placed in the local press on 15 June 2011.
•
Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, Policy EC7
Planning for Tourism in Rural Areas
below:
• Policy 42
Regional Priorities for Tourism
•
•
•
•
Spatial Policy 3
Core Policy 7
Core Policy 9
Core Policy 13
Rural Areas
Tourism Development
Sustainable Design
Landscape Character
Saved Policies relevant to this application:
• Policy NE1
• Policy NE17
Development in the Countryside
Species Protection
Consultations
Rufford Parish Council objects to the application on the following summarized grounds:
•
•
Noise from the use of the new track would cause disturbance to nearby residents.
Over-intensification of an already crowded and over developed site.
Nottinghamshire County Council Highways state that the proposals will not affect the
internal layout of the site as a whole and will not have an impact on the public highway;
there are therefore no objections to the proposals.
Natural England have responded to the consultations and offer no objections to the
proposals, subject to the Council being satisfied that they have adopted the precautionary
risk-based approach to assess the likely impact of the proposals on breeding nightjar and
woodlark, bird species which are proposed as part of a potential proposed Special
Protection Area (pSPA), a European designation for species of European importance and
concern. As yet, there is no proposal to formally designate the area but Natural England has
advised Planning Authorities to adopt a risk-based approach to ascertaining the likely
impact.
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust responds with no objections and re-affirms the stance of
Natural England in being aware of the potential pSPA. There is a 5km buffer zone around the
indicative core area proposed to be designated and the site falls within this buffer zone.
Appropriate levels of account therefore need to be taken of the likely impact of the
development on this proposed designation.
Neighbours/interested parties - There have been no responses from neighbouring
properties at the time of writing this report.
As a matter of principle, and as detailed in PPS4 Local Planning Authorities should support
the growth and provision of tourist facilities and visitor attractions in appropriate locations
and support the expansion of existing facilities where appropriate. This advice is reflected in
the Core Strategy’s Core Policy 7, which discusses the need to support the sustainable
growth of existing facilities with due consideration to scale, location and impact on the rich
distinctiveness of the countryside.
The site falls outside of a defined built-up area and away from any of the defined principle
village and services centres in the District. The site is therefore in an area defined as Rural
Areas under Spatial Policy 3 of the Core Strategy which is more restrictive in terms of new
development in the interests of the strive towards sustainable development. Whilst I
acknowledge this as a matter of fact, the proposals only include expansion within the
existing site boundaries. This together with the fact that the site is well-established as a local
tourism centre in a corner of the District historically associated with such leads me to
conclude that the principle is acceptable. In addition, I note that the proposals intend to
expand in this manner in order to provide for a facility on-site which is normally provided
elsewhere and therefore will reduce the need to travel.
In terms of the design and the Core Strategy’s strive towards environmental sustainability
and quality in context I would state that the buildings are designed to reflect the theme of
the park and utilise natural materials and low impact construction to complement the
wooded setting. Given the degree of obscurity of the proposals in the public realm, I also
consider that the impact of the proposals on the open and undeveloped character of the
countryside will be minimal.
The site falls within an area identified by Core Policy 14 of the Core Strategy as being of
good condition and moderate sensitivity with a commitment to conserve and reinforce. I
consider that the proposals seek to reinforce the landscape character by virtue of them
being contained within the extremities of the park. I therefore do not consider that there
will be any adverse impacts arising out of the proposals which would be contrary to this
strategic aim.
Moving on, the track itself is low impact construction and will require tree clearance based
on a selective need only, retaining the wooded character of the site and also the park’s
unique selling point as an attraction or its established character. I appreciate the views of
the Parish Council in respect of the intensification of the site but consider that the
development proposal is well within the exiting limits and does not involve any
encroachment outside of the park’s boundaries. The site has reasonable capacity in a
previously unused area and will not result in over-developed or a cramped layout. The
Parish Council also express concern over the level of noise associated with such a practice
and the impact thereof on the amenities of residents.
I would state that the site is in proximity to the existing outdoor activities centre which will
have existing activity associated with it and therefore a degree of disturbance. There are
some residential uses accessed off the A614 in proximity of the park but none that are
within the immediate vicinity of the actual site of the track. In any case, I consider that the
degree of screening of the track, the nature of the established use and the fact that they are
proposed directly adjacent a main arterial and heavily trafficked road to be mitigating
factors and as such do not consider it reasonable to refuse planning permission for this
reason. It is not considered that hours of use will need to be controlled as no lighting is
proposed. Thus, the use of this facility would be self-regulating albeit it is accepted that
usage would be greater in the summer months.
In terms of ecology, the scheme is supported by a detailed appraisal and ecological
assessment which recognises the special characteristics of the site and indicates results of
surveys that have been carried out in the village, making a number of key
recommendations. The reports conclude that there is unlikely to be any adverse impacts on
wildlife, trees or ecology should the resulting guidelines be followed. Notts Wildlife Trust
agrees with this approach.
In terms of the wider ecology impacts of the proposals, the site falls within the buffer zone
of the indicative core area of the proposed potential special protection area (pSPA) for
breeding nightjar and woodlark. Natural England, whilst recognising that such a designation
is yet to be made at European level, Local Planning Authorities should adopt a risk based
precautionary approach to assessing the likely impact on the designation and thus breeding
nightjar and woodlark.
Natural England advises that the following issues need to be taken account of:
Disturbance to breeding birds from people, pets, noise and traffic, artificial lights – the
park is a long-established use and there is a year-round occupation of the site totaling some
900 lodges in all. The fact that the use exists is an important consideration. The nature of
occupancy of the site and the fact that there is human habitation all year round is also key.
Walkways are clearly demarcated and strictly adhered to within the park, these are in close
proximity to buildings and pets are kept on leads and under control in accordance with the
park’s code.
Loss, fragmentation and/or damage to breeding birds and/or feeding habitats – the
accompanying reports do not identify the presence of any nightjar or woodlark within the
limits of the site or indeed any suitable breeding habitat. Previous surveys within the site in
the last three years and anecdotal evidence from ecologists and bird specialists have stated
that these breeds are highly unlikely to nest anywhere near populated areas and the nature
of the park as a 365-day per year occupation means that there is a permanent human
occupation of the site, which would not be ideal for the breeds of concern. There is a small
loss of tree habitat generally but this is mitigated by the park’s adopted woodland
management strategy. Replacement tree works will be carried out outside of the bird
breeding season as per standing advice.
Bird mortality arising from domestic pets and/or predatory animals and birds – as
discussed, the breeds are such that they do not nest in populated areas and the park
practices strict rules on the control of animals brought to the park.
Bird mortality arising from road traffic and/or wind turbines – there are no proposals for
high level development or rotary wind turbines to consider and the scheme supports the
expansion of an on-site activity which in itself would not generate additional traffic.
Pollution and/or nutrient enrichment or breeding habitats – the proposals will not result in
the increase of cars visiting the site and as such is unlikely to result in additional pollution.
The scheme does propose the running of powered vehicles although this practice exists
already. In terms of scale and given the above however, I do not consider that there will be
a demonstrable impact in terms of pollution of habitats.
Taking the above into account, it is difficult to see that there would be either individual or
cumulative impacts that would result in a significantly adverse impact on nightjar and
woodlark populations. It is noted that the site is not considered a suitable breeding habitat
and is outside of the indicative core area, within the buffer zone, representing the
expansion of an existing and established use. Based on this information, it is reasonable to
come to the conclusion that the proposals would have an insignificant effect.
I also consider that with regards to the provisions of saved Local Plan Policy NE17 that the
proposals would not bring about an impact which would adversely affect species protected
under law where appropriate conditions can be used to secure their protection.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact John Morrison on ext. 5837.
website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk
C Walker
Director of Growth
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Conditions
01
this permission.
Reason:
Purchase Act 2004.
02
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the
Ecology Survey submitted in support of the application hereby approved.
Reason:
In the interests of ecology, biodiversity and the protection of protected species.
03
No part of the development construction including (‘setting up’) site works of any
description shall be commenced until each of the existing trees identified to be retained,
have been securely fenced off in accordance with provisions detailed in the British Standard
BS 5837:2005 - Trees in Relation to Construction and in accordance with the methodology
set out in the application.
The fencing is to be constructed around the tree at the branch extremities or to an
alignment indicated on the approved development layout plan/or as otherwise agreed on
site and confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
This fencing is to remain in place for the duration of site works unless otherwise agreed in
writing.
Within the enclosed area there should be NO changes in levels, excavations, storage of
materials, waste materials, equipment etc. The area beneath the branch canopy should be
regarded as a 'no go' area except as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the existing trees on the site are retained and protected.
Note to Applicant
01
For the avoidance of any doubt, the following plans received on 16th May 2011, suitably
endorsed by the Local Planning Authority, represent the proposal approved under reference
11/00701/FULM:
•
•
•
•
•
•
11/1825/01 revision A
11/1825/02 revision A
11/1825/04
144.3/04
144.3/03
144.3/02
02
03
The applicant is advised that all bat species are protected under the Conservation (Natural
Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Legal protection covers bats and elements of their habitats. A licence from the Wildlife
Licensing Unit at Natural England would be required in order to allow prohibited activities,
such as disturbing bats or damaging their breeding sites or resting places, for the purpose of
development. The following criteria must be satisfied for such a licence to be granted:
•
•
•
The purpose of the actions authorised must be for preserving public health or public
safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a
social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment; and
There must be no satisfactory alternative to the actions authorised; and
The actions authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of
the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.
Natural England would support the provision of bat roosting facilities incorporated into the
redevelopment scheme which would help to enhance local biodiversity, in line with the
requirements of PPS9. Advice should be sought from an ecologist on the exact type and
preferred siting, appropriate to the bat species present. NE also advise that removal of key
roof edgings is done at least 24 hours prior to further work being undertaken.
04
Nesting birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is an
offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird; take, damage or
destroy its nest whilst in use or being built; and/or take or destroy its eggs. Normally it is
good practice to avoid work potentially affecting nesting birds during the period 1st March
to 31st August in any year, although birds can nest either side of this period.
05
• Policy 42
Regional Priorities for Tourism
• Policy NE1 Development in the Countryside
• Policy NE17 Species Protection
March 2011)
•
•
•
•
Spatial Policy 3
Core Policy 7
Core Policy 9
Core Policy 13
Rural Areas
Tourism Development
Sustainable Design
Landscape Character
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14
Application No:
10/00173/OUTM & 10/00240/NPA
Proposal:
Outline permission (including the reserved matter of access) for the
development of 169.3 hectares of land for employment, commercial,
residential, retail, healthcare, community, educational and leisure
uses including the provision of a new primary school, local centre,
community park, landscaping, habitat creation and infrastructure
including roads, drainage and services (Community Park and Habitat
creation in Newark and Sherwood)
Location:
Land adjacent to the A617, Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route
(MARR), Between Nottingham Road and Southwell Road West,
Mansfield, Notts
Applicant:
Lindhurst Group
Registered:
10.02.2010
Target Date:
02.06.2010
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Members will recall that this development proposal relates to land in Mansfield Borough
Council and within Newark and Sherwood and that both elements, the formal application
within Newark and Sherwood together with a formal consultation in respect to the element
within Mansfield, was considered jointly in March 2011. The resolution of this Committee
was to defer consideration of both elements.
The minutes of the committee meeting held on 15th March 2011 state:
“The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth in relation to an application
for outline permission (including the reserved matter of access) for the development of
169.3 hectares of land for employment, commercial, residential, retail, healthcare,
community, educational and leisure uses including the provision of a new primary school,
local centre, community park, landscaping habitat creation and infrastructure including
roads, drainage and services (Community Park and Habitat creation in Newark & Sherwood).
A Schedule of Communications received after the agenda was printed was circulated to the
Committee. It was reported that the report was in two parts: one part was a consultation on
the development within the Mansfield district; and the second part was whether to grant the
proposed development within the Newark & Sherwood district. It was noted that the
proposed development within the Newark & Sherwood district was in accordance with
Council policies.
Members noted the proposed development and queried what benefits it would bring to the
district. They suggested that Mansfield District Council should address this development
through their Local Development Framework.
Members commented on the proposal as follows:
(i)
The MARR route was already beyond capacity and the proposals would add further
traffic and congestion to the existing road network.
(ii)
The community area was removed from the development and would result in visitors
having to use their vehicles to visit the area. The area should be relocated to be
within the development.
(iii)
Who would maintain the proposed fencing around the nature conservation area?
(iv)
The proposed development was considered to be on the wrong side of the road.
(v)
No additional infrastructure was proposed to accommodate the development.
(vi)
The proposed development, if approved, would prohibit any future improvements to
the MARR route.
Officers advised that the Highways Agency had accepted Mansfield District Council’s
transport proposals and had indicated that in their opinion, the impact on the road network
within Newark & Sherwood would be minimal.
AGREED (unanimously) that:
(a)
in relation to the development within the Mansfield District area further
consideration be deferred and the above issues forwarded to them as
matters of concern for the Council; and
(b)
in relation to the development within the Newark & Sherwood area,
consideration of the matter be deferred until additional information from
Mansfield District Council was received.”
Element within Mansfield Borough Council
Mansfield Borough Council considered the application within their administrative boundary
in July 2011 and were ‘minded to approve’ the application subject to the referral of the
application to the National Planning Casework Unit to afford the Secretary of State the
opportunity to consider the proposal via the call in procedure and to produce an
appropriate Section 106 Agreement.
No decision has yet been reached from the National Planning Casework Unit in relation to
whether the Secretary of State wishes to intervene. There is no similar requirement for this
authority to refer the application within our boundary to the National Planning Casework
Unit within the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England)
Direction 2009.
Response to the Concerns of Newark and Sherwood Planning Committee
In relation to the matters of concern raised by this committee, the report to Mansfield
provided the following response:
The land on which the proposed community park (and potential cemetery site) would be
located is within the Newark & Sherwood District Council boundary and therefore a planning
application has been submitted to Newark & Sherwood with respect to this element of the
proposal. In addition, Mansfield District Council has consulted Newark & Sherwood District
Council on the wider proposals for the site which are the subject of the planning application
now before Planning Committee. Following a meeting on 15th March 2011 the Planning
Committee of Newark & Sherwood District Council resolved to defer making a formal
consultation response until three issues were clarified, these being:
•
•
•
Concern that the potential impact of the development upon the local highway network
had not been fully assessed as the MARR route was already at capacity. Consideration
should be given to set aside land as part of the scheme to ensure that the MARR could be
developed into a dual carriageway in the future. Comments are also made regarding
road condition and pedestrian barriers.
Concern with regards to the remote location of the proposed community park on the
southern side of the MARR away from areas of residential development. It was
considered that the open space would be better provided within the heart of the
development on the northern side of the road and Members requested justification for
the location of the park as proposed.
Concern with respect of the impact of the proposed development close to habitats which
may form part of the future Special Protection Area in Harlow Wood. They considered
that the multi-barrier solution may not be a robust solution and that Natural England’s
comments in respect of this approach be taken into account when determining the
application.
With regard to the highway concerns, it is noted that an extensive Transport Assessment has
been provided in support of the application and that Nottinghamshire County Council as
Highways Authority has considered and accepted the assessment, subject to the highway
improvements and other transport recommendations contained within. Nottinghamshire
County Council has not requested that land be set aside to allow the MARR to be widened to
a dual carriageway in future, nor have comments been made about the condition of the road
surfacing or pedestrian barriers. In light of this, it would not be reasonable to request that
the applicant reserve land or undertakes such work to the existing highway.
In terms of the location of the proposed community park, whilst it is located to the south of
the MARR, due to its extensive size it is likely that the park would be used by the wider
community, not just by residents of the proposed new dwellings. It should also be noted that
open space and green infrastructure areas would be provided within the proposed
residential development areas to meet the needs of residents whilst providing appropriate
access to the community park.
Finally, the applicant has developed proposals with Natural England to address issues
relating to the proximity of residential areas to the pSPA/SPA. There is no objection to the
proposals from Natural England and it is considered that the comments and guidance of
Natural England have been fully taken into account.
In relation to maintenance of fencing around the community park, Mansfield Borough
Council have confirmed the scheme would include a Section 106 Agreement which would
include the Community park, public open space and green infrastructure although the detail
has not, at this stage, been resolved. The committee report to Mansfield highlights the
following matters which will be included in any S106 Agreement:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Highway works.
Affordable housing provision.
Community park, public open space and green infrastructure.
Phasing of development.
Provision of a healthcare accommodation.
Primary school education provision.
Public transport measures.
Travel plan.
Additional land for nightjars.
pSPA/SPA indemnification.
Costs of drawing up the planning obligation agreement.
Furthermore, paragraph 7.17 of the previous committee report states “There has been
correspondence between Mansfield District Council and Newark and Sherwood District
Council’s Parks and Amenities Manager, and Mansfield District Council have agreed to
undertake the maintenance of the community park with funding secured through the Section
106 Agreement on the wider development. Newark and Sherwood would therefore have no
responsibility for this part of the development after completion.”
Changes to the Development Plan for Newark and Sherwood
Furthermore, since the resolution of this committee the development plan for Newark and
Sherwood has been changed with the adoption of the Core Strategy. Therefore, it is
necessary to update this committee report with regard to those policies of the Local Plan
which have been replaced by Core Strategy Policies.
Local Plan Policy NE7 has been replaced by Spatial Policy 3 ‘Rural Areas’, Policy R30 has been
replaced by Core Policy 12 ‘Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure’ and Policies DD1 and DD4
have been replaced by Core Policy 9 ‘Sustainable Design.’
It is not considered that there has been any material change to the East Midlands Regional
Plan since Members previously considered the application.
Having regard to the recent changes to the development plan it is not considered that they
represent a significant change in policy position which would warrant a different
recommendation or, in fact, would introduce policies which would require the development
to be reassessed.
Conclusion
Having regard to the above, it is considered that the community park and habitat creation is
in accordance with the current planning policies set out within the Development Plan for
Newark and Sherwood. It is noted that Mansfield District Council have elected to answer
Members’ previous concerns and queries vie the report to their own Committee and whilst
this is regrettable the responses given are considered reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION
Therefore, it is recommended that:
i)
in respect of application ref: 10/00240/NPA, no objection is raised; and
ii)
in respect of application ref: 10/00173/OUTM outline planning permission is
approved subject to conditions drawn up in conjunction with Mansfield District
Council
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Report presented to the Planning Committee on 15th March 2011 (Appendix A)
For further information, please contact Kurt Partington.
C Walker
Director of Growth
APPENDIX A
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 15 MARCH 2011
Application No:
10/00173/OUTM & 10/00240/NPA
Proposal:
Outline permission (including the reserved matter of access) for the
development of 169.3 hectares of land for employment, commercial,
residential, retail, healthcare, community, educational and leisure
uses including the provision of a new primary school, local centre,
community park, landscaping, habitat creation and infrastructure
including roads, drainage and services (Community Park and Habitat
creation in Newark and Sherwood)
Location:
Land adjacent to the A617, Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route
(MARR), Between Nottingham Road and Southwell Road West,
Mansfield, Notts
Applicant:
Lindhurst Group
Registered:
10.02.2010
Target Date:
02.06.2010
1.0
The Site
1.1
The application site comprises 169 hectares of land both north and south of
Sherwood Way, between the A60 and A617 on the edge of Mansfield. The site lies
adjacent to the southern edge of the built-up part of Mansfield with the majority
lying within Mansfield District. Part of the land to the south of the MARR, lies within
Newark and Sherwood and the extent of this is approximately 24 hectares.
1.2
At present the land is in agricultural use, predominantly arable. Sherwood Way runs
through the centre of the site connecting to the A617 roundabout at the eastern
end, and splits the site into northerly and southerly sections. In the west the site
extends as far as the junction with Sherwood Way and the A60. Sherwood Way is
also known as the Mansfield and Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR).
1.3
To the north of the site lies existing residential development which forms the
southern edge of Mansfield. These residential areas are of differing characters, with
low density housing at Berry Hill to the north-west and higher density properties at
Bellamy Road.
1.4
The east of the site is bounded by Southwell Road West which runs from Mansfield
into Rainworth, and is currently characterised by commercial uses, including recently
constructed business parks which lie within Mansfield District.
1.5
To the south, the land rises from the MARR, with open arable fields which comprise
the Parish of Lyndhurst. Within these fields five recently constructed turbines form
the Lyndhurst Windfarm, which was granted permission in 2008. Close to the site
boundary, and also within the southernmost part of the site, lie a number of
properties and farmsteads which form Lyndhurst. Within this part of the site also includes
Forest Stone, a Scheduled Ancient Monument. A number of public footpaths and bridleways
run through the land to the south of the MARR.
1.6
Rainworth Lakes and Harlow Wood also lie close to the southern edge of the application site
and are both significant as ecological resources. Rainworth Lakes comprises a SSSI fed by
Foulevil Brook which runs through the southern part of the site. Harlow Wood provides
habitat for nightjar and forms part of a wider area which may be designated as a Special
Protection Area for nightjar and woodlark in the future.
1.7
To the west, the site is bounded by the A60 and lies close to the site of West Notts College.
2.0
2.1
There is no relevant planning history.
3.0
The Proposal
3.1
The proposed development comprises a sustainable urban extension to Mansfield. It consists
of employment land, up to 1700 new homes of a wide range of types and sizes, including
affordable homes, a primary school, local centre, hotel and leisure complex, formal and
informal open space and provision of access.
3.2
The proposal initially involved the creation of a cemetery and a community park within the
portion of the site which lies within Newark and Sherwood. The cemetery has now been
deleted from the proposals. This land is now proposed for habitat creation.
3.3
A Framework Plan has been submitted which shows the master plan for the various parcels of
land, the location of the local centre and primary school and the green corridors running
through the site.
3.4
A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application which includes new and
improved junctions within the site and a new roundabout on the MARR itself. A pedestrian
bridge is also proposed linking the northern and southern half of the site, and providing a
route across Sherwood Way to the recreational facilities at the community park and beyond.
3.5
The development will include 47.2 hectares of public open space, natural footpaths and
wildlife areas and will provide features of landscape and nature conservation.
3.6
An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application outlining the results of
the Environmental Impact Assessment. A Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement
and Statement of Community Involvement have also been submitted.
3.7
Following discussions with Mansfield District Council and ourselves in terms of issues raised in
respect of the initial submission, a further “Response to Issues” document has been
submitted.
3.8
All of the above documents are available on the application file, and also on our website.
3.9
In terms of the proposal within the Newark and Sherwood portion of the site, these now
comprise a community park centred on the scheduled ancient monument, Forest Stone,
comprising 15.15 hectares with the remainder of the site being utilised for habitat creation.
The park would be for informal recreation laid out with woodland walks and landscaped to
form an attractive recreational facility. A car park is proposed in the north-eastern part of the
site. Access would be from the MARR utilising an improved junction and access roads.
3.10
The southernmost portion of the site within Newark and Sherwood was initially proposed for
a cemetery, however, following concerns raised by the Environment Agency, this has been
deleted from the proposal. This remaining 8.9 hectares is now proposed to be used as a
woodland/scrub zone to enhance the adjacent habitats found in Harlow Wood.
4.0
4.1
Occupiers of 11 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.
5.0
Regional Spatial Strategy 8 for the East Midlands
5.1
under ‘List of Relevant Policies’.
5.2
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 13a (Regional Housing Provision[excluding Northamptonshire])
• DD1
• DD4
Development
Design of New Development
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Improvement Schemes
Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites of Major Local Importance
Agricultural Land
Protection of the Countryside
Greenwood Community Forest
Amenity Open Space
Access to Woodlands
Recreation and Sports Development in the Countryside
Protection of Existing Rights of Way
C5
C22
NE1
NE3
NE7
NE23
R5
R20
R23
R30
6.0
Consultations
Comments on the initial round of consultations in receipt of the application (February
2010):
6.1
Lyndhurst Parish Council (via Blidworth Parish Council) - Support the proposal.
6.2
Rainworth Parish Council - Support the proposal.
6.3
Nottinghamshire County Council – Highways – state:
“The proposed development accesses onto the highway infrastructure wholly within the
Mansfield District Council boundary.
From the Traffic Assessment produced by the Applicant the impact of the generated traffic
will only necessitate works to junctions within the Mansfield District Council boundary. There
will be some minor impact on the highway network within the Newark and Sherwood District
Council area.
The traffic modelling for the development is still ongoing and it is not expected to be
completed until nearer Christmas. However, it is not expected to require highway works
within the Newark and Sherwood District.
As soon as the Transport Assessment has been agreed a copy of the NCC response will be
forwarded to the NSDC.”
6.4
The Environment Agency state:
“The Environment Agency OBJECT to this application as submitted because the proposed
development would pose an unacceptable risk of pollution of groundwater and recommend
that planning permission should be refused on this basis.
Reasons
Government policy as set out in Planning Policy Statement 23 notes the key role that the
planning system plays in determining the location of development which may
give rise to pollution, either directly or indirectly, and in ensuring that other uses and
developments are not, as far as possible, affected by major existing or potential sources of
pollution.
Our approach to groundwater protection is set out in our recently revised policy
‘Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice’ (2008). In implementing our policy we will
oppose development proposals that may pollute groundwater especially where the risks of
pollution is high and the groundwater asset is of high value.
In this case we consider that the proposed development poses an unacceptable risk of causing
a detrimental impact to groundwater quality because:
•
the development of a cemetery poses an unacceptable risk of pollution to groundwater in
this location
Informative
The site is located over Nottingham Castle Sandstone and within a source protection zone for
a potable water abstraction point. This is a sensitive location and as such a cemetery
development of 8.9 hectares provides a significant risk of contamination to controlled waters.
Additionally Rainworth SSSI is downstream of the Foulevil Brook, and all reasonable efforts
should be made to maintain the water quality.”
6.5
Natural England – A letter has been received dated 16 April 2010 which is attached as
Appendix A to this report.
6.6
Newark and Sherwood District Council – Environmental Health Officer has no observations
at this stage.
6.7
Neighbours/interested parties – Letters have been received from 6 local residents raising the
following objections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have no specific objection to the application, but have concerns about increased numbers
using the bridle path which runs through my property as there are already problems with
disturbance and littering.
The proposed increase of use of the bridle paths and the proposed new bridle path to the
rear of my property would increase in an already high security risk. One of the paths
could be deleted.
The proposal will completely change the character and landscape of the area;
The MARR forms the boundary of the built part of Mansfield, south of the MARR is a
delightful area of green belt.
Additional traffic could create a safety hazard and have concerns about the capacity of the
road infrastructure.
Concerns about the impact of the facility on privacy and peaceful enjoyment of our home
and garden.
6.7.1 A letter has also been received from Friends of Berry Hill setting out an objection in principle
to the development on a Greenfield site, particularly when there are several derelict
Brownfield sites suitable for redevelopment within the town centre, and that it is unclear
whether there is demand for the proposal when there exist a number of vacant units in the
vicinity.
Comments received following the withdrawal of the Cemetery as part of the proposal
(September 2010):
6.8
Lyndhurst Parish Council (via Blidworth Parish Council) make the following comments:
•
•
•
6.9
Very disappointed at the decision to withdraw the cemetery from the proposal. Our
churchyard is full and closed, therefore there is a lack of local facilities;
Where is the secondary school that this primary school feeds into?
There will be impact on the roads through Blidworth.
6.10
Natural England – A letter has been received dated 8 September 2010 which is attached as
6.11
The Environment Agency state in their letter dated 22 September 2010:
“I refer to the amended plans for the above proposal which involves the removal of the
cemetery from the planning application, which was received 21st September 2010.
The Environment Agency wish to repeat our response that we sent to Mansfield District
Council for planning reference - 2010/0089/ST for the same proposal. For ease of reference a
copy of the letter sent to Mansfield District Council is copied as below:
The Agency was initially proposing to object to this proposal due to the incorporation of a
cemetery in the scheme and the impact this might have on sensitive groundwater resources
in the area. However, following receipt of the above consultation confirming that a cemetery
no longer forms part of the application I can confirm that the Agency has no objections, in
principle, to the proposed development but recommends that if planning permission is
granted the certain planning conditions are imposed. ”
Comments received in respect of the “Response to Issues’ Document (October 2010):
6.12
Lyndhurst Parish Council - Support the proposal.
6.13
6.14
Nottinghamshire County Council - Rights of Way Officer states in their letter dated 16
November:
“With regards to the above Planning Application I have the following comments to make on
behalf of the Countryside Access Team.
Firstly, I believe that the developer needs to be made aware that the Old Newark Road is
currently adopted Highway and is also subject to a current claim to record it as a Byway Open
to All Traffic. I understand that this is to protect any Public Rights should Old Newark Road be
removed from the list of streets. Old Newark Road is not currently up to adoptable standards
(although it is currently adopted) we need the developer to confirm whether Old Newark
Road is to be used as a main access in and out of the site and whether the developer plans to
bring it up to adoptable standards as part of the development. This department would like to
see Old Newark Road retained as a rural route with an unsealed surface, and retained as a
rural green corridor.
Secondly, I am aware that there were a number of side road orders that were confirmed as
part of the construction of the MARR route which would potentially alter the lines of any of
the Rights of Way crossing the MARR. I am aware that although these orders were confirmed,
nothing was done to either legally alter the lines of the Rights of Way on the Definitive Map
and Statement, or physically on the ground. I have asked a member of our Definitive Map
Team to check the Side Road
Orders and confirm the correct routes of Mansfield Bridleways 26 and 28, and also to check if
any additional routes have been added. I am fairly confident that the lines of the Bridleways
are correct, however there may be an additional route following the access drive to Lyndhurst
Farm to meet the roundabout on the MARR. This ought not to have an effect on the
development; however, it is right that the developer is made aware.
Thirdly, a number of potential additional Rights of Way have been identified by the developer.
These nicely link a number of roads within the proposed estate, and provide useful links to
the existing Rights of Way network. It would be good to get confirmation that these routes
will be dedicated as recorded Rights of Way by the Developer. We would also like
confirmation that these additional routes will be dedicated as (and constructed to the
standards of) public Bridleway. The surrounding, existing Rights of Way network is Bridleway,
so this would provide more useful links to the surrounding area. From the developers point of
view this may also be beneficial as this would provide better sustainable transport links to the
site (walking, cycling, horseback), especially when considering the future workforce for the
industrial units/office space. It would also be of great benefit if the developer could provide a
bridleway link from the development site to the roadside multi-users routes on the A60 and
A617, and the traffic light controlled crossings at the A60/A617 junction. This could potentially
provide further safe off-road links to Mansfield centre to the North, and Harlow and Thieves
Wood to the south.
Lastly, we would like to see details of the design of the proposed road crossings for both the
existing and the proposed Rights of Way. This is to ensure that the safety of non-motorised
users on the Rights of Way crossing the site has been considered, and that any potential risk
has been prevented or at least kept to a minimum.
Any route with a sealed surface created as part of the development will need to be adopted
as highway, as opposed to dedicated as Public Right of Way. Any surfaced Bridleway or Byway
ought to be surfaced with compacted stone ensuring that there are no exposed loose stones.
Ideally any dedicated Bridleway ought to have a minimum width of 3 metres.
On another note, the section entitled ‘Pubic Access and Rights of Way’ in the Design and
Access Statement (p32) states that the surrounding Rights of Way are infrequently used. I
don’t know what this information is based on; however this information is incorrect and
misleading. This area is very popular with walkers, cyclists and horse riders alike. There are a
number of stables near to the development site that frequently use the Rights of Way
network and Harlow Woods (to the south of the MARR) is particularly popular with dogwalkers.”
6.15
The Environment Agency state in their letter dated 2 November 2010:
“The Environment Agency wish to repeat our response that we sent to Mansfield District
Council for planning reference - 2010/008/ST for the same proposal. For ease of reference a
copy of the letter sent to Mansfield District Council is copied below. We acknowledge and
support the extensive use of SuDS at this site managing surface water runoff. However before
we can comment further on this aspect we would welcome the submission of calculations to
demonstrate that the proposed drainage scheme is capable of mimicking the current runoff
rate and that the system can retain up to the 1 in 30 year storm within the system and not
flood or leave the proposed site during the 1 in 100 year storm or the 1 in 100 year storm with
an appropriate allowance for climate change.
It is noted that a number of works are to take place within the Foulevil Brook. These works
will require the prior written consent of the Environment Agency under the Land Drainage Act
1991.
The Environment Management team are satisfied with the revised location of the sewage
pumping station and can confirm that the baseline water quality monitoring of the Foulevil
Brook commenced in October 2010.
The Biodiversity team confirm that the conditions attached to the response from the Agency
of 22/09/2010 concerning a buffer zone and landscape management plan would be satisfied
by the information provided.”
6.16
Natural England – Letters dated 17 November 2010 and 7th December 2010 are attached as
6.17
Full copies of all the comments that have been made are available on file.
7.0
Comments of the Head of Planning and Economic Development
7.1
This proposal is to be taken in two parts - firstly a response to Mansfield District Council in
respect of their consultation, reference 10/00240/NPA, on the wider proposal, and secondly a
decision in respect of the proposals on the land within Newark and Sherwood, application
reference 10/00173/OUTM.
Response to Consultation Reference 10/00240/NPA
7.2
The application seeks outline planning permission for substantial new commercial and
residential development together with a local centre and a primary school on land to the
south of Mansfield. This type of development is described as a Sustainable Urban Extension large scale strategic developments which look to create a completely new urban environment
on the edge of an existing settlement
7.3
The East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy sets out significant levels of growth - housing and
employment – in the Mansfield area, as it also does within Newark and Sherwood. In Newark
and Sherwood, development of this scale has been dealt with as part of the Core Strategy and
options for substantial growth have been examined by a Planning Inspector. Whilst it is
recognised that the MARR was constructed to aid regeneration of Mansfield and that new
development was expected along its route, the scale of growth proposed by this current
application maybe more appropriately assessed as part of Mansfield’s Core Strategy in order
to ensure that the proper level of growth is directed to the appropriate locations.
7.4
The applicant has stated in the supporting information that the level of growth proposed is
justified as there is not currently provision of a five year supply of land for housing and that
regeneration of this scale is required to assist in the social and economic recovery of
Mansfield. It appears unclear whether there is a five year supply of deliverable sites within
Mansfield District and whilst there remain questions relating to the principle of development
and the method of identifying sites for strategic development, these issues are for Mansfield
District Council to consider fully in their determination of the application.
7.5
In terms of our response to the consultation, it is appropriate to assess the wider proposal in
terms of any impact upon the neighbouring villages within Newark and Sherwood and
proposals for growth within our emerging Core Strategy. In this respect the nearest
settlement to the proposed development is Rainworth and our Core Strategy recognises the
intimate relationship between Mansfield and Rainworth in designating it, together with
Clipstone and Blidworth, as the Mansfield Fringe Area. Some housing growth is planned
within the Fringe Area, including that within Rainworth where two residential developments
have recently been approved.
7.6
The development of land south of Mansfield will result in large areas of new housing and
commercial development close to Rainworth which should in the long term provide
Rainworth, and indeed Blidworth, increased employment opportunities for residents of those
settlements. Similarly, the healthcare, community, educational and leisure uses included
within the scheme would also provide potential benefits,
given the sites proximity to Newark and Sherwood District Council residents. The proposal
would, in the long term, result in increased opportunities and easier access to a wider range
of facilities than at present on the southern edge of Mansfield. The services available at the
local centre, should not however, result in such a significant level of development as to have
an adverse impact upon the current local services provided within Rainworth village centre.
7.7
Rainworth Parish Council have supported the proposals whilst Lyndhurst/Blidworth Parish
Council have raised some objections particularly in terms of increased traffic. However,
comments have been received from the Highway Authority which state that the proposal
would have a minor impact upon the road network within Newark and Sherwood.
7.8
Members may be aware that several areas of habitat within the western part of Newark and
Sherwood have been identified as being so significant in terms of populations of nightjar and
woodlark that they could be designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the
European Birds Directive 1979. SPAs are areas which have been identified as being of
international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and
vulnerable species of birds found within European Union countries. Natural England continue
to raise concerns, particularly in respect of the proximity of residential elements of the
scheme, to SPA habitats within Harlow Wood. The main threats to such bird populations
come from increased activity in sensitive areas and the proximity/access to the habitat for
pets. Elsewhere in the country, such SPA habitats have been protected by the imposition of a
400 metre buffer to safeguard habitats from unnecessary intrusion, specifically from pets such
as domestic cats. Here the applicants are proposing the use of a multi-barrier comprising a
water feature, landscaping and a cat proof fence alongside the southern part of the
residential development closest to Harlow Wood. Natural England state that a barrier solution
is unproven and uncertain, and that a buffer has been supported in similar circumstances
previously. They advise that Mansfield District Council should take a risk based approach to
determining the outline permission, but that they are unable to support or object to the
Lyndhurst proposal in terms of its potential effects upon an SPA which has not yet formally
been proposed.
7.9
To conclude, in terms of the consultation on the wider application, I therefore recommend
that our response to Mansfield District Council states that there is no objection to the
proposal in terms of its impact upon the adjacent villages which comprise the Mansfield
Fringe Area and that given the uncertainty, the comments of Natural England in respect of the
possible future SPA should be taken into account when determining the application.
Outline application reference 10/00173/OUTM
7.10
The development now being proposed with Newark and Sherwood relates to a
24 hectare
plot of land which is currently used for arable farming. The land rises towards Lyndhurst and
as it is outside of any village envelope, lies within the countryside. The proposal involves the
creation of a community park which would involve the laying out and landscaping of the park,
the formation of a car park and the creation of a woodland/scrub zone of habitat on the most
southerly portion of the site.
7.11
Dealing firstly with the country park proposal, this is an informal recreation area comprising of
footpaths and landscaping centred around the Forest Stone, a scheduled ancient monument.
Policy NE1 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan states within the countryside appropriate
recreation uses may be suitable, provided that they are consistent with Policy R23 of the
Newark and Sherwood Local Plan.
7.12
Policy R23 sets out a number of criteria against which new recreational development should
be assessed. Criteria 1 states that the proposal should not be intrusive in the countryside. The
proposed community park would have no buildings and a small car park located in the
northeastern corner of the site. It would provide an informal recreation area for the
proposed development and for existing residents, and would feed into the existing network of
public footpaths and bridleways. The low key use of the land would not be intrusive upon the
countryside. Criteria 2 relates to the amenities of neighbouring properties and there are a
few properties lying close to the northeastern corner of the site, however, the informal nature
and potential landscaping of the park would ensure that the amenities of these properties
could be safeguarded. The layout, landscaping and future landscape management of the
community park can be controlled through a condition.
7.13
Criteria 4 of Policy R23 relates to nature conservation interests, and Natural England have
provided extensive comments on the whole development in terms of safeguarding ecological
resources in this area. I am satisfied that the Community park would enhance the local
resources subject to appropriate laying out and landscaping. I am also satisfied that the
proposal would not conflict, but rather complement, other recreational uses within the area.
Natural England have stated that they are “very supportive of a number of positive elements
of the scheme that demonstrate a significant contribution to biodiversity enhancement,
habitat creation and restoration and landscape management.” They also state that they are
very pleased to see Biodiversity Action Plan habitat creation and restoration and with the
design principles of the community park.
7.14
As outlined previously this site lies close to a habitat identified as significant in terms of
protected species of woodlark and nightjar and it is possible that this area would form part of
a Special Protection Area for these species in the future. Natural England have advised that
local authorities adopt a ‘risk based approach’ to decision making in areas close to the
possible future SPA with a degree of future proofing until such time that there is more
certainty on whether the Sherwood Forest Area is afforded pSPA or SPA status. The strongest
concerns raised by Natural England relate to the proximity of residential development
adjacent to Harlow Wood as outlined in paragraph 7.8 of this report. However, the proposals
within the Newark and Sherwood part of the site which include habitat creation and a
community park also need to be assessed in terms of any impacts upon a future SPA. A
detailed assessment is attached at Appendix B, however, in summary, I am confident that the
habitat creation will enhance the SPA resource whilst the community park will help to manage
visitor pressures in the locality by creating a formal recreational area for local residents to
enjoy. The design of the country park will also include area of Suitable Alternative Natural
Green space (SANG) to substitute the woodland walk experience in Harlow Wood. Given the
limited scale of the application site within Newark and Sherwood and the proposed uses for
habitat creation and a country park, I consider that the proposal would not have a significant
impact upon the adjacent sensitive habitats which may form part of the SPA and am satisfied
that the proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy R23 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan.
7.15
Forest Stone lies within the application site and is an Ancient Monument. Policy C22 states
that permission will not be granted for development which would destroy or detrimentally
affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments. At present, the monument lies in a vulnerable position
in a field, and this proposal would significantly enhance the setting of the ancient monument
and safeguard it for future generations as the focus of the community park. The proposal is
therefore in accordance with Policy C22 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan.
7.16
The park would be well related to existing settlements within Newark and Sherwood and also
provide a resource to the new properties proposed as part of the wider development. It is in
accordance with current saved policies of the Local Plan and therefore acceptable as a
standalone development. However, in order to supply additional recreational facilities to the
wider development it is a significant resource and essential in achieving a balanced
development.
7.17
There has been correspondence between Mansfield District Council and Newark and
Sherwood District Council’s Parks and Amenities Manager, and Mansfield District Council have
agreed to undertake the maintenance of the community park with funding secured through
the Section 106 Agreement on the wider development. Newark and Sherwood would
therefore have no responsibility for this part of the development after completion.
7.18
In terms of the remaining 8.9 hectares, this portion of the site was initially proposed as a
cemetery; however, strong objections were received from the Environment Agency in terms
of potential water pollution and this element of the proposal was withdrawn. This part of the
site is now proposed for habitat creation to support the adjacent habitats at Harlow Wood.
7.19
In terms of the development within the Newark and Sherwood part of the site, I am satisfied
that the community park and habitat creation of is in accordance with current planning
policies within the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan. I therefore recommend approval of the
application and propose that a recommendation sheet with appropriate conditions is drawn
up in conjunction with Mansfield District Council.
8.0
RECOMMENDATION
8.1
That:
(i)
in respect of application ref: 10/00240/NPA, no objection is raised but recommend
that Mansfield District Council should consider the comments of Natural England
with regard to any future Special Protection Area; and
(ii)
in respect of application ref: 10/00173/OUTM outline planning permission is
approved subject to the conditions drawn up in conjunction with Mansfield District
Council.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
For further information, please contact C Pendle on Ext 5827.
All submission documents relating to this planning application can be found on the following website
www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk.
C Walker
Head of Planning & Economic Development
ITEM 14
Land adjacent to the A617, Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR),
Between Nottingham Road and Southwell Road West, Mansfield, Notts
10/00173/OUTM & 10/00240/NPA
APPENDIX A (Comments from Natural England)
and
APPENDIX B (Assessment)
To the Report to Planning Committee
Held on 15 March 2011
APPENDIX A
Land adjacent to the A617, Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR),
Between Nottingham Road and Southwell Road West, Mansfield (10/00173/OUTM)
Comments from Natural England
Comments on the initial round of consultations in receipt of the application (February
2010):
Letter received dated 16 April 2010
“...
Landscape and visual
The landscape and visual assessment is a thorough assessment of impacts, and follows
appropriate best practice guidelines. Due regard is given to existing landscape character, and
features of sensitivity. Natural England concurs with the conclusions drawn with regard to
landscape character sensitivity of the area, and welcomes the recognition that the area’s
lower sensitivity to change also indicates that it is worthy of enhancement.
The visual impact assessment is also carefully undertaken, with detailed consideration of the
visual envelope and potential receptors. Natural England concurs with the findings of the
visual analysis. Consideration given to night time character is particularly welcomed, and it is
hoped that this will inform the detailed design of the development and its lighting scheme.
Natural England fully supports design recommendations, and welcomes the suite of
proposals for the landscape framework, which represents appropriate use of landscape and
visual assessment findings by ensuring that the development proposal is appropriately
designed and laid out in a manner that seeks to limit negative effects. The concept of
avoiding and minimising effects is a more positive and successful approach than simply
seeking to compensate for the negative consequences of an already designed proposal.
It is noted that the peak of visual impact is predicted for the construction phase of
development. It is suggested that the reserved matters stage should consider what elements
of landscaping/green infrastructure/habitat creation can be put in place as a priority prior to
the commencement of building construction, in order to soften any such impact, and also
enable any landscaping and habitat creation to establish prior to the development.
In conclusion the landscape and visual impact assessment provides a comprehensive
assessment of effects and recommendations that can be taken forward in greater detail at
the reserved matters stage.
Ecology
The ecological work included within the submitted documents is very comprehensive and is
strengthened by a very positive approach to providing biodiversity enhancement and
ensuring that the completed development provides a significant net gain for wildlife in the
local area. Natural England is generally supporting of the approach, survey methodologies,
3
findings and recommendations made. Recommendations should be incorporated into
conditions on the outline approval or legal agreements as appropriate.
It is noted that the Green Infrastructure management plan will be developed as project
progresses, and that this will include detailed prescriptions for habitat creation and
management. This is particularly welcomed by Natural England, and it is hoped that
opportunities will be provided to inform this detailed plan as it is developed. It will be
necessary for this management plan to also include appropriate monitoring, particularly in
relation to nightjar, as discussed below.
Natural England supports the proposal for locally sourced planting material of native species
and local provenance or green hay. This element could be ensured by way of a planning
condition on the outline approval. Where possible it would be most appropriate to pursue
the restoration of an acid grassland/heathland mosaic. The details of where this could be
attempted, particularly in close proximity to existing heathland and acid grassland patches
should be included in the reserved matters. It is appreciated that some of the former
agricultural land may now be too nutrient rich for such habitat creation to be successful, but
habitats appropriate to the local character should be pursued wherever feasible.
Natural England would expect the development to preserve the veteran tree, and an
appropriate habitat surrounding it, and would advise that a condition should be applied to
the outline permission accordingly. In the reserved matters application, Natural England
would hope to see a careful design that ensures the retention and enhancement of as much
existing hedgerow as possible. All hedgerow lost must be replaced by compensatory
hedgerow planting. Locally characteristic tree species should be complemented in the
planting, and include English oak, sessile oak, silver birch, rowan, occasional Scots pine,
holly. black poplar, and also willow in wet woodland areas.
Strong support is offered for the commitment to the inclusion of a number of green and
brown roofs within the commercial and community buildings. Natural England looks forward
to further details with regard to this element within the reserved matters submissions.
Rainworth Lakes SSSI
Natural England notes the detailed survey work and consideration given to ensuring the
protection of Rainworth Lakes SSSI condition at outline stage, to ensure its continuation to
the implemented development. The level of baseline information gathered is welcomed.
However at this stage, Natural England is concerned and not yet able to conclude that the
SSSI will be adequately protected during the construction phase, nor once the development
is completed and occupied, and would therefore request further information from the
ecological consultants, in order to be assured that there will be absolutely no decline in
water quality of water bodies within the SSSI. Natural England therefore requests further
information on the following with regard to how the water quality is to be safeguarded:
•
•
•
How will no decline in water quality during the development be assured.
Retention/ improvement of the water quality post development.
Due to the porous nature of the soil, we would need to be assured that there would be
no through flow discharge from any of the developments that would eventually end up
in the SSSI.
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Due to the proximity of field drains and storm water drains from the MARR and the new
development, discharge into the watercourses is possible and we would need assurance
that there would be no inputs into the watercourse in this way.
No overflow of poor quality water over land into the water course.
No soil erosion during the development phase within the Foulevil catchment which
would result in sediment loading into the watercourse of the SSSI and increased
turbidity.
SUD’s are proposed to the north of Harlow Wood. Is this to deal with run-off from road
surfaces and household roofs only? It is crucial that the quality of the Foulevil brook is
maintained (and even improved) as any pollution into the water course would end up in
the SSSI. Are any SUDS planned to deal with runoff from the industrial developments?
We could not find information on how is sewage to be dealt with? Although we could
have missed this in the information provided. Is it going into mains sewers?
What effect will the cemetery (i.e. those buried within it) have on the water quality due
to the porous nature of the sand substrate?
The provision of mitigation in the form of severance of any storm water drains from the
MARR to the Foulevil brook.
On a matter of detail with regard to the SSSI and water sampling, when viewing the
information we were unable find w6 marked on the map. This should be the main lake of the
SSSI. It is quite possible that this is an error, or we have missed the right information, but if it
could be clarified that sampling has taken place to provide a baseline prior to development,
which will then be followed by monitoring post development, this would be helpful.
At reserved matters stage, Natural England would also welcome the inclusion of an ongoing
programme of monitoring the water quality (chemical and macro invertebrates) every year
during the development phase and annually, post development for a period of at least 20
years. Natural England should be provided with such information on an annual basis. The
reserved matters application should also demonstrate how the SUDS will be correctly
operated and maintained on an ongoing basis post development. The use of reedbed
systems to be encouraged as per the proposed Ecological Enhancement plan included in the
planning application but they must be fully functioning and well established prior to the
completion of development in order to provide the necessary water resource protection.
At reserved matters stage Natural England would also welcome details of mitigation to
further protect and enhance the SSSI through the provision of woodland planting and
unimproved grass buffer strips alongside the Foulevil as per the Ecological Enhancements
plan required.
Protected/priority species
It is noted that considerable benefits for a range of bird species will be provided as a result
of the habitat creation and hedgerow retention measures proposed. However, measures to
counteract the effects of the development on ground nesting farmland birds are not
presented. It is agreed that suitable habitat is available elsewhere in the wider area.
However, Natural England considers that, given the status of agricultural birds such as
skylark, which is a priority species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and also a Species
of Principal Importance in England under the The Natural Environment and Rural
Communities (NERC) Act, 2006, it is necessary to consider suitable compensatory measures,
5
to ensure no net loss for such birds as a result of the development. Habitat requirements are
such that it would be difficult to provide suitable habitat within the development site. It is
therefore advised that opportunities to provide habitat enhancement outside the site are
pursued. The Council may be able to assist in directing the developer to land owned by the
Council or Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, for example, where skylark habitat could be
enhanced.
The ecological survey work revealed a brown long-eared bat roost at Firs Farm, and that
information gathered to date indicates that the roost is very small and/or temporary in
nature. It is noted that the building in question will need to be demolished as part of the
development proposal. It is noted that emergence survey work did not reveal active use of
the roost at the time of survey and that the presence of the roost was determined by a very
small number of bat droppings. With this in mind, it is suggested that an appropriate
approach would be to proceed with determining the outline application, but with conditions
requiring re-survey prior to reserved matters submission, to be certain that the status of the
roost has not changed. As a precautionary approach, the outline permission should assume
retention of the building and suitable surrounding habitat until appropriate measures have
been presented following further survey work. Such measures should include suitable
alternative roosting opportunities, with the addition of appropriate mitigation measures
should it be determined that bat activity at the roost site has increased.
The work presented on determining the status of nightjar in the area, and developing
suitable mitigation measures is strongly welcomed. It is advised that all measures suggested
to protect this species from disturbance are appropriate and in accordance with best
practice and current understanding of the impact of disturbance on nightjar populations.
However, it is advised that the measures require some strengthening in order to be
considered robust enough to minimise disturbance effects. The following should be required
in addition to the excellent recommendations already made in the confidential nightjar
survey report:
In order to minimise nest predation by domestic cats, a condition will need to strictly require
no residential development within 400 metres of the closest boundary of Harlow Wood, and
any other area known to support nightjar, or with potential to support nightjar in the future
following the felling cycle. The barriers suggested by the survey report are not developed in
enough detail to have confidence in their effectiveness at this stage.
The detailed layout of the development area should place any recreation areas and
residential areas furthest away from known nightjar breeding and foraging sites. Closest
proximity to nightjar areas could include appropriate employment development, as long as it
does not cause any impacts such as noise or lighting. It is particularly important that noise
and lighting is avoided around the Harlow Wood area.
The planning conditions at this outline stage will need to emphasise that the final layout
should seek to minimise nightjar disturbance and ensure the most disturbing development,
such as that which increases the presence of people, should be located furthers away from
nightjar areas on the edge of the development site. The final layout should also seek to
ensure the retention of, or further creation of, nightjar foraging areas. Further consideration
needs to be given to any potential nightjar foraging habitat that might be lost to the
development, and what measures are necessary to either retain such areas, or if not
possible, compensate for their loss.
6
Car parking should be a significant enough distance from Harlow Wood, and any other area
known to support nightjar, or with potential to support nightjar in the future following the
felling cycle, to ensure that those travelling into the site by car to undertake recreation are
deterred from entering nightjar sensitive areas because of the on foot distance that need to
be travelled in order to get to such sites. This issue will require further consideration prior to
reserved matters submission.
Harlow Wood, and any other area known to support nightjar, or with potential to support
nightjar in the future following the felling cycle should not form any part of the official public
open space provision for the development. This will ensure adequate open space is provided
for residents outside nightjar sensitive areas. Open space should be designed in such a way
that they provide recreational needs and experiences that negates the need to travel to the
nightjar sensitive areas.
The development should fund a long term commitment to a full time warden over the
summer period, commencing prior to the normal arrival of nightjar into the UK. The warden
should focus on publicly accessible nightjar locations, reinforcing the requirement for dogs
to be on a lead (which may require a specific bylaw), and encouraging visitors away from
known nightjar locations.
The development needs to commit to the funding of long term monitoring of nightjar
populations in the vicinity of the development site. This monitoring should trigger further
people management measures should it be determined that the new development and
increased recreation is negatively affecting the nightjar population. This may need to include
closing off some of the otherwise publicly accessible areas during the breeding season.
Further measures will need to be set out in detail and committed to at reserved matters
stage.
Potential Special Protection Area (pSPA)
The Council and applicant should be mindful of the current public inquiry for the Rufford
Incinerator development, where Natural England is now of the opinion that Sherwood
Forest satisfies Stage 1 of the SPA Selection Guidelines for breeding nightjar and woodlark
and as a result Natural England would advocate the further consideration of Sherwood
Forest against Stage 2 of the SPA Selection Guidelines, at the appropriate stage during the
UK SPA Review process, to determine whether the area should be classified as an SPA for
this species of European importance, to contribute to the European site network.
We recognise that the consequences of a possible future classification of an SPA in the
Sherwood area places a difficulty on Local Planning Authorities with regard to how they
should consider land allocations and policies in forward plans. How local authorities choose
to confront this issue is a matter for them, however Natural England would advocate a ‘risk
based approach’ or similar be adopted to provide a degree of future-proofing until such a
time that the full SPA Review process has been completed.
A future SPA boundary could potentially include areas such as Harlow Wood and Thieves
Wood. If this were to happen the Council would need to undertake a Habitats Regulations
Assessment to consider the implications of the development for the proposed European site
in order to inform the determination of the reserved matters application. It is therefore
7
advised that it would be prudent to ensure that all potential impacts on the nightjar
population have been adequately avoided with appropriate measures, at this stage, in order
to ensure that any future need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment is met with a robust
set of measures in place.
Overall, the development proposal at outline stage places great emphasis upon retention of
existing landscape and habitat features, green infrastructure creation, substantial boundary
landscaping, the creation of attractive public greenspaces, habitat creation and habitat
linkages to the wider area. This is strongly welcomed and Natural England looks forward to
commenting on the detailed elements of these benefits in the reserved matters application.
It is hoped that the outstanding issues and concerns can be alleviated with further
information prior to determination of the outline proposal, in order for Natural England to
be able to support the application. If any further assistance can be provided to the Council,
applicant or consultants on the specific comments made please do not hesitate to contact
me using the contact details within this letter.”
8
Comments received following the withdrawal of the Cemetery as part of the proposal
(September 2010):
Letter received dated 8 September 2010
“...
Natural England has, at the request of the developer and ecological consultants FPCR,
hosted and attended meetings to specifically discuss elements of the proposal relating to
the natural environment. This has involved three members of Natural England staff; Karyn
Stander who is the Leader Adviser for Designated Sites in Nottinghamshire, Liz Newman
who is the Planning Adviser for Newark and Sherwood Council and myself as the Planning
Adviser for your Council. Both Karyn and Liz have contributed to this letter.
We have provided initial comments, both verbally and in writing, to assist the consultants
with the preparation of ecological information to support the planning application. The
main element of this work is the ecological information to support the planning application.
The main element of this work is the ecological protocol being prepared by the consultant,
which we understand will be submitted to the Council shortly.
Once the final protocol has been submitted, Natural England would hope to be consulted on
this additional information, and will then provide formal comments on the document.
However, Natural England has been informed that the Council intends to meet with the
developer and consultants tomorrow, on the 9th September. It is hoped therefore that this
letter will assist the Council in its discussion, prior to our formal comments on the additional
ecological information in due course.
Our interest in the application primarily relates to the presence of a national wildlife site in
close proximity to the development site, wider biodiversity, contribution to the network of
natural greenspaces, potential for BAP habitat creation and wider wildlife enhancement
opportunities. Our further interest is in the possibility of a future international wildlife site in
close proximity to the development.
Natural England hopes to be able to offer strong support to a number of very positive
elements of the scheme that demonstrate a significant contribution to biodiversity
enhancement, habitat creation and restoration. The ecological consultants have responded
to a range of suggestions made by Natural England, and have in turn brought a number of
suggestions to the table that Natural England has been very pleased to discuss and see
incorporated into the scheme.
The natural greenspace to be provided by the development, along with the comprehensive
proposals for its staffing and management is welcomed, and again a positive response to
our suggestions has resulted in a modified layout.
Natural England supports the principle of a sustainable drainage scheme within the
development and the potential beneficial consequences for the natural environment. We
hope to be able to support the surface water drainage scheme once the final plans are
submitted.
It is also worth adding that Natural England has welcomed the level of data collection and
proposed continued monitoring for the development. Whilst we are yet to see final details,
9
we commend the commitment to obtaining a high level of baseline information to support
the development, followed by continued survey and monitoring.
With regard to the designated site in the vicinity of the development, the potential impacts
upon Rainworth Lakes SSSI have been the subject of our meetings with the consultants, and
Natural England and the Environment Agency has assisted the consultants most recently in a
meeting with Severn Trent Water on this issue. Rainworth Lakes comprises a series of water
bodies which are of national importance due to the swamp habitat and macrophyte
vegetation present. The waterbodies are fed by the Foul Evil brook to the west. However,
over a number of years, the water quality of the standing open water (unit 2) SSSI has
declined in condition due to pollution and sedimentation from a variety of sources. Since
2002, it has been recorded as “Unfavourable no change”.
Severn Trent Water own and operate a 375mm diameter combined and 1050mm diameter
surface water sewer which runs down to the Foul Evil Brook, the latter discharged into the
watercourse. The combined sewer runs 5 metres from the parallel to the water course en
route to the treatment plant at Rainworth village. A series of manhole covers are located
along the length of this pipe. Every year, the landowner reports to us, the Environment
Agency and Severn Trent Water, pollution incidents during storm events. The storm water
enters the system and causes a number of the manhole covers to surcharge the contents of
the sewer into the brook and subsequently into the SSSI.
Natural England is therefore concerned about this issue, and the potential for this to be
exacerbated by further foul water entering the current system as a result of the new
development proposed. The development proposal includes a new sewerage storage
facility to cope with this additional discharge. The proposal is to release the sewerage at
times of low flow into the existing system, holding it back at times of storms.
Natural England has recently written to Severn Trent Water to raise extreme concern with
regard to the existing situation, and has pressed for consideration of a complete renewal
and relocation of the sewer pipes away from the brook, with the Lyndhurst development
proposal being the catalyst for urgent action. We are currently awaiting a response from
Severn Trent Water on this matter.
No further detrimental effects on the SSSI watercourse are acceptable and so it is
imperative that there is no damage to the habitats or water quality caused by the
development. The complete renewal and relocation of the sewer pipeline represents the
most favourable option for Natural England to rectify existing pollution issues and also to
enable the Lyndhurst development to be accommodated with connection to this new
network. In the interim however, Natural England must work together with the
Environment Agency to consider the proposal before us, which is the sewerage storage
facility that releases the sewerage at times of low flow into the existing system.
We will provide formal comments once the final information has been submitted. However,
we can advise you that if we are assured of the storage and release approach on seeing the
final details, we will require the storage facility to be located north of the A617. We are also
likely to advise that a number of conditions will be required on the outline permission. We
would need to discuss these with the Council and the Environment Agency, but they are
likely to include the following:
10
•
No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for
the improvement and/or extension of the existing sewerage system has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the LPA (with consultation with Natural England). The
scheme shall be implemented as approved.
•
No occupation of dwellings approved by this permission shall occur until the scheme for
improvement and/or extension of the existing sewerage system has been completed.
•
There must be no inflow of sedimentation into the watercourse from surface water run
off during the construction phase. A scheme to treat and remove suspended solids
approved by the LPA must be in place prior to commencing work.
•
Development shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site,
based on the sustainable drainage principles has been submitted and approved by the
LPA which will cover the necessity to ensure safeguards are in place within the system to
prevent any pollution/suspended solids from entering the Foul Evil brook and SSSI. A
maintenance programme for the system is needed for perpetuity along with the
necessary funds.
Natural England has provided advice to the Council with regard to the substantial breeding
population of nightjar and woodlark in the Sherwood Forest region, and the possibility that
these populations are such that they may warrant classification of suitable territories and
habitat in the Sherwood area as a Special Protection Area (“SPA”) under the EU Birds
Directive.
As previously advised, it is presently Natural England’s view that based on Government’s
previous practice, the Sherwood Forest region is not a pSPA and therefore the provisions of
the Habitats Regulations do not presently apply. Natural England has not so far provided
any advice to the Secretary of State on the selection of any SPA in the Sherwood Forest
area, i.e. the process has not commenced that leads the site to be classed as formally
‘proposed’. Given that it is Natural England’s view that current practice would be not to
treat the Sherwood area as an existing pSPA, we are therefore bound to advise your
authority to that effect.
We have also recently advised you that it would be beneficial for the Council to consider the
implications of a future SPA classification for the Lyndhurst development, bearing in mind
the requirement within the Habitats Regulations for the review of permissions where there
is a likelihood of significant effects upon a pSPA/SPA, should the classification come
forward. Clearly for outline permissions, there is the potential for the classification to come
forward, at least as a pSPA, prior to determination of reserved matters/full application.
Natural England has therefore advised that local planning authorities may wish to adopt a
fully recorded ‘risk based approach’ or similar to provide decision-making with a degree of
future-proofing until such a time that there is more certainty on whether the Sherwood
Forest area is to be afforded pSPA or SPA status. We have therefore suggested that it would
be prudent for the Lyndhurst development to contain sufficient information to ensure that
all potential impacts on the breeding nightjar and woodlark population have been
adequately avoided or minimised as far as is possible using appropriate measures and
safeguards. This advice continues to be given to enable the Council to be adequately
prepared in order to ensure that any future need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment for
11
the reserved matters/full application, and/or as part of a review of any extant permission, is
met with a robust set of measures in place.
The consultants have drafted a protocol that seeks to minimise potential impacts upon
nightjar, in response to the presence of breeding nightjar in adjacent woodland. This
woodland has not currently been highlighted by Natural England in its map of core breeding
areas for this species. It has however been highlighted by the Wildlife Trust as an important
area for this species that should be included in any future SPA classification. At this point in
time Natural England is unable to advise whether the adjacent woodland would or would
not form part of an SPA if proposed.
The draft protocol seen by Natural England includes, amongst other things, a number of
elements to build up a robust linear barrier between the development site and the
woodland. The multi-barrier approach to preventing access to adjacent woodland for both
people and cats represents a comprehensive and carefully considered approach by the
consultants. It is apparent that essentially, in choosing to pursue a development proposal
adjacent to nightjar breeding habitat, all practical measures for preventing access by people
and domestic cats to the adjacent woodland have been carefully designed and incorporated
into the protocol, and there appears to be little else that could be added. Measures to
ensure the longevity of the barrier and its continued management and maintenance are also
clearly carefully thought out.
However, Natural England has advised that it has been standard practice for a 400m
exclusion zone to be established around SPAs elsewhere in the country where ground
nesting birds form the site interest features. Examples include the Thames Basin Heaths
and Dorset Heaths. This 400m zone excludes all types of development that will result in a
net increase in dwellings, and is based upon research findings that conclude that domestic
cats have an average roaming distance of 400 metres. This acts as a robust measure to
ensure that increased development does not result in an increase in the impact of domestic
cats upon the ground nesting birds. If the Sherwood area was to come forward as an SPA,
Natural England would assess the need for a similar buffer zone, and as nightjar and
woodlark are the same species for which the Thames Basin Heaths and Dorset Heaths are
classified, it is quite possible that it would be concluded that such a buffer was also
necessary to protect the ecological integrity of the Sherwood SPA.
If a 400 metres buffer zone were to be applied, it would remove the majority of the
residential element of the development proposal, and in reality would prevent the
development from proceeding. The effectiveness of such a barrier to cats and people, and
its ability to function in perpetuity, in the specific circumstance of an SPA classified for
ground nesting birds remains unproven and therefore uncertain, essentially because
elsewhere the buffer zone approach has been taken.
On the issue of the possibility of a future SPA, Natural England can only advise that it is for
the Council to take a risk based approach to determining the outline permission, and it is
hoped that the information Natural England has been able to give is of some assistance to
the Council in this regard. Unfortunately, whilst understanding the difficulty local planning
authorities face with regard to how they should consider planning applications within the
Sherwood Forest area, Natural England is unable to support or object to the Lyndhurst
proposal in terms of its potential effects upon an SPA that has not yet been formally
proposed.
12
We hope that this letter has provided you with some clarification with regard to Natural
England’s position and involvement to date on the Lyndhurst development proposal. This
letter is intended to be an update only, and we hope to provide final formal advice on all
information finally submitted, prior to the consideration of the proposal at planning
committee.”
13
Comments received in respect of the “Response to Issues’ Document:
Letter received dated 17 November 2010
14
15
16
17
18
19
APPENDIX B
Assessment of Application Ref. 10/00173/OUTM within Newark and Sherwood
The Council acknowledges that the possible future designation of an SPA is a material
consideration in the assessment of the application reference 10/00173/OUTM and has
undertaken a ‘risk-based approach’ with regard to assessing the impacts of the proposed
development on the breeding nightjar and woodlark population in the Sherwood Forest
area. This assessment relates only to the part of the wider application site which lies within
Newark and Sherwood District, namely proposals for a community park and habitat
creation, and does not relate to the wider mixed use development which falls within
Mansfield District.
It is noted that NE have made no formal assessment of the boundary of any future SPA,
however, they have provided a map of an Indicative Core Area boundary for breeding
nightjar and woodlark. The site lies outside of the Indicative Core Area, however, it is
known that nightjar habitat is present in Harlow Wood adjacent.
NE has set out a list of likely impacts that should be assessed and these are considered in
turn:
1.
Disturbance to breeding birds from people, their pets, noise, traffic and/or artificial
lights:
The site is currently utilised as arable agricultural land and the proposal would be in two
parts over the 24 hectare area which lies within Newark and Sherwood – a 15 hectare
community park and a 9 hectare habitat creation zone.
The community park is intended to be an informal recreational area with the provision
of car parking but with no buildings, formal play space or sports pitches. The creation
of the park will increase the usage of this area by the general public, potentially with
their pets and also travelling by car to an area which is currently experiences very low
traffic levels. However, the car park is intended to be located in the far north-eastern
corner of the site at the furthest point from Harlow Wood with the access running on
the northern boundary. The majority of the increased disturbance from traffic
generation will therefore be away from Harlow Wood habitats.
In respect of the increase in people and their pets using the community park, the
creation of the community park as Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) is
intended to provide an alternative green space for residents to recreate and walk their
dogs etc and prevent an increase in visitor pressure on the more sensitive areas of
Harlow Wood. Natural England have guidance on the creation of SANGs and this has
been followed by the consultants in order to design appropriate open space that
recreates a similar experience to the habitats currently being used. The effectiveness of
SANGS as mitigation will depend upon the location and design and these must be such
that the SANGS is more attractive than the areas that are being protected, in this case
the creation of a woodland walk has been incorporated to substitute for the Harlow
Wood experience. The creation and maintenance of the SANGS can be controlled by an
appropriate condition. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the community
park can help to relieve existing and future visitor pressures on nightjar and woodlark
populations in this area.
20
The installation of artificial lighting within the park, car park and paths will be controlled
by way of planning condition but given that the proposal does not involve formal sports
pitches no floodlighting or other significant lighting should be required. Lighting should
therefore be low level and minimal and as a result have limited impact upon adjacent
habitats. The proposed use would not generate significantly high levels of noise as it is
proposed as an informal recreational space intended for low key recreational activities
such as walking. Visitors would be spread across the site and landscaping would assist
in reducing any noise impacts upon the adjacent habitat.
The land proposed to form new habitat to the south of the community park is not
intended to be open to the public and as such will result in minimal disturbance to the
bird populations. Indeed, the proposal is to provide additional habitat to boost
resources for the nightjar populations.
2.
Loss, fragmentation and/or damage to breeding birds and/or feeding habitat: The
ecological report within the Environmental Impact Assessment did not identify the
presence of nightjar and woodlark or suitable breeding habitat on the site. In addition,
the surveys did not consider that the site itself was important for the local population of
nightjar. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would not result in any loss,
fragmentation or damage to breeding birds/or feeding habitat.
3.
Bird mortality arising from domestic pets and/or predatory mammals and birds: As
discussed at point 1 above, the community park is intended to draw visitors and their
pets away from more sensitive locations within Harlow Wood.
4.
Bird mortality arising from road traffic and/or wind turbines: The proposal will result
in an increase in the number of cars visiting the site, however, it is not considered to be
of such an extent as to lead to a significant impact on bird mortality. Vehicles will use
the access road to the north and park in area furthest away from bird populations. No
wind turbines are proposed as part of the development.
5.
Pollution and/or nutrient enrichment of breeding habitats: The proposal will result in
an increase in the number of cars visiting the site, however, it is not considered to be of
such an extent as to lead to a significant impact on pollution or nutrient enrichment of
breeding habitats. The proposals include provision within the new habitat zone to
enhance the biodiversity of the site.
Taking all the above into account, it is unlikely that there would be either individual or
cumulative impacts that would result in a significantly adverse effect on nightjar and
woodlark populations from the part of the proposal which falls within Newark and
Sherwood. It is noted that the site is not deemed to provide a suitable breeding habitat, it is
outside the Indicative Core Area boundary for breeding nightjar and woodlark prepared by
NE and it represents a low key recreational use and habitat creation which should reduce
pressures on existing habitat.
Based on the above information, it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the
proposal has an insignificant or de minimis effect. Its de minimis effect means that it cannot
have a significant effect either alone or in combination with another plan or project.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 15
List of Relevant Policies
Please find below the policies, in full, which have been quoted within the above reports.
Policy 1 - Regional Core Objectives states:
“To secure the delivery of sustainable development within the East Midlands, all strategies,
plans and programmes having a spatial impact should meet the following core objectives:
a)
To ensure that the existing housing stock and new affordable and market housing
address need and extend choice in all communities in the region.
b)
To reduce social exclusion through:
•
•
•
c)
To protect and enhance the environmental quality of urban and rural settlements
to make them safe, attractive, clean and crime free places to live, work and invest in,
through promoting:
•
•
•
•
d)
‘green infrastructure’;
enhancement of the ‘urban fringe’;
involvement of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships; and
high quality design which reflects local distinctiveness.
To improve the health and mental, physical and spiritual well being of the Region’s
residents through improvements in:
•
•
•
•
e)
the regeneration of disadvantaged areas,
the reduction of inequalities in the location and distribution of employment,
housing, health and other community facilities and services, and by;
responding positively to the diverse needs of different communities.
air quality;
‘affordable warmth’;
the availability of good quality housing; and
access to health, cultural, leisure and recreation facilities and services.
To improve economic prosperity, employment opportunities and regional
competitiveness through:
•
•
the improvement of access to labour and markets; and
ensuring that sufficient good quality land and premises are available to support
economic activity in sectors targeted for growth by the Regional Economic
Strategy.
2
f)
To improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services through the:
•
•
•
g)
To protect and enhance the environment through the:
•
•
•
•
h)
•
maximising ‘resource efficiency’ and the level of renewable energy generation;
making best use of existing infrastructure;
promoting sustainable design and construction; and
ensuring that new development, particularly major traffic generating uses, is
located so as to reduce the need to travel, especially by private car.
To reduce the impacts of climate change, in particular the risk of damage to life and
property from flooding and sea level change and the decline in water quality and
resources. This will be achieved through the location, design and construction of new
development in ways that include:
•
•
•
k)
the management and extension of habitats, both to secure net gains in
biodiversity and to facilitate species migration to allow the biosphere to adapt to
climate change; and
ensuring that no net loss of priority habitats or species is allowed to occur.
To reduce the causes of climate change by minimising emissions of CO2 in order to
meet the national target through:
•
•
•
•
j)
protection, enhancement, sensitive use and management of the Region’s natural
cultural and historic assets, giving particular attention to designated sites of
international importance;
avoidance of significant harm and securing adequate mitigation or compensation
for any unavoidable damage;
reducing the amount of waste produced and increasing the amount recycled or
otherwise beneficially managed; and
recognition of the limits to the capacity of the environment to accept further
development without irreversible damage.
To achieve a ‘step change’ increase in the level of the Region’s biodiversity
through:
•
i)
promotion and integration of opportunities for walking and cycling;
promotion of the use of high quality public transport; and
encouragement of patterns of new development that reduce the need to travel
especially by car.
reducing the build up of heat island effects in urban areas;
providing carbon sinks; and
providing sustainable drainage and managing flood water.
To minimise adverse environmental impacts of new development and promote
optimum social and economic benefits through the promotion of sustainable design
and construction techniques.”
3
Policy 2 - Promoting Better Design states:
“The layout, design and construction of new development should be continuously improved,
including in terms of reducing CO2 emissions and providing resilience to future climate
change, by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
design led approaches which take account of local natural and historic character;
minimising energy use, reducing the heat impact of urban areas, using sensitive lighting,
improving water efficiency, providing for sustainable drainage (SUDS) and management
of flood water, reducing waste and pollution, securing energy from decentralised and
renewable or low carbon energy technologies, incorporating sustainably sourced and
recycled materials wherever possible, and considering building orientation at the start
of the design process;
ensuring that all urban extensions that require an Environmental Impact Assessment
achieve the highest viable levels of building sustainability;
making the most efficient use of land;
locating and designing access from new development to local facilities on foot, by cycle
or by public transport;
highway and parking design that improves both safety and the quality of public space;
design which helps to reduce crime and the fear of crime, supports community safety,
promotes vitality, maintains amenity and privacy, and benefits the quality of life of local
people; and
taking account of the need to develop carbon sinks and ‘green infrastructure’ networks
and provide for access to open space and the enhancement of biodiversity and
landscape quality.”
Policy 3 - Distribution of New Development states:
“Development and economic activity should be distributed on the following basis:
a)
new development will be concentrated primarily in and adjoining the Region’s five
Principal Urban Areas (PUA5), the built up areas centered on Derby, Leicester,
Lincoln, Northampton and Nottingham;
b)
significant levels of new development should also be located in the three growth
towns of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough;
c)
appropriate development of a lesser scale should be located in the Sub-Regional
Centres (SRC5), i.e.in the:
•
•
•
d)
Eastern Sub-area: Boston, Grantham and Spalding;
Northern Sub-area: Chesterfield, Mansfield-Ashfield, Newark and Worksop;
Southern Sub-area: Daventry;
Three Cities Sub-area: Coalville, Hinckley, Hucknall, Ilkeston, Loughborough,
Market
Harborough, Melton Mowbray and Swadlincote;
The development needs of other settlements and rural areas should also be
provided for. New development in these areas should contribute to:
4
•
•
•
•
maintaining the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities;
shortening journeys and facilitating access to jobs and services;
strengthening rural enterprise and linkages between settlements and their
hinterlands; and
respecting the quality of tranquility, where that is recognised in planning
documents;
In assessing the suitability of sites for development priority should be given to making best
use of previously developed land and vacant or under-used buildings in urban or other
sustainable locations, contributing to the achievement of a regional target of 60% of
additional dwellings on previously developed land or through conversions.
In applying this policy the influence of major urban areas outside the Region should also be
taken into consideration, particularly those fulfilling the role of PUAs for parts of the East
Midlands, i.e. Peterborough, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, where policies in
regional strategies for neighbouring regions will be relevant.”
Policy 13a (Regional Housing Provision (excluding Northamptonshire)) states:
“The total housing provision figures below are the figures that local planning authorities
should plan for over the plan period. Local authorities can test higher numbers through
their development plan documents provided that they are consistent with the principles of
sustainable development set out in PPS1 and tested through sustainability appraisal.
Greater Lincolnshire HMA
Lincoln PUA1
N Kesteven2
West Lindsey2
Coastal Lincolnshire HMA
Boston3
East Lindsey3
Peterborough Partial HMA
Rutland
S Holland3
S Kesteven
Nottingham Outer HMA
Ashfield
Mansfield
Newark & Sherwood
Northern (Sheffield/Rotherham) HMA
Bolsover
Chesterfield
NE Derbyshire
Bassetlaw
Annual
Apportionment
from 2006
2,030
990
560
480
870
270
600
1,370
150
540
680
1,830
560
530
740
1,510
400
380
380
350
Total Housing
Provision
2006-2026
40,600
19,800
11,200
9,600
8,700
2,700
6,000
24,000
3,000
7,400
13,600
36,600
11,200
10,600
14,800
30,200
8,000
7,600
7,600
7,000
5
Peak, Dales & Park HMA
Derbyshire Dales4
Annual
Apportionment
from 2006
500
200
Total Housing
Provision
2006-2026
10,000
4,000
High Peak4
PDNPA
Derby HMA
Derby
Amber Valley
S Derbyshire
Leicester & Leicestershire HMA
Leicester
Blaby
Charnwood
Harborough
Hinckley & Bosworth
Melton
NW Leics
Oadby & Wigston
Nottingham Core HMA
Erewash
Nottingham
Broxtowe
Gedling
Rushcliffe
East Midlands Total (excluding Northamptonshire)
300
1,830
720
510
600
4,020
1,280
380
790
350
450
170
510
90
2,850
360
1,000
340
400
750
16,810
6,000
36,600
14,400
10,200
12,000
80,400
25,600
7,600
15,800
7,000
9,000
3,400
10,200
1,800
57,000
7,200
20,000
6,800
8,000
15,000
324,100
1
The figure for Lincoln is for the whole Lincoln PUA. Completion, commitments, urban
capacity and potential urban extensions in those parts of the Lincoln PUA that lie in North
Kesteven and West Lindsey will contribute to the Lincoln figure.
2
The figures for North Kesteven and West Lindsey do not include contributions from those
parts of the Lincoln PUA that lie in these districts, including completions, commitments,
urban capacity or potential urban extensions.
3
The total provision figures for East Lindsey, Boston and South Holland are ceilings, pending
the agreement of a Lincolnshire Coastal Strategy.
4
Housing provision in those parts of the Peak Park Planning Authority Area that fall within
the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Housing Authority areas will count towards the housing
provision of those districts as set out in this policy.
A redistribution of housing provision within a HMA through the adoption of sound joint core
strategies will be acceptable provided that the HMA total provision is met and the policy of
urban concentration for the following HMAs is adhered to over 2006-2026 as follows:
6
•
•
•
•
Central Lincolnshire: at least 19,800 dwellings within or adjoining the Lincoln PUA.
Derby HMA: at least 21,400 dwellings within or adjoining the Derby PUA.
Leicester & Leics HMA: at least 39,800 dwellings within or adjoining the Leicester PUA.
Nottingham Core HMA: at least 40,800 dwellings within or adjoining the Nottingham
PUA.”
Policy 20 - Regional Priorities for Employment Land states:
“Local authorities, EMDA and sub-regional strategic partnerships should work together in
housing market area groupings to undertake and keep up to date employment land reviews
to inform the allocation of a range of sites at sustainable locations.
These allocations will:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
be responsive to market needs and the requirements of potential investors, including
the needs of small businesses;
encourage the development of priority sectors as identified in the Regional Economic
Strategy, namely transport equipment, food and drink, healthcare and construction as
well as specific sectors which have local economic significance;
serve to improve the regeneration of urban areas;
ensure that the needs of high technology and knowledge based industries are provided
for;
promote diversification of the rural economy;
assist the development of sites in the Priority Areas for Regeneration; and
be of a scale consistent with the essential policy of urban concentration as set out in
Policy 3.”
Policy 22 - Regional Priorities for Town Centres and Retail Development states:
“Local Authorities, emda and Sub-Regional Strategic Partnerships should work together on a
Sub-area basis to promote investment through design led initiatives and the development
and implementation of town centre strategies.
Local Planning Authorities should:
•
•
•
within town centres bring forward retail, office, residential and leisure development
opportunities, and any other town centre functions as set out in PPS6, based on
identified need;
prevent the development or expansion of additional regional scale out-of-town retail
and leisure floorspace; and
monitor changes in retail floorspace on a regular basis.”
Policy 24 – Regional Priorities for Rural Diversification states:
“Local Authorities, emda and Sub-Regional Strategic Partnerships (SSPs) should work
together to promote 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. Local development documents
7
should develop the policy according to local circumstance but particular consideration
should be given to:
•
•
‘economically lagging’ rural areas identified by the Government’s Rural Strategy,
including the districts of East Lindsey, West Lindsey, South Holland, Bolsover, High Peak,
and the more rural parts of Derbyshire Dales, Bassetlaw and Newark and Sherwood; and
Those areas that fall within Rural Action Areas identified by SSPs.”
Policy 26 - Protecting and Enhancing the Region’s Natural and Cultural Heritage states:
“Sustainable development should ensure the protection, appropriate management and
enhancement of the Region’s natural and cultural heritage. As a result the following
principles should be applied:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the Region’s internationally and nationally designated natural and historic assets should
receive the highest level of protection;
neither direct nor indirect damage to EU designated Natura 2000 sites will be permitted;
damage to natural and historic assets or their settings should be avoided wherever and
as far as possible, recognising that such assets are usually irreplaceable;
unavoidable damage must be minimised and clearly justified by a need for development
in that location which outweighs the damage that would result;
unavoidable damage which cannot be mitigated should be compensated for, preferably
in a relevant local context, and where possible in ways which also contribute to social
and economic objectives;
there should be a net increase in the quality and active management of natural and
historic assets across the Region in ways that promote adaptation to climate change,
and an increase in the quantity of environmental assets generally; and
the Region’s best and most versatile agricultural land should be protected from
permanent loss or damage.”
Policy 27 – Regional Priorities for the Historic Environment states:
“The historic environment should be understood, conserved and enhanced, in recognition of
its own intrinsic value, and its contribution to the Region’s quality of life.
Across the Region and particularly in areas where growth or regeneration is a priority,
development should promote sensitive change of the historic environment. To achieve this,
Local Planning Authorities should:
•
•
•
•
•
identify and assess the significance of specific historic assets and their settings;
use characterisation to understand their contribution to the landscape or townscape in
areas of change;
encourage the refurbishment and re-use of disused or under-used buildings of some
historic or architectural merit and incorporating them sensitively into regeneration
schemes;
promote the use of local building materials; and
recognise the opportunities for enhancing existing tourism attractions and for
developing the potential of other areas and sites of historic interest as part of Green
Infrastructure, having regard to potential impacts on biodiversity.”
8
Policy 32 – A Regional Approach to Water Resources and Water Quality states:
“Local Authorities, developers, water companies, the Environment Agency and other
relevant public bodies should work together to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
take water related issues into account at an early stage in the process of identifying
land for development and in the phasing and implementation of development, e.g. by
undertaking water-cycle studies;
ensure timely provision of appropriate additional infrastructure for water supply and
wastewater treatment to cater for the levels of development provided for in this plan,
whilst meeting surface and groundwater quality standards and avoiding adverse
impacts on designated sites of nature conservation of international importance;
assess the scope for reducing leakage of public water supply from current levels;
promote improvements in water efficiency in new development and in regeneration to
achieve a regional target of 25% (equivalent to an average saving of about 35 litres per
person per day);
reduce unsustainable abstraction from watercourses and aquifers to sustainable levels;
protect and improve water quality and reduce the risk of pollution especially to
vulnerable groundwater;
make provision for the development of new water resources where this represents the
most sustainable solution to meeting identified water resource requirements, taking
account of predictions of future climate change;
use sustainable drainage techniques wherever practical to help mitigate diffuse
pollution and support groundwater recharge. These will be required where
development is upstream of a designated nature conservation site of international
importance or to improve water quality, where the need is demonstrated through
water cycle studies;
support water conservation measures such as winter storage reservoirs on agricultural
land; and
ensure that sewage treatment capacity is sufficient to meet the needs of development
and that, where necessary improvements are in place so that development does not
compromise the quality of discharged effluent.”
Policy 35 – A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk states:
“Local Development Frameworks and the strategies of relevant public bodies should take
account of the potential impact of climate change on flooding and land drainage. In
particular, they should:
•
•
•
•
be informed by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments in order to evaluate actual flood risk.
Priority areas for assessment include the built-up areas of Derby, Nottingham and
Newark;
include policies which prevent inappropriate development either in, or where there
would be an adverse impact on, the coastal and fluvial floodplain areas;
deliver a programme of flood management schemes that also maximise biodiversity,
provide townscape enhancement and other public benefits; and
require sustainable drainage in all new developments where practicable.
9
Development should not be permitted if, alone or in conjunction with other new
development, it would;
•
•
•
•
•
•
be at unacceptable risk from flooding or create such an unacceptable risk elsewhere;
inhibit the capacity of the floodplain to store water;
impede the flow of floodwater in a way which would create an unacceptable risk
elsewhere;
have a detrimental impact upon infiltration of rainfall to ground water storage;
otherwise unacceptably increase flood risk; and
interfere with coastal processes.
However, such development may be acceptable on the basis of conditions or agreements
for adequate measures to mitigate the effects on the overall flooding regime, including
provision for the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity. Any such measures must
accord with the flood management regime for that location.”
Policy 40 – Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation states:
“Local Authorities, energy generators and other relevant public bodies should promote:
•
•
the development of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and district heating infrastructure
necessary to achieve the regional target of 511 MWe by 2010 and 1120 MWe by 2020;
and
the development of a distributed energy network using local low carbon and renewable
resources.
In order to help meet national targets low carbon energy proposals in locations where
environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily should be
supported. As a result, Local Planning Authorities should:
•
•
•
•
•
safeguard sites for access to significant reserves of coal mine methane;
identify suitable sites for CHP plants well related to existing or proposed development
and encourage their provision in large scale schemes;
consider safeguarding former power station and colliery sites for low carbon energy
generation;
support the development of distributed local energy generation networks; and
develop policies and proposals to achieve the indicative regional targets for renewable
energy set out in Appendix 5.
In establishing criteria for onshore wind energy, Local Planning Authorities should give
particular consideration to:
•
•
•
•
landscape and visual impact, informed by local Landscape Character Assessments;
the effect on the natural and cultural environment (including biodiversity, the integrity
of designated nature conservation sites of international importance, and historic assets
and their settings);
the effect on the built environment (including noise intrusion);
the number and size of turbines proposed;
10
•
•
•
the cumulative impact of wind generation projects, including ‘intervisibility’;
the contribution of wind generation projects to the regional renewables target; and
the contribution of wind generation projects to national and international
environmental objectives on climate change.
In establishing criteria for new facilities required for other forms of renewable energy, Local
Planning Authorities should give particular consideration to:
•
•
•
•
the proximity to the renewable energy resource;
the relationship with the existing natural and built environment;
the availability of existing surplus industrial land in close proximity to the transport
network; and
the benefits of grid and non grid connected ‘micro-generation’.”
Policy 42 – Regional Priorities for Tourism states:
“Local Authorities, emda, Sub-Regional Strategic Partnerships and other relevant public
bodies should seek to identify areas of potential for tourism growth which maximise
economic benefit whilst minimising adverse impact on the environment and local amenity.
Potentially adverse effects on internationally designated nature conservation sites should be
avoided or mitigated. Measures should include:
•
•
•
provision for additional tourist facilities including accommodation close to popular
destinations that have adequate environmental and infrastructure capacity, particularly
those within walking and cycling distance.
Improvements in the quality of existing facilities and services; and
Improvements to accessibility by public transport and other non-car modes.”
11
Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy DPD (March 2011)
Core Policy 3 - Housing Mix, Type and Density states:
“The District Council will expect good quality housing design in line with the provisions of
Core Policy 9 Sustainable Design. Development densities in all housing developments should
normally be no lower than an average 30 dwellings per hectare net. Development densities
below this will need to be justified, taking into account individual site circumstances.
Average densities of between 30 - 50 dwellings per hectare are set in NAP2 (A/B/C) for the
three Strategic Sites allocated in the Core Strategy. Densities of 30 dwellings per hectare, or
more, will be set for other locations and allocations in the Allocations & Development
Management DPD.
The District Council will seek to secure new housing development which adequately
addresses the housing need of the District, namely:
•
•
•
Family housing of 3 bedrooms or more
Smaller houses of 2 bedrooms or less.
Housing for the elderly and disabled population.
The District Council will seek to secure an appropriate mix of housing types to reflect local
housing need. Such a mix will be dependent on the local circumstances of the site, the
viability of the development and any localised housing need information.
Core Policy 6 - Shaping our Employment Profile states:
“The economy of Newark and Sherwood District will be strengthened and broadened to
provide a diverse range of employment opportunities by:
•
Maintaining and enhancing the employment base of our towns and settlements,
including their town and village centres, and supporting the economies of our rural
communities.
•
Providing most growth, including new employment development, at the Sub-Regional
Centre of Newark, and that of a lesser scale directed to our Service Centres and Principal
Villages, to match their size, role and regeneration needs. Providing a range of suitable
sites in these locations that will enable employment levels to be maintained and
increased, by meeting the modern requirements of different business sectors and types.
•
Promoting major new economic development as part of the Strategic Sites planned for
Newark Urban Area, linked to infrastructure improvements including the provision of a
Southern Link Road to the south of the town. New employment land provision will be
provided at Land South of Newark and Land around Fernwood in line with NAP 2A and
NAP 2C.
•
Retention and safeguarding of employment land and sites that can meet the needs of
modern businesses, to ensure their continued use for employment purposes. Land and
premises in the existing industrial estates and employment areas, and those areas
12
allocated for employment development, will normally be safeguarded and continue to
be developed for business purposes. Where proposals are submitted for economic
development uses (as described in PPS4), wider than the B Use Classes, regard will be
had to the following:
•
•
•
•
•
The extent to which the proposals are responding to local needs for such
development
The lack of suitable, alternative sites being available to meet the demand that exists
The need to safeguard the integrity of neighbouring uses, including their continued
use for employment purposes
The need to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres
The potential impact on the strategic role and function of the remaining
employment land, in meeting the future needs of the District
•
Encouraging the development of priority business sectors including business and
financial services, knowledge intensive enterprises, food and drink, sustainable energy
and environmental technologies, and logistics and distribution.
•
Supporting the establishment and growth of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs)
by the allocation of sites for mixed-use development incorporating housing and
employment, as part of the Allocations & Development Management DPD. Sites
allocated for employment development should include provision for starter units, startup businesses, live-work units, and ‘grow on’ graduation space so that small firms can be
established, expanded and retained within the District.
•
Working with learning and training bodies, job centres and higher education providers to
raise workforce skill levels, improve employability and supporting economic
development associated with these sources, and using planning obligations to provide
opportunities to assist residents in accessing work.
•
Helping the economy of Rural Areas by rural diversification that will encourage tourism,
recreation, rural regeneration, and farm diversification, and complement new
appropriate agriculture and forestry development. Development sustaining and
providing rural employment should meet local needs and be small scale in nature to
ensure acceptable scale and impact.
Respecting that where the release of sites to non-employment purposes is proposed,
any significant benefits to the local area that would result, should be taken into account
to inform decision making.”
•
Core Policy 7 - Tourism Development states:
“Tourism and visitor-based development, including new good quality over-night
accommodation, will be supported provided that:
•
•
Development is appropriate to the size and role of the settlement and the needs of the
local community concerned, and in relation to countryside locations, is sensitive to site
surroundings, including matters of landscape, nature conservation and biodiversity.
Development is acceptable in terms of scale, design and impact upon local character,
the built and natural environment, including heritage assets, amenity and transport.
13
•
•
•
•
•
Attractions and facilities of a significant scale should be located within, or on the edge of
town centres, or at other accessible locations within or on the edge of, the Sub-Regional
Centre of Newark or the Service Centres of Clipstone, Rainworth, Ollerton & Boughton
and Southwell. These locations will also be suitable for development of attractions and
facilities of lesser scale. Outside of town centres, development should meet identified
tourism needs.
Attractions and facilities will only be supported in the Principal Villages and Rural Areas
where a rural location is necessary to meet identified tourism needs, it constitutes
appropriate rural diversification, and can support local employment, community services
and infrastructure; or the development relates to a new or existing tourist attraction
that is based upon site specific heritage or natural environment characteristics, and
complies with Criteria 5 to 9 of Spatial Policy 9.
Rural regeneration is promoted through the re-use and conversion of existing buildings
in the Rural Areas for appropriate tourist related uses, provided the buildings concerned
are soundly built and capable of being adapted without complete or substantial
rebuilding and/or extension.
The extension of existing tourist accommodation is of a scale appropriate to the sites
location and where the extension helps to ensure future business viability.
The development enhances and complements tourism attractions and themes in the
District and supports the development of a year-round tourist economy.”
Core Policy 8 - Retail Hierarchy states:
“The following retail hierarchy will be applied in the development of policies for retail and
town centres uses (as defined in PPS4) and the determination of planning applications
within the District:
Designation
Role and Function
Sub-Regional
Centre/Town
Centre
Principal focus of new and
Newark Town Centre
enhanced retail and other
town centre activity (as
defined in PPS4) in Newark &
Sherwood
District Centres
District Centres are primarily
used for convenience
shopping, with some
comparison shopping and
they also provide a range of
other services for the
settlement and the
surrounding communities.
Local Centres
Location
Edwinstowe
Rainworth
Ollerton
Southwell
Concerned with the sale of
food and other convenience
Balderton
goods to the local community
Bilsthorpe
in which they are located.
Blidworth
Boughton
Collingham
Farnsfield
Lowdham
Sutton-on-Trent
14
Designation
Role and Function
Location
Clipstone
Land South of
Newark (as set out
in Policy NAP 2A)
Land East of
Land at Fernwood
Newark (as set out (as set out in Policy
in Policy NAP 2B) NAP 2C)
Proposals for the provision of retail and other town centre uses in the centres defined above
should be consistent in scale with the size and function of the centre.
The boundaries and frontages for these centres, along with detailed policies concerning
development in these areas, will be set out in the Allocations & Development Management
DPD. It should be noted that boundaries identified for the retail hierarchy will be different
to those discussed in Spatial Policy 1 which concerns the District’s settlement hierarchy.
New retail development of an appropriate scale to meet local need will be required in the
following locations to serve the 3 strategic sites at:
•
•
•
Land South of Newark;
Land East of Newark; and
Land around Fernwood.
The development of new centres will be expected to consolidate and enhance the network
and hierarchy of centres and not harm the vitality and viability of existing centres.
Proposals for the provision of retail and other town centre uses in the centres defined above
(apart from those to meet local needs) will be located in or on the edge of centres. Such
development should be consistent in scale with the size and function of the centre and the
area that it serves.
Retail development in out-of-centre locations will be strictly controlled by utilising the
policies within PPS4. Proposals will need to demonstrate their suitability through a
sequential site approach and provide a robust assessment of impact on nearby centres.”
Core Policy 9 - Sustainable Design states:
“The District Council will expect new development proposals to demonstrate a high
standard of sustainable design that both protects and enhances the natural environment
and contributes to and sustains the rich local distinctiveness of the District. Therefore all
new development should:
•
•
Achieve a high standard of sustainable design and layout that is capable of being
accessible to all and of an appropriate form and scale to its context complementing the
existing built and landscape environments;
Through its design, pro-actively manage surface water including, where feasible, the use
of Sustainable Drainage Systems;
15
•
Minimise the production of waste and maximise its re-use and recycling;
•
Demonstrate an effective and efficient use of land that, where appropriate, promotes
the re-use of previously developed land and that optimises site potential at a level
suitable to local character;
•
Contribute to a compatible mix of uses, particularly in the town and village centres;
•
Provide for development that proves to be resilient in the long-term. Taking into
account the potential impacts of climate change and the varying needs of the
community, including where appropriate and viable, developing to Lifetime Home
standards; and
•
Take account of the need to reduce the opportunities for crime and the fear of crime,
disorder and anti-social behaviour, and promote safe living environments.”
Core Policy 10 - Climate Change states:
“The District Council is committed to tackling the causes and effects of climate change and
to delivering a reduction in the Districts overall CO2 emissions. The LDF, through its
approach to development, will seek to:
•
Encourage the provision of renewable and low-carbon energy generation within new
development. Proposals will be expected, where appropriate and viable, to secure a
proportion of its energy requirements from decentralised sources and to attain the
following targets:
Residential Development:
2010-2013
% Low-carbon contribution 23.5% Reduction in CO2
for New development
emissions
Benchmark CO2 emissions
for setting a scheme's
target (kgCO2/m2/year)
31.2
2013 onwards
District-wide targets unnecessary
following implementation of the
revisions to Part L of the Building
Regulations
N/A
Non-Residential Development:
2010-2013
% Low-Carbon contribution
for New development
10% Reduction in CO2
emissions
2013 onwards
District-wide targets
unnecessary following
implementation of the
revisions to Part L of the
Building Regulations
Benchmark CO2 emissions for Refer to 2005 BRE Benchmark N/A
setting a scheme's target
data
16
•
Ensure that development proposals maximise, where appropriate and viable, the use of
available local opportunities for district heating and decentralised energy;
•
Promote the development of community-led renewable and low-carbon energy and
heat generation projects;
•
Mitigate the impacts of climate change through ensuring that new development
proposals minimise their potential adverse environmental impacts during their
construction and eventual operation, including the need to reduce the causes and
impacts of climate change and flood risk. New proposals should:
•
Ensure that the impacts on natural resources are minimised and the use of renewable
resources is maximised;
•
Be efficient in the consumption of energy, water and other resources.
•
Be located in order to avoid both present and future flood risk. Therefore in considering
site allocations and in determining development proposals the District Council will,
informed by national guidance and the District’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, apply a
sequential approach to future development; and will work with partners to secure
strategic flood mitigation measures as part of new development.
The District Council will produce guidance to assist developers in implementing the
renewable and low-carbon energy targets.”
Core Policy 12 - Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure states:
“The District Council will seek to conserve and enhance the biodiversity and geological
diversity of the District by working with partners to implement the aims and proposals of
the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan, the Green Infrastructure Strategy and
the Nature Conservation Strategy. The District Council will therefore:
•
Expect proposals to take into account the need for continued protection of the District’s
ecological, biological and geological assets. With particular regard to sites of
international, national and local significance, Ancient Woodlands and species and
habitats of principal importance identified in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and
Rural Communities Act 2006 and in the Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan;
•
Seek to secure development that maximises the opportunities to conserve, enhance and
restore biodiversity and geological diversity and to increase provision of, and access to,
green infrastructure within the District;
•
Promote the appropriate management of features of major importance for wild flora
and fauna;
•
Provide for Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space to reduce visitor pressure on the
District’s ecological, biological and geological assets, particularly in the Newark area and
for 5kms around the Birklands and Bilhaugh Special Area of Conservation;
•
Support the development of a Green Infrastructure Network, as illustrated in the Green
Infrastructure Diagram, linking together Key Strategic Routes throughout the District and
providing for, in appropriate locations, visitor infrastructure that improves accessibility.
17
The District Council will, in particular, promote improved green infrastructure linkages
between:
•
•
Newark and Southwell; and
Southwell and the north-west of the District.
Development proposals crossing or adjacent to the network should make provision for
its implementation and/or enhancement;
•
Positively view proposals that seek to enhance the District’s Green Infrastructure
resource in support of tourism development. Proposals in the Bilsthorpe, Edwinstowe
and Ollerton & Boughton areas, in connection with the Sherwood Forest Regional Park,
will be supported. In Newark, new Green Infrastructure schemes that maximise the
potential of the Trent Riverside area will be supported;
•
Support the implementation of area-based Strategic Green Infrastructure interventions
through the Allocations & Development Management DPD.”
Core Policy 13 - Landscape Character states:
“The LDF will introduce a comprehensive landscape assessment of Newark and Sherwood
which will identify the landscape character condition and sensitivity of each Landscape
Policy Zone. Landscape Policy Zones will be categorised as one of the following types of
areas which require an action to:
Good
Reinforce
Conserve and Reinforce
Conserve
Conserve and Create
Conserve and Restore
Create
Restore and Create
Restore
Low
Moderate
High
Condition Moderate Create and Reinforce
Poor
Sensitivity
When allocating land within the Core Strategy and the Allocations & Development
Management DPD, the District Council will need to demonstrate that the allocations impact
on the Landscape Policy Zone and its Conservation and Enhancement actions have been
appropriately addressed.
The District Council will expect development proposals to positively address the implications
of the Landscape Policy Zones in which the proposals lie and demonstrate that such
development would contribute towards meeting Landscape Conservation and Enhancement
Aims for the area.”
Core Policy 14 - Historic Environment states:
“Newark & Sherwood has a rich and distinctive historic environment and the District Council
will work with partners and developers in order to secure:
18
•
The continued preservation and enhancement of the character, appearance and setting
of the District’s heritage assets and historic environment, including Scheduled
Monuments and other archaeological sites, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens,
Listed Buildings and buildings of local historic importance, Conservation Areas and other
cultural assets of significant value;
•
The preservation of the special character of Conservation Areas - including such
character identified in Conservation Area Character Appraisals which will form the basis
for their management. Important open spaces and features identified through the
Conservation Area Appraisal process will be protected through subsequent allocation in
the Allocations & Development Management DPD; and
•
The protection of Historic Landscapes including the Historic Battlefield at Stoke Field,
the Sherwood Forest Heritage Area and the Historic Landscape around Laxton. A
sustainable future for Laxton will be sought, which preserves and enhances its Open
Field System and culture, the built and natural environment which sustain it, including
the Historic Landscape around Laxton, and the institutions which manage it. This will be
achieved by working in partnership with the Court Leet, the Crown Estates and the
Parish Council. Appropriate new development which facilitates these aims will be
supported.”
Spatial Policy 1 - Settlement Hierarchy states:
“The Settlement Hierarchy for Newark and Sherwood identifies which settlements are
central to the delivery of Newark and Sherwood's Spatial Strategy and identifies the role of
these settlements in delivering that Strategy. The Hierarchy is defined below:
Settlements central to delivering the Spatial Strategy
Sub-Regional Centre
Features - Major centre in the Sub-Region, containing services and
facilities for the District.
Function - To be the focus for housing and employment growth in
Newark & Sherwood and the main location for investment for new
services and facilities within the District.
The Sub-Regional Centre is defined as Newark Urban Area which is
made up of Newark, Balderton and Fernwood.
The extent of the main built-up areas of the Sub-Regional Centre
will be defined by an Urban Boundary.
Service Centres
Features - Service Centres have a range of local facilities, including
a secondary school, good public transport and local employment.
Function - Act as a focus for service provision for a large local
population and a rural hinterland.
19
Settlements central to delivering the Spatial Strategy
The following communities have been designated as Service
Centres within the various Areas of the District:
Southwell Area
Southwell
Sherwood Area
Ollerton & Boughton
Mansfield Fringe Area
Clipstone, Rainworth
The extent of the main built-up areas of Service Centres will be
defined by an Urban Boundary.
Principal Villages
Features - Principal Villages which have a good range of day to day
facilities – primary school, food shop, health facilities,
employment or access to nearby employment and complement
the role of Service Centres.
Function - Act as secondary focus for service provision in each
Area. Support for service provision in these locations to assist rural
accessibility.
The following communities have been designated as Principal
Villages within the various Areas of the District:
Newark Area
Collingham, Sutton–on–Trent
Southwell Area
Farnsfield
Nottingham Fringe
Lowdham
Sherwood Area
Bilsthorpe, Edwinstowe
Mansfield Fringe
Blidworth
The extent of the main built-up areas of the Principal Villages will
be defined by Village Envelopes.
Other Villages in Newark & Sherwood
Within the Green Belt development will be considered against Spatial Policy 4B Green Belt
Development.
Within the rest of the District development will be considered against the sustainability
criteria set out in Spatial Policy 3 Rural Areas.”
Spatial Policy 2 - Spatial Distribution of Growth
The spatial distribution of growth in Newark and Sherwood District will focus on:
1.
Supporting the Sub-Regional Centre of Newark Urban Area (Newark, Balderton and
Fernwood). Newark Urban Area will be the main location for new housing and
employment growth in the District. Newark Town Centre will act as a focus for new
20
retail, cultural and leisure development. To support such growth the District Council
and its partners will work together to secure and provide new infrastructure, facilities
and services.
2.
Regeneration. Within Service Centres and Principal Villages identified for regeneration,
the District Council will seek to secure new employment opportunities, the
regeneration of vacant land and the provision of new housing.
3.
Securing Sustainable Communities. To secure and support the role of Service Centres
and Principal Villages identified for this approach, provision will be made for new
housing to meet local housing need and support for employment to provide local jobs.
The housing requirements for Newark & Sherwood District between 2006 and 2026 are
14800 dwellings. When discounting dwelling completions and commitments in settlements
which are not central to the delivery of the Spatial Strategy, the total number of dwellings to
be allocated by the District Council between 2006 and 2026 in the Sub-Regional Centre,
Service Centres and Principal Villages is in the region of 14162 dwellings. In allocating sites
for housing development in the Core Strategy for Strategic Sites in line with Spatial Policy 5
and all other housing sites in the Allocations & Development Management DPD, the
following percentages will be met:
Location
Strategy
Percentage of Housing Growth
Sub-Regional Centre
Newark Urban Area
Support for the Sub-Regional Centre 70% of overall growth
Service Centres
20% of overall growth
Ollerton & Boughton Regeneration
40% of Service Centre growth
Rainworth
Regeneration
Southwell
Sustainable Communities
Clipstone
Regeneration
Principal Villages
10% of overall growth
Bilsthorpe
Regeneration
25% of Principal Village growth
Blidworth
Regeneration
Collingham
Edwinstowe
Farnsfield
Lowdham
Sutton-on-Trent
The employment land requirement for Newark & Sherwood District between 2006 and 2026
is in the range of 210-220 hectares. This figure is distributed amongst the five Areas of the
21
District, and in allocating sites for employment development, in the Core Strategy for
Strategic Sites in line with Spatial Policy 5, and all other employment sites in the Allocations
& Development Management DPD the following figures will be achieved:
Area
Overall employment land to be
provided (In hectares)
Guideline new allocations
required (In hectares)
150-157
80-87
7-8
6-7
Nottingham Fringe Area
1
Up to 1
Sherwood Area
29
0
24-25
10-11
211-220
97-106
Newark Area
Southwell Area
Mansfield Fringe Area
Total
Spatial Policy 3 - Rural Areas states:
“The District Council will support and promote local services and facilities in the rural
communities of Newark & Sherwood. Local housing need will be addressed by focusing
housing in sustainable, accessible villages. The rural economy will be supported by
encouraging tourism, rural diversification, and by supporting appropriate agricultural and
forestry development. The countryside will be protected and schemes to increase
biodiversity, enhance the landscape and, in the right locations, woodland cover will be
encouraged.
Beyond Principal Villages, proposals for new development will be considered against the
following criteria:
•
Location - new development should be within the main built-up areas of villages, which
have local services and access to Newark Urban Area, Service Centres or Principal
Villages.
•
Scale - new development should be appropriate to the proposed location and small scale
in nature.
•
Need - Employment and tourism which requires a rural/village location. New or
replacement facilities to support the local community. Development which supports
local agriculture and farm diversification. New housing where it helps to meet identified
proven local need.
•
Impact - new development should not generate excessive car-borne traffic from out of
the area. New development should not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of
local people nor have an undue impact on local infrastructure, including drainage,
sewerage systems and the transport network.
•
Character - new development should not have a detrimental impact on the character of
the location or its landscape setting.
22
Within the main built-up area of villages consideration will also be given to schemes which
secure environmental enhancements by the re-use or redevelopment of former
farmyards/farm buildings or the removal of businesses where the operation gives rise to
amenity issues. The scale of such enabling development should be appropriate to the
location of the proposal.
Development away from the main built-up areas of villages, in the open countryside, will be
strictly controlled and restricted to uses which require a rural setting such as Agriculture and
Forestry. Consideration will also be given to the re-use of rural buildings of architectural
merit. The Allocations & Development Management DPD will set out policies to deal with
such applications.”
Spatial Policy 7 - Sustainable Transport states:
“The Council will encourage and support development proposals which promote an
improved and integrated transport network and an emphasis on non-car modes as a means
of access to services and facilities. In particular the Council will work with the County Council
and other relevant agencies to reduce the impact of roads and traffic movement, to support
the development of opportunities for the use of public transport, increase rural accessibility
and to enhance the pedestrian environment.
Development proposals should contribute to, the implementation of the Nottinghamshire
Local Transport Plan and should:
•
•
•
•
•
•
minimise the need for travel, through measures such as travel plans or the provision or
enhancement of local services and facilities;
provide safe, convenient and attractive accesses for all, including the elderly and
disabled, and others with restricted mobility, and provide links to the existing network of
footways, bridleways and cycleways, so as to maximise opportunities for their use;
be appropriate for the highway network in terms of the volume and nature of traffic
generated, and ensure that the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic using the
highway are not adversely affected;
avoid highway improvements which harm the environment and character of the area;
provide appropriate and effective parking provision, both on and off-site, and vehicular
servicing arrangements. Parking standards will apply to new development, and will be
set out in the Allocations & Development Management DPD; and
ensure that vehicular traffic generated does not create new, or exacerbate existing on
street parking problems, nor materially increase other traffic problems, taking account
of any contributions that have been secured for the provision of off-site works.
The District Council will safeguard locations of highway or public transport schemes
identified within the Nottinghamshire Local Transport Plan. Development will not be
supported where it would prevent the implementation of these schemes. The location of
these schemes will be identified in the Allocations & Development Management DPD. The
route of the Southern Link Road will be safeguarded and is indicatively defined on the
Proposals Map and Figure 5 in line with NAP2A and NAP4. The Council will safeguard land
for a possible Newark Rail Flyover (symbolised on the Newark Key Diagram) to replace the
existing flat crossing to the north of Newark Northgate Station and possible new car parking
at Newark Northgate Station. The location of these schemes will be identified in detail in the
Allocations and Development Management DPD.
23
High quality, safe, cycle, footpath and bridleway networks will be safeguarded and extended
to provide opportunities to reduce the number of short car journeys and for cycling, walking
and horse riding for recreation in the countryside. Disused railway lines will be protected
from other forms of development, to safeguard their potential to be reinstated to their
former use for commercial or leisure purposes, or to extend the cycling or footpath
networks.
All major developments should be well located for convenient access by non-car modes,
such as walking, cycling and high quality public transport including those measures set out in
PPG13 and policies CP11, NAP 1, NAP 2A, 2B and 2C, SoAP1, ShAP2 and Appendix E of the
Core Strategy. The District Council will promote and support the use of the River Trent for
commercial and tourism activities.”
NAP1 - Newark Urban Area states:
“The District Council will work with its partners, developers and service providers to
promote the Newark Urban Area as the main focus for residential, commercial and leisure
activity within the District. To achieve this the LDF will:
A Growth
1. Support the provision of 70% of the overall District housing growth and up to 80 - 87 ha
of employment development which will contribute to meeting the level of provision
identified in Spatial Policy 2. Such development will be located on the Strategic Sites and
other locations which will be identified within the Allocations & Development
Management DPD;
2. Support the development of the 3 Strategic Sites for mixed use development as detailed
in Policies NAP 2A/B/C;
B Infrastructure
3. Support the implementation of new and improved public transport
schemes/infrastructure, including cycling and walking which contribute to reducing
traffic congestion and improving transport choices;
4. Support the implementation of strategic highway schemes at the following locations as
identified within Appendix E:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
Southern Link Road from Farndon to Balderton;
A46 Link Capacity, Newark-on-Trent Bypass;
A46/A617 Cattle Market Roundabout;
A46 at Farndon;
A1/B6326 London Road Roundabout, Balderton;
A1/A17/A46 Roundabout; and
A1/A46 Brownhills Roundabout.
5. Support the implementation of local road junction improvements as identified within
Appendix
E;
24
6. Support the implementation of infrastructure which is required to meet the needs of
Newark Urban Area including:
i.
ii.
iii.
the delivery of primary schools, health facilities and utilities infrastructure as set
out in Appendix E;
the delivery of a new secondary school within Newark Urban Area, the location
of which will be identified in the Allocations & Development Management DPD;
the provision of new sports facilities and uses in line with NAP3.
C Historic Environment
7. Protect and enhance the architectural, historic and archaeological character of Newark
and its riverside, identifying locations and sites to be the subject of conservation and
sensitive redevelopment; and
8. Promote and enhance the River Trent corridor for commercial and leisure activities
where it can be demonstrated that it will not cause harm to the physical and natural
environment of the River.
D Newark Town Centre
9. Promote Newark Town Centre as a focus for retail, leisure and office development in the
District by:
i.
ii.
iii.
Identifying a town centre boundary, Primary Shopping Area and Primary and
Secondary Shopping frontages in the Allocations & Development Management
DPD;
Identifying 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
& Development Management DPD should identify capacity for new and
improved convenience/comparison goods, including opportunities to improve
the provision of home, furnishing, gardening and other bulky goods;
Attract national and independent retailers, cafés and restaurants that are willing
to occupy historic properties.
10. Promote Newark Town Centre as one of the District's key tourism destinations by
developing and enhancing cultural, leisure and entertainment facilities and uses which
attract visitors and residents to the area, including tourist accommodation and
facilities.”
25
Policy C5 (Environmental Improvement Schemes) states:
“The District Council will promote and implement environmental improvement schemes in
Conservation Areas, such as re-paving, planting or provision of high quality street furniture.
Private owners or tenants of land will be encouraged to implement appropriate schemes of
hard and soft landscaping using traditional materials.”
Policy C9 (Demolition of Listed Buildings) states:
“Planning permission and/or Listed Building Consent will not normally be granted for
development which involves the demolition or partial demolition of Listed Buildings.”
Policy C10 (Alterations, Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings) states:
“Planning permission and/or Listed Building Consent will not be granted for development
which involves internal or external alterations, or extensions to Listed Buildings, or changes
of use to such buildings - which would adversely affect their architectural or historic
interest.”
Policy C11 (Setting of Listed Buildings) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development which adversely affects the
setting of Listed Buildings or involves the loss of features which contribute to the setting of
such buildings. Planning permission will also not be granted for development within the
curtilage of, or adjoining, a Listed Building, where this would threaten the viability of the
historic building.”
Policy C22 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites of Major Local
Importance) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development which would destroy or
detrimentally affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their setting. In addition, planning
permission will not normally be granted for development which would adversely affect
archaeological sites of major local importance.”
Policy E25 (Impact on Nearby Residents) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for employment development which would
detrimentally affect the amenities of residents living in close proximity to industrial land.”
Policy EHC3 (Hospital/Healthcare Uses on Land at Bowbridge Road, Newark) states:
“Planning permission will be granted for hospital and/or other healthcare uses on land at
Bowbridge Road, Newark.”
26
Policy H13 (Housing Development in Large Villages) states:
“In addition to the allocated sites listed in Policy H2, within the main built-up areas of
villages planning permission will be granted for small-scale residential development and the
conversion of buildings to residential use provided:
1.
It would not result in the loss of buildings or other features, including open space,
which contribute to the character of the village;
2.
It would not affect the setting of the village in the landscape; and
3.
It satisfies the criteria outlined in Policy H21.
Where conversion affects a traditional rural building, planning permission will be granted
provided that:
4.
The essential character and the setting of the building is retained;
5.
Alterations are confined to a minimum and inappropriate extensions are avoided;
6.
All repairs and alterations are carried out using traditional or other appropriate
materials.
Outside main built-up areas planning permission will not be granted for residential
development. Where village boundaries are shown on the Proposals Map, these define
main built-up areas.”
Policy H24 (Extension of Dwellings) states:
“Planning permission will be granted for the extension of dwellings provided:
1.
2.
It would not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining premises, in terms of loss
of privacy or overshadowing;
It would retain a reasonable amount of private open space with the dwelling;
3.
It reflects the character of the area and existing dwelling in terms of design and
materials; and
4.
Outside settlements it is of a reasonable size and scale relative to the existing
property and it would not adversely affect the appearance of the surrounding
landscape or openness of the countryside.”
Policy NE1 (Development in the Countryside) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development in the countryside. Exceptions,
which will be assessed against the provisions of Policies DD1-6 may be made for:
1.
Agriculture, forestry and associated activities which contribute to diversifying the
rural economy consistent with Policies NE6 or S14;
27
2.
Appropriate recreation and tourist uses consistent with Policies R23 or TO1.
3.
Utility installations requiring a rural location;
4.
Changes of use of rural buildings to uses consistent with Policy NE2;
5.
Roadside services consistent with Policy T22;
6.
Dwellings for agricultural or forestry workers which comply with Policy H28.”
Policy NE3 (Agricultural Land) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development on the best and most versatile
agricultural land, which in the District comprises Grades 1, 2 and 3a.”
Policy NE4 (Agricultural Development) states:
“Planning permission will be granted for agricultural development, requiring planning
permission, provided:
1.
The proposal is, wherever possible, well integrated with existing farm buildings;
2.
The development has regard to the character of the surrounding landscape and
adjoining buildings and is located and designed accordingly;
3.
The scheme makes provision for the prevention of pollution of ground and surface
water;
4.
The design, type and colour of the materials used in the development are
appropriate and it is sensitively landscaped to reduce its impact on the surrounding
area; and
5.
The amenities of nearby residents are not adversely affected.
For the purposes of this policy, agricultural development involves the erection of new
buildings or structures, the extension or alteration of existing buildings or structures, the
construction of farm roads and the excavation and filling of land.”
Policy NE6 (Farm Diversification) states:
“Proposals to diversify the range of economic activities on a farm will be permitted if all the
following criteria are met:
(a)
The proposal is complementary to the agricultural operations on the farm and is
operated as part of the farm holding;
(b)
The character, scale and location of the proposals is compatible with its landscape
setting and any area of nature conservation importance;
28
(c)
The likely amount of traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated on
the local highway network without reducing road safety;
(d)
The proposal should re-use or adapt any farm building which is available unless it can
be clearly demonstrated that a new building is the only practicable alternative;
(e)
If a new building is justified, it should be sited in or adjacent to an existing group of
buildings, be of compatible scale and blend satisfactorily into the landscape in its
design, siting and use of materials;
(f)
The proposal would not cause noise, air or water pollution; and
(g)
The proposal would not harm the amenity of local residents.”
Policy NE17 (Species Protection) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development which would adversely affect
species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) unless
provision is made to protect the species and their habitats. Where appropriate planning
conditions or obligations will be used to secure the protection of the species concerned.”
Policy NE23 (Greenwood Community Forest) states:
“Prior to granting planning permission for development within the Greenwood Community
Forest Area, defined on the Proposals Map, the District Council will negotiate with
developers to secure new tree or woodland planting as part of the development.”
Policy PU1 (Washlands) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for built development or the raising of ground
levels in the washlands of the Rivers Trent, Devon, Fleet, Maun, Meden and Greet except if
alternative flood storage capacity has been provided elsewhere.”
Policy PU5 (Water Environment) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development which could have an adverse
effect on water quality and associated wildlife habitats of the Rivers Trent, Devon, Fleet,
Maun, Meden and Greet and their tributaries.”
Policy PU8 (New Public Utilities) states:
“Planning permission will be granted for new utility services provided:
1.
They are not located in highly visible locations or where they would have an adverse
effect on landscape quality;
2.
They do not adversely affect the landscape and ecological value of the Sherwood
Forest Heritage Area;
29
3.
They are sited, designed and landscaped to minimise their possible impact on the
countryside and/or neighbouring properties; and
4.
They would not adversely affect features of ecological or archaeological
importance.”
Policy R5 (Amenity Open Space) states:
“New residential development of 30 dwellings or more should include provision for amenity
open space at a rate of 15 square metres per dwelling. A lower level of provision may be
acceptable where the density of development would be less than 15 dwellings per hectare
or where adequate existing areas of open space are easily accessible from the site.
Account will be taken of the extent to which the layout of development retains for public
benefit any existing natural features of the site.
Provision will normally be expected on site. However it may be appropriate given the
characteristics of the site and the nature of the surrounding area to provide the necessary
open space off site.
The District Council will make planning permission subject to conditions or will seek to enter
into legal agreements to secure the provision of recreational areas appropriate to the
development proposed.”
Policy R20 (Access to Woodlands) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development which would damage the
recreational value or potential of woodland areas. The District Council, in association with
other relevant bodies and organisations, will seek to retain public access to woodland, and
promote increased access and usage.”
Policy R23 (Recreation and Sport in the Countryside) states:
“In the countryside, planning permission will be granted for recreation and sports
development requiring large open areas or a rural location provided:
1.
The proposal, including any associated buildings, structure or screening, is not
intrusive in the landscape;
2.
The amenities and/or safety of local residents are not affected by noise, dust, fumes,
smell or other nuisance;
3.
Adequate visual and acoustic landscaping and screening is provided;
4.
Nature conservation interests are safeguarded;
5.
The proposal would not adversely affect the ecology or environment of the
Sherwood Forest Heritage Area;
30
6.
Traffic or parking problems are not caused; and
7.
Conflicts with other recreational activities are avoided.”
Policy S12 (Local Shopping Provision in Newark and the Larger Settlements) states:
“Planning permission will be granted for development to serve local shopping needs
provided it would be in keeping with the scale and location of existing provision in the
vicinity and would be accessible to the local residents by public transport, by cycle or on
foot.”
Policy T21 (Heavy Goods Vehicles) states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for development which is likely to produce
substantial traffic movements, especially of heavy goods vehicles, unless there are good
links to the main road network or immediate access to rail links.”
31
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wind Energy July 1999
Policy W1 – Wind Turbines in the Countryside states:
“Planning permission will be granted for wind turbines in the countryside where:
1.
The environmental impacts of noise generation, shadow flicker and electromagnetic
disturbance are acceptable;
2.
The individual or cumulative effect of turbines in the countryside do not create an
unacceptable visual impact on the landscape;
3.
The development achieves a net environmental gain;
Where a proposal for a single or group of turbine(s) affects the designated landscape areas
listed below, either directly or indirectly, the acceptability of the scheme will be measured
against the scale of impact on the intrinsic value of the area and the reason for its
designation.
•
•
•
•
Sherwood Forest Heritage Area.
Sherwood Forest Special Landscape Area.
Mature Landscape Areas; and
Historic Landscape around Laxton.
All proposals for wind turbines in the countryside should be accompanied by a statement
indicating clearly why the design, height, number, colour, density of turbines and blade
diameter are considered most appropriate to the proposed location. They should also
indicate whether they are to serve a local development or a supply network/grid connection
and how that it is to be achieved. It should also indicate access arrangements during the
construction phase. The District Council will usually impose a condition to ensure that wind
turbines are removed when no longer required and appropriate restoration works
undertaken on site.”
Policy W2 – The Impact of Wind Turbines on Wildlife and Human Heritage Designations
states:
“Planning permission will not be granted for wind turbines where they:
1.
Would either directly or indirectly result in the loss of the scientific, nature
conservation or historic interest of any of the following designations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Birklands and Bilhaugh (candidate Special Area of Conservation);
Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
Sites of Importance to Nature Conservation;
Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites of Major Local
Importance;
Conservation Areas; and
Historic Parks and Gardens.
32
2.
May have a serious long term impact on migratory or transient species listed in the
National or Local Biodiversity Action Plans or protected under the provisions of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
The District Council will apply the “precautionary principle” to all cases where there
may be a reasonable doubt concerning the conclusions reached as a result of any
ecological impact assessment undertaken.”
Policy W3 – Wind Turbines associated with existing or proposed Employment
Development states:
“Planning permission will be granted for wind turbines associated with existing or proposed
employment development where they do not conflict with the provisions of Policy DD1 or
other policies of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan, or guidance contained in this policy
note.”
AGENDA ITEM NO. 16(b)
APPEALS B:
APPEALS DETERMINED
Members are advised that the Appeal Decisions for the following applications are attached
as Appendices to this report.
Appendix A
Appeal 1
App No.
Proposal
Decision
10/01384/CAC 20 Pelham Street
Newark
NG24 4XD
Demolition of existing
residential property.
Appeal Allowed
1 August 2011
App No.
Proposal
Decision
10/01384/CAC
Address
Address
Cost Application:
Application for costs
allowed as set out in
the Costs Decision.
20 Pelham Street
Newark
NG24 4XD
Appeal against the refusal of
conservation area consent
for the demolition proposed
is an existing residential
property
App No.
Address
Proposal
Decision
10/01385/FUL
20 Pelham Street
Newark
NG24 4XD
Erection of 4no. dwellings.
Appeal Allowed
1 August 2011
App No.
Address
Proposal
Decision
20 Pelham Street
Newark
NG24 4XD
Appeal against the refusal of
planning permission for the
erection of 4 no. dwellings
Cost Application:
allowed as set out in
the Costs Decision.
App No.
Address
Proposal
Decision
09/00594/ENF
Land at Park Farm Agricultural Building
Wellow
NG22 0EJ
Appeal 2
10/01385/FUL
Appendix B
The Appeal (ground (f)
dismissed and the
Enforcement Notice
upheld 2 August 2011
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Cont’d
Appendix C
App No.
Address
10/00440/FULM Former Poultry Farm
Rufford Lane
Rufford
NG22 9DG
Proposal
Decision
Redevelopment of
redundant former
poultry farm to form
equestrian/tourism
facility following
demolition of existing
chicken shed
Appeal dismissed
16 August 2011
Proposal
Decision
Appendix D
App No.
Address
10/01538/FUL
Ye Olde Jug and Glass Inn Erection of three
High Street
dwellings
Edwinstowe
NG21 9QR
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report be noted.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Application case files.
For further information please contact Ray Hodkin on ext. 5864.
Colin Walker
Director of Growth
Appeal dismissed
17 August 2011
AGENDA ITEM NO. 16(a)
APPEALS A
APPEALS LODGED
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
2.1
That the report be noted.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Application case files.
For further information please contact Lynsey Tomlin on Ext 5840.
C Walker
Director of Growth
APPENDIX A
DETR
No:
App. No.
Parish/Name/Address
Proposal
Written Representations/
Hearing/Local Inquiry
APP/B3030/A/11/2156740/NWF
11/00279/FUL
The Scarecrow Patch
Eagle Road
Spalford
Nottinghamshire
Retention of static caravan on
a permanent basis.
Hearing
APP/B3030/D/11/2157052
11/00440/FUL
21 Main Street
Lowdham
Nottinghamshire
NG14 7AB
Householder application to
form a new vehicular
entrance, erect two brick
piers, wooden gates and
timber fencing.
Written Representations
(Fast Track)
APP/B3030/A/11/2156924/NWF
10/01240/FUL
The Raj
2 Harcourt Street
Newark on Trent
Nottinghamshire
NG24 1RF
Alteration to the shopfront,
application of ceramic tiles,
installation of a coloured
aluminium shop window,
installation of a pair of painted
timber pilasters beneath the
existing consoles at the ends
of the fascia sign, installation
of an internally illuminated
box sign to the fascia over.
Land At Homestead
Kirton Road
Egmanton
Newark on Trent
Nottinghamshire
NG22 0HF
Site temporary static mobile
home on land to rear of
Homestead. (Retrospective).
APP/B3030/A/11/2155671/NWF
10/01388/FUL
Hearing
DETR
No:
App. No.
Parish/Name/Address
Proposal
Written Representations/
Hearing/Local Inquiry
APP/B3030/A/11/2157402/NWF
10/01605/FUL
Field Reference Number
1852
Fosse Road
Farndon
Nottinghamshire
Erection of a wind turbine
(maximum height to blade tip
66.7m) and associated
infrastructure including access
tracks, external compact
housing with underground
cabling to the wind turbine,
turbine foundation, crane
hardstanding and floodplain
storage area.
APP/B3030/D/11/2158104
11/00626/FUL
2 The Poplars
The Lane
Cotham
Newark
Nottinghamshire
NG23 5JT
Householder application for
proposed two-storey
extension to provide
additional living
accommodation.
(Fast Track)
APP/B3030/A/11/2158185/NWF
11/00435/FUL
Hill Farm
Chapel Lane
Epperstone
Nottinghamshire
NG14 6AQ
Erection of 275KW wind
turbine (Re-Submission).
APP/B3030/A/11/2155963/NWF
11/00376/FUL
Old Radley Farm
Oxton Road
Southwell
Nottinghamshire
NG25 0RA
Convert redundant farm
building into 2 dwellings.
APP/B3030/A/11/2153045/NWF
10/01170/FUL
Whip Ridding Barn
Eakring Lane
Kirklington
Nottinghamshire
Erection of boundary fence
and wall.
(Appeals received between 14 July 2011 and 18 August 2011)
APPENDIX A
Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 5 July 2011
by Keith Turner LLB(Hons) DipArch(Dist) RIBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 1 August 2011
2 Appeals relating to 20 Pelham Street, Newark NG24 4XD
•
The appeals are made by Mr D Burke against decisions of Newark & Sherwood District
Council.
Appeal 1: APP/B3030/E/11/2151271
•
•
•
The appeal is made under sections 20 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant conservation area consent.
The application Ref 10/01384/CAC, dated 16 August 2010, was refused by notice dated
17 March 2011.
The demolition proposed is an existing residential property.
Appeal 2: APP/B3030/A/11/2151270
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The application Ref 10/01385/FUL, dated 16 August 2010, was refused by notice dated
17 March 2011.
The development proposed is the erection of 4no.dwellings.
1. An application for costs was made by Mr D Burke against Newark & Sherwood
District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matters
2. The description of the development proposed in Appeal 2 was modified during
the course of its consideration by the Council. The original application
indicated a scheme comprising 6 flats. However, this was altered to four flats
by agreement between the Council and the Applicant. It is that scheme which
was determined and is, therefore the one before me.
Policy Context
3. The appeals must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise1. The
development plan in this case comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan –
Regional Spatial Strategy March 2009. However, having regard to the
likelihood of this being withdrawn in the foreseeable future, and the fact that
the appeal proposals are of small rather than strategic scale, I consider this
carries little weight in this instance. The other element comprises the saved
policies of the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan, March 1999.
1
S38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
Appeal Decisions APP/B3030/A/11/2151270 & APP/B3030/A/11/2151271
4. The appeal site lies within the Newark Conservation Area. It is therefore
necessary that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas in the exercise of
any planning functions2. This statutory duty is specifically reflected in Policy
C1 of the Local Plan. Policy C3 clearly indicates that demolition of a building in
a conservation area will not be granted if it makes a positive contribution to the
character or appearance of the area and could be put to effective use. Where a
building makes no positive contribution consent will be granted only if there are
acceptable detailed proposals for redevelopment of the site.
5. There are two listed buildings on the opposite side of Pelham Street from the
appeal site. It is necessary, therefore, when considering whether to grant
planning permission for development which affects them or their setting, that
special regard be had to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting or
any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses3.
This statutory provision is echoed in Policy C11 of the Local Plan.
6. More generally, Policy DD1 requires all new development to accord with 10
criteria. Those of particular relevance in this case are Criterion 1, setting form
and character of settlements; Criterion 2, heritage structures; and Criteria 7
and 8 pertaining to highway safety and access. Other Policies relate to housing
design generally and seek to achieve satisfactory standards of amenity and
appearance.
Appeal 1: APP/B3030/E/11/2151271
7. Part of the planning history for the appeal site relates to a previous application
for conservation area consent to demolish the existing building upon it. That
was refused by the Council and was then the subject of an appeal. The
Inspector, on that occasion, concluded that the existing building was of no
merit as an individual building and makes no positive contribution to the street
scene.
8. The building in question is a detached two storey dwelling and its design is
fairly typical of houses built in the inter-war period. It has no features of
particular architectural interest or merit. It has been significantly altered over
the years by the replacement of its windows with somewhat unsympathetic
aluminium frames. It possesses some poor quality additions, and its brickwork
has been painted. For these reasons I agree with the conclusions of the
previous Inspector that the building is of no particular merit individually.
9. The existing dwelling is set further back from the street than its relatively new
neighbour Rose Cottage. However, its existence does preserve the continuity
of frontage to some degree. This is important because there are gaps in the
frontage further along Pelham Street where buildings with wide frontages are
set back. This is in marked contrast with the more confined street scene to the
east where predominantly residential buildings closely abut the street creating
a more typically historic urban form. Consequently I consider that it would be
harmful to the character of the surrounding Conservation Area to allow a
further gap to be created on the appeal site if it were likely to remain open for
an indeterminate period. However, if an acceptable scheme for redevelopment
2
3
S72(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended
S66(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended
2
exists, then I find that demolition of the existing building would not harm the
character or appearance of the surroundings.
Appeal 2: APP/B3030/A/11/2151270
10. Having regard to the Council’s reasons for refusal and the representations
before me I consider there are two main issues raised by this appeal. First,
whether by reason of its height, the proposed building would be unduly
prominent and out of character with its surroundings. Second, whether the
loss of existing off-street parking and failure to provide parking within the
appeal site for the proposed development would be detrimental to residential
amenity and the free flow of traffic.
11. A previous application for planning permission was the subject of an earlier
refusal of permission and consideration at appeal. Whilst the appeal was
dismissed, the Inspector’s decision gave clear indications that some elements
of the proposals would have been acceptable. The Council and the Appellant
both accept that these are material considerations of significant weight and I
agree.
12. The previous appeal established that the principle of residential development
on the appeal site is acceptable. It also indicated that such development in the
form of a three storey building close to the site frontage would also preserve
the character and appearance of the street scene. Whilst it would be higher
than the immediately adjacent Rose Cottage, and also the two-storey buildings
nearby, variation in height is a marked characteristic of the surroundings.
Consequently, I agree with this conclusion.
13. Previous proposals have not been found to adequately reflect the proportions of
the elevations and details of nearby buildings and, in particular, the listed
buildings. However, the current proposal, as the Planning Officer’s report
indicates, has addressed this issue. The window proportions would more
closely follow those of the traditional buildings nearby. Their disposition in the
elevations would be balanced and well-ordered and would reflect the
appearance of the listed buildings. The external materials proposed would be
in keeping with existing buildings nearby.
14. The Council are concerned about the scale and height of the proposed building.
However, the building to which the previous Inspector referred was about
600mm lower, but was slightly narrower and less deep. The eaves height now
proposed would approximate to that on the three storey listed buildings and
the overall height, whilst perhaps greater, would not be either incongruous or
out of scale with the surroundings, given the character of the overall design.
15. Turning now to the matter of car parking, the appeal site is not within the town
centre itself, but it is nearby and no more than about 5 minutes walk from it.
This provides easy access to transport and shopping. The proposed dwellings
would also be within comfortable walking distance of a new supermarket,
currently under construction, which will also have a large public car park.
16. The existing house on the site has a garage with a hard standing area in front
of it. Consequently, the site can be regarded as having parking provision for
two vehicles. Since the proposed development would provide no on-site
parking spaces, there would be a net loss of two off-street parking spaces.
There are parking restrictions along Pelham Street. These preclude parking
3
along the street from 0800 to 1800 Monday to Saturday. Consequently,
overnight parking is not currently prevented.
17. I note the Council’s concern about parking problems in the vicinity created by,
amongst other things, the Royal Mail sorting office close by, which has no
dedicated parking for the public when collecting packages. However, that
would not be affected by the appeal proposals given the existing parking
restrictions.
18. The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposal’s lack of parking
provision. It is content to rely upon current parking restrictions to retain the
free flow of traffic along Pelham Street, and I see no reason to disagree with
that conclusion. I also agree that the existence of those restrictions would be
readily apparent to any prospective occupier. Furthermore, the proximity of
the development to the town centre represents a particularly sustainable
location in terms of reliance on public and other means of transport which is
advocated in PPS1 and PPG134.
19. If the occupants of the appeal development require parking provision, this
would currently be available just beyond Rose Cottage, though I was advised
that this provision is only temporary pending re-development. In the longer
term the public car park at the supermarket currently being built would be
available. I note the Council’s concern that there would be no direct link
between this and Pelham Street for either vehicles or pedestrians. However, it
would be sufficiently close for occasional or visitor use.
Other Matters
20. The ground floor plan shows a two-bedroom flat to the left of the central
passageway when viewed from the street. Bedroom 2 is shown with no
window. It was confirmed at the site visit that this was correct. It would be
impracticable to install a window in the flank wall due to the very close
proximity of the boundary and its associated fence. In my judgement it would
be unacceptable to have a habitable room with no daylight provision or even
the prospect of borrowed light from elsewhere. It would represent an
unacceptable lack of amenity. Accordingly, I consider it would be appropriate
to impose a condition on the planning permission precluding the use of that
room other than for storage.
Conclusions
21. Having regard to the above factors I conclude that the proposed building would
not be harmful to the character or appearance of its surroundings. Also I find
that the loss of two off-street parking spaces and the lack of any specific offstreet parking in the proposed development would be unlikely to be detrimental
to residential amenity of the occupants of the proposed development or
existing residents. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that this
would interfere with the free flow of traffic. Accordingly Appeal 2 succeeds.
22. The fact that planning permission will be granted for the proposed development
means that there would now be an acceptable scheme for redevelopment of
the appeal site. In these circumstances, and in the light of my conclusions in
paragraphs 8 and 9 above, Appeal 1 also succeeds.
4
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development; Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
4
23. I have taken account of the views of local residents and other interested
parties in reaching these conclusions. I have also considered the Draft National
Planning Policy Framework which has been published since the appeal was
made. It indicates of the intended direction for national planning policy. It is
therefore a material consideration, but of limited weight during its consultation
stage.
24. In relation to Appeal 1 it does not alter the statutory context which must be
taken into account. Also, the section relating to the historic environment does
not materially alter the general thrust of guidance in PPS5 which has been
referred to. Turning to Appeal 2, it indicates that PPS1 and PPG13 may be
withdrawn. It does, however, reinforce the support for sustainable
development. Consequently, the considerations and issues pertaining to this
case remain unaffected. For these reasons it has not been considered
necessary to refer the matter back to the parties.
Conditions
25. The Council suggested 2 conditions be imposed if Appeal 1 were to be allowed.
The first is the statutory time limit and this is necessary to comply with S18 of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The second
relates the consent to the plans submitted. The first would be desirable for the
avoidance of doubt and the second will be incorporated into the permission
itself. I also consider that a third condition should be imposed and this is to
ensure that redevelopment follows on soon after the demolition of the existing
building. This is necessary having regard to my conclusions that a gap in the
frontage over a longer term would be harmful to the character of the street
scene.
26. Turning now to the development, the drawings will be incorporated into the
permission and the statutory time limit will be imposed by condition. In
addition, the Council have suggested 7 further conditions. No.3 would be a
requirement for the submission of samples of external materials to be used.
No.4 would be a requirement for a sample panel of brickwork to be approved
prior to commencement of the development. No.5 would seek submission of
and approval by the Council of window details, doors and apertures, and
rainwater goods. All of these would be appropriate given that the surroundings
comprise part of a conservation area and are within the setting of listed
buildings. However, I consider it more appropriate that the type of mortar and
pointing be a matter discussed between the parties rather than specified in
case technical issues preclude the method and materials specified.
27. No.6 and No.7 relate to boundary treatment and landscaping. Whilst walls and
fences are indicated on the plans, I consider it important that the heights of
these and the associated details are clearly understood to ensure that the
appearance of the surroundings is preserved. Similarly, there is no detail
about planting within the site and the type of paving to be used. These too
should be established prior to development given the sensitivity of the
surroundings.
28. Suggested Condition 9 relates to remediation if unexpected contamination is
discovered. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the land is
contaminated, and it is currently in residential use and has been for some 70 or
80 years. Consequently, in the absence of any evidence of contamination,
5
which would probably have been revealed in recent nearby developments, if it
existed, I do not consider that condition to be necessary in this instance.
29. The suggested conditions, except for No.9 and No.2 will be imposed, but with
modified wording in some instances to more accurately reflect the guidance
contained in Circular 11/95 and elsewhere.
Decisions
Appeal 1: APP/B3030/E/11/2151271
30. The appeal is allowed and conservation area consent granted for demolition of
an existing residential property at 20 Pelham Street, Newark NG24 4XD in
accordance with the terms of the application Ref 10/01384/CAC, dated 16
August 2010 and the plans (DB 324-A100 Location Plan; DB 324-A105 Rev A
Elevation Photos and Measurements) submitted therewith subject to the
following conditions:
1)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the
date of this decision.
2)
The works of demolition hereby authorised shall not be carried out before a
contract for the carrying out of the works of redevelopment of the site has been
made and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which
the contract provides.
Appeal 2: APP/B3030/A/11/2151270
31. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of
4no.dwellings at 20 Pelham Street, Newark NG24 4XD in accordance with the
terms of the application, Ref 10/01385/FUL, dated 16 August 2010, and the
plans (DB 324-A100 Location Plan; DB 324-A103 Rev C Proposed Site Plan,
Outbuilding Elevations and Site Visuals; DB 324-A204 Rev D Dwelling Plans,
elevations, Site Section and Visuals) submitted therewith subject to the
following conditions:
1)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the
date of this decision.
2)
The room marked on the approved plan DB324-A204 Rev D as Bedroom 2 shall
not be used as a habitable room but used only for storage and no other purpose.
3)
No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the
construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4)
No development shall commence until a brickwork sample panel showing
brickwork bond, mortar mix and pointing technique has been provide on site for
inspection and approval to it has been received in writing from the local planning
authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
5)
No development shall take place until details of the external windows, including
details of glazing and glazing bars, treatment of window and door heads and sills,
and rainwater goods have been submitted to and approved writing by the local
planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
6)
No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall
include a schedule (including planting plans and written specifications, including
6
cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) of
trees shrubs and other plants, noting species, plant sizes, proposed numbers and
densities. The scheme shall be designed so as to enhance the nature
conservation value of the site, including the use of locally native plant species.
An implementation programme shall also be included.
7)
No development shall take place until details of the existing and proposed ground
and finished floor levels of the site and approved buildings have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Keith Turner
7
Costs Decision
by Keith Turner LLB(Hons) DipArch(Dist) RIBA MRTPI
Costs application in relation to 2 Appeals relating to 20 Pelham Street,
Newark NG24 4XD
•
•
The application is made under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)
Act 1990, sections 20, 74, 89 and Schedule 3, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Mr D Burke for a full award of costs against Newark &
Sherwood District Council.
Appeal 1: APP/B3030/E/11/2151271
•
The appeal was against the refusal conservation area consent for the demolition
proposed is an existing residential property.
Appeal 2: APP/B3030/A/11/2151270
•
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of
4no.dwellings.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. Circular 03/2009 advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs
may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and
thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted
expense in the appeal process.
3. The Appellant’s application does not refer specifically to the refusal of
conservation area consent. This is probably because the reason for refusing
that was only the absence of acceptable detailed proposals for the
redevelopment of the site and the Council’s desire to avoid creating a further
gap in the street frontage in the longer term. In these circumstances the
outcome of that appeal was dependant upon the outcome of the planning
appeal.
4. The Appellant contends that the Council’s reasons for refusing the proposed
development describe impacts which are vague, generalised and unsupported
by any objective evidence. If correct this would conflict with the advice given
in paragraph B18 of Circular 03/2009. The first reason for refusal relates to
the height of the proposed building which the Council considered would be out
of scale with surrounding buildings and be unduly prominent in the street
scene.
Costs Decision APP/B3030/E/11/2151271 & APP/B3030/A/11/2151270
5. The Appellant relies upon the comments in the decision on a previous appeal1
for proposals on the site. Some aspects of the previous proposal were very
different in terms of the layout. However, it was for residential development
and comprised a three-storey building. The previous Inspector found, in
paragraph 9 of the decision, that the then proposed three-storey frontage
building would not appear unduly discordant in the street scene. In reaching
this conclusion he took account of two factors. First that the proposal would be
higher than the nearby three-storey listed building opposite, and also that
there is variation in the height of buildings on Pelham Street. I concurred with
this reasoning and conclusion in my decision on the current appeal.
6. The Council’s primary concern was that the currently proposed building would
be some 600mm higher than the one considered by the previous Inspector.
However, they offered no evidence about the height of the listed building in
coming to their conclusion that the proposal would be unduly prominent. They
did not appear to take into account other factors such as the considerable
changes to the design of the building’s facades and the way in which these
would assist its integration with the surroundings. This should have been
considered, especially in the light of a favourable officer recommendation,
against which they were deciding the matter. Whilst the Council are entitled to
disagree with their officers, they must have cogent reasons for doing so. In
this case I consider that they did not.
7. The second reason for refusal related to the loss of on-street car parking and
the lack of any provision for parking within the proposed development. The
Highway Authority did not object to the proposal on these grounds. They
considered that the site is in a sustainable location close to the town centre
where the occupants of the dwellings would not be reliant upon a private car
for day to day living. Also it would be clear to prospective occupants that no
parking provision would be available on the site or surrounding streets during
the day. This approach for a centrally located site accords with the aims of
sustainable development as currently set out in PPS12.
8. The Council’s officers felt that, despite concerns about lack of parking
provision, a reason for refusal on this basis could not be successfully sustained
without the support of the Highway Authority. However, the Council
disregarded both elements of this professional advice. This they are entitled to
do but, in accordance with the guidance at paragraph B.23 of Circular 03/2009,
they would need to provide a clear and rational explanation for the position
they took in refusing the proposal.
9. The Council considered that the development would give rise to an increase in
on-street parking near the site which they considered would be detrimental to
residential amenity and the free flow of traffic. Parking is precluded along
Pelham Street between 0800 and 1800hrs Monday to Saturday. Consequently
there would be no lawful impact through parking during those periods. In the
evenings, the commercial premises nearby would be either less active or
inactive resulting in reduced traffic. Parking is permissible in the evenings and
on Sundays in any event. Furthermore, the Council provided no substantial
evidence to suggest that parking was at critical levels which would be
exacerbated by the proposed development.
1
2
Appeal references APP/B3030/E/10/2134304 & APP/B3030/A/10/2134299 issued on 27 January 2011
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
2
Costs Decision APP/B3030/E/11/2151271 & APP/B3030/A/11/2151270
10. For the above reasons I agree with the Appellant that the Council failed to
show reasonable planning grounds for disregarding the contents of a previous
appeal decision for development of the appeal site. They also failed to provide
a clear and rational explanation for disregarding the professional advice they
received in respect of parking provision. Both of these matters constitute
unreasonable behaviour in the context of Circular 03/2009. Since these factors
led to an appeal which would have otherwise been unnecessary, they have
resulted in unnecessary expense for the Appellant.
Costs Order
11. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Newark & Sherwood District Council shall pay to Mr D Burke, the costs of the
appeal proceedings, such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office
if not agreed. The proceedings concerned an appeal more particularly described
in the heading of this decision.
Keith Turner
3
APPENDIX B
Appeal Decision
by John Murray LLB, Dip.Plan.Env, DMS, Solicitor
Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/C/11/2150126
Land at Park Farm, Wellow, Nottinghamshire, NG22 0EJ
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.
The appeal is made by Mr D Chapelhow against an enforcement notice issued by
Newark & Sherwood District Council.
The Council's reference is 09/00594/ENF.
The notice was issued on 14 February 2011.
The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission
the unauthorised erection of a building on the Land, the approximate position of which
is marked ‘X’ on the plan.
The requirements of the notice are:
(1) Demolish the unauthorised building and take up foundations.
(2) Remove all the materials resulting from (1) above from the land
The period for compliance with the requirements is four months.
The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(f) and (g) of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Since the prescribed fees have not
been paid within the specified period, the application for planning permission deemed to
have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended does not fall to be
considered.
Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice
upheld.
The appeal on ground (f)
1. Having regard to its requirements, the purpose of the notice is to remedy the
breach of planning control and to effectively return the land to its condition
prior to the breach. In the absence of a case on ground (a) or a deemed
application, it is not open to me to consider whether the development is
acceptable in planning terms, or whether any injury to amenity could be
overcome through something short of complete demolition.
2. The appellant has not cited ground (c) and therefore does not appear to
contend that the matters alleged in the notice do not constitute a breach of
planning control. Nevertheless, he states that the building he has constructed
is very little different from that which was the subject of a prior notification
submission Ref 08/01868/AGR under the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (the GPDO).1 He suggests that the only
discrepancies are the addition of a chimney and a small extension housing a
water tank for a water purification scheme.
1
Pursuant to Class A, Part 6 of Schedule 2.
Appeal Decision APP/B3030/C/11/2150126
3. The Council states that there are two chimney stacks, which were not shown in
the prior notification scheme and that doors have also been fitted to an
opening, which was shown as open. The prior notification plans indicate 1
chimney stack, but not 2. They also include double doors on one wing of this
L-shaped building. However, the other wing is shown as entirely open fronted,
whereas it is in fact only partially open. In relation to the small extension to
house a water tank, the appellant says that this was seen by Council officers
during the construction process and in conversation they advised that it was
“not a problem.” However, whilst the appellant refers to an extract from
Spencer and Bower’s ‘The Law relating to Estoppel by Representation’, having
regard to R v East Sussex County Council Ex parte Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd
[2002] UKHL 8, the doctrine of estoppel by representation does not apply in
the public law field of planning and the Council is not bound by any such
statements that may have been made.
4. The fact remains that, along with the other discrepancies, the extension was
not shown on the prior notification plans and the building has not been
constructed in accordance with them. Where an agricultural building is built in
reliance on permitted development (PD) rights, it is a condition of that
permission that the development is carried out in accordance with the details
submitted with the application2. Whether deviations from submitted plans are
sufficient to justify an allegation of construction of the building without
planning permission may be a matter for debate. However, whatever the
correct analysis of that point in this case, even though the correction of the
discrepancies referred to above would result in a building externally consistent
with that shown in the prior notification scheme, the building will still not be
covered by PD rights if it is not designed for agricultural purposes3.
5. In considering the purpose of the building design, the Council refers to its
layout, construction and internal features. As I noted on site, in addition to the
brick and pantile construction, the building has: cavity walls, which are
plastered and whitewashed internally; double glazing; 2 velux roof lights; 2
chimneys, one serving an ornate domestic log burner in an attractive fireplace;
a fitted kitchen, including a fridge and washing machine; domestic light
fittings; numerous power points; and skirting boards. Together with factors
such as ceiling heights and internal door sizes, the room dimensions and
layouts, subdivided and arranged over two floors, are consistent with a
dwelling. The prior notification plans show just 2 ‘rooms’ arranged on 1 level.
Walking around the building, I had the distinct feeling of entering spaces
intended variously as a living room, kitchen, master bedroom, secondary
bedrooms and a bathroom/shower room, complete with part of an extractor fan
unit, where one would expect to put a shower cubicle. The building looks and
feels like a dwelling, notwithstanding details such as stone floors and the lack
of natural lighting in some areas.
6. A building is designed for the purpose for which its physical layout and
appearance fit4. I note that the structure is currently being used to store hay,
an old Land Rover, tack, chemicals, munitions, hydroponics equipment and so
on. Notwithstanding this and the existence of an open storage area at ground
floor level, as a matter of fact and degree, this building is not designed for
agricultural purposes, even though the appellant may actually use it for such
2
3
4
Class A.2(1)(d)(v)(bb) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.
Class A.1(c) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.
Belmont Farm Ltd v Minister for Housing and Local Government [1962] 13 P&CR 417 DC.
2
Appeal Decision APP/B3030/C/11/2150126
purposes. I accept his contention that just because a structure is agricultural,
“that does not mean it has to be a pig sty.” However, this building is far
removed from a pig sty, or the tractor garage and agricultural store described
in the prior notification application.
7. Accordingly, whether or not any of the other requirements of the GPDO are
met, the appeal building could not in any event be converted to one which
would benefit from the PD regime, merely by the removal of the small
extension and chimney, as suggested by the appellant. In all the
circumstances, I conclude that only complete demolition would remedy the
breach of planning control and the appeal on ground (f) therefore fails.
8. The appellant refers to the Human Rights Act 1998, but does not cite a
particular Convention right. Though the effect of the notice would be to
deprive the appellant of property5, it has a basis in law and such controls over
property are in accordance with the general interest. The requirements are the
minimum necessary to remedy the breach and whilst the ability to work on
small machinery and store general agricultural items securely is vital to the
appellant’s business, this could be done in a building designed for such
purposes. In these circumstances, the impact on the appellant is
proportionate.
9. I understand that the Council is currently considering an application for
planning permission to regularise the building and my decision on this appeal,
which does not address the planning merits, does not prejudice that
consideration. Furthermore, if planning permission is granted, the notice will
cease to have effect, so far as it is inconsistent with that permission6.
The appeal on ground (g)
10. The reason given for suggesting that 4 months is insufficient for compliance
with the notice is the need to find an alternative location for equipment
associated with the water purification scheme for the holding. However, the
appellant accepts and my site visit confirmed that the equipment within the
extension to the appeal building is not yet in use anyway. In the absence of
any other arguments, I conclude that 4 months is an adequate period for
compliance and the appeal on this ground also fails.
11. Nevertheless, the Council will be in a position to monitor the progress of the
appellant’s planning application and will retain the power to extend the period
for compliance, or otherwise relax the requirements of the notice or withdraw
it, if appropriate7.
Decision
12. I dismiss the appeal and uphold the enforcement notice.
J A Murray
INSPECTOR
5
6
7
See Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Section 180 of the 1990 Act.
Section 173A of the 1990 Act.
3
APPENDIX C
Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 5 July 2011
by Andrew Jeyes BSc DipTP MRTPI
Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/A/10/2143324
Former Poultry Farm, Rufford Lane, Rufford, Newark,
Nottinghamshire NG22 9DG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
• The appeal is made by Mr Adam Warrilow against the decision of Newark & Sherwood
District Council.
• The application Ref 10/00440/FULM, dated 31 March 2010, was refused by notice dated
27 October 2010.
• The development proposed is the redevelopment of redundant former poultry farm to
form sustainable small-scale equestrian/tourism facility following demolition of existing
chicken shed.
Decision
1.
The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2.
It is agreed by both parties that Policy 42 and Policy Northern SRS 5 of the East
Midlands Regional Plan 2009 [EMRP] are relevant to this proposal. In addition, the
Council adopted the Newark & Sherwood Local Development Framework Core
Strategy Development Plan Document [CS] on the 29 March 2011 and the relevant
policies have been considered. The CS replaced saved Policies FS1, TO2 and NE9
of the Newark & Sherwood Local Plan 1999 [LP].
3.
The Government has issued a draft National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] that
consolidates national planning policy. This has been considered in relation to this
appeal, but it carries limited weight at this stage of the consultation process.
Existing national planning policy remains and carries substantial weight and the
NPPF does not propose any change in national policy relative to the issues of this
appeal.
4.
The scale of Drawing Ref “Proposed Layout Plan” is 1:500 and not 1:100 as
indicated on the plan.
Main Issues
5.
The main issues are:a] whether the proposal would reflect national and development plan policy
relating to the location of development within the countryside;
b] the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
surrounding landscape; and
c] the effect on wildlife and biodiversity.
Appeal Decision APP/B3030/A/10/2143324
Reasoning
6.
The site is occupied by a former poultry house in very poor condition, being burnt
down at one end and with substantial areas of roof missing; in addition, there are
the remnants of a small hut at the site entrance. The proposal is for a new
building with six units of self-catering accommodation [three 3-bed and three 2bed] and an office on the site of the former poultry house and a 10-horse stable
block and tack room in an “L” shape in the north-west corner of the site. Access
would run along the eastern boundary from Rufford Lane as it does now. The
proposal would operate as a holiday facility aimed at people with horses and those
who wish for an equine-based holiday.
7.
CS Spatial Policy 3 indicates that in rural areas development will be strictly
controlled in the open countryside away from the main built-up areas of villages
and restricted to uses that require a rural setting. CS Core Policy 7, which deals
with tourism, supports the provision of good quality overnight accommodation in
rural areas where a rural location is necessary to meet identified tourism needs;
otherwise it should be appropriate to the size and role of the settlement. The
thrust of these policies reflects policies in PPS41 relating to planning for economic
development and tourism in rural areas with, wherever possible, locating tourist
and visitor facilities in existing or replacement buildings, particularly where located
outside settlements. Saved LP Policy R28 indicates that riding schools are
acceptable providing they are within or adjacent to existing settlements or involve
the re-use of existing farm buildings.
8.
EMRP Policy 42 both promotes the provision of tourist facilities including
accommodation and Policy Northern SRS 5 promotes the creation of the Sherwood
Forest Regional Park through the development of recreational potential whilst
protecting and enhancing distinctive landscape and natural assets. The CS and
saved LP Policies do not conflict with these objectives, but provide detailed
guidance.
9.
The site is located within open countryside with open arable fields to all sides. The
remains of the existing building have a very low profile, but are visible from
Rufford Lane and from the A614 to the west. A bridleway runs along the eastern
side of the broken east boundary hedge of the site. The replacement building,
whilst of a similar footprint to the remaining poultry house, would have a higher
eaves and ridge height than the existing, with a more domestic appearance. The
stable block would be an additional building added to the site, together with a
manége, a replacement access drive and car parking. Two small areas of pasture
would remain on the 1.52 Ha site.
10. This is a small site where all feed for animals would need importing. Whilst rider
instruction would occur on site using the manége, riding activity would also use the
local area via bridleways and by transporting horses to other suitable parts of
Sherwood Forest. There are limited local bridleways near the site and these
connect to busy “A” and “B” class roads. There are no agreements in place to use
local private facilities. There is no planning reason why an open rural location is
necessary for this small-scale facility, as a site within or on the edge of a
settlement, as indicated in planning policy, would be capable of providing the same
facilities and functions.
11. The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism 2006 urges a positive response to
rural tourism proposals and indicates their importance to the rural economy; this is
1
Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth
2
reflected in PPS4. Policy EC6 indicates that the countryside will be protected for its
intrinsic character and beauty, with strict control of economic development in open
countryside away from existing settlements and designated areas. This proposal
goes beyond use of an existing or replacement building and, as indicated, there is
no justification for an open countryside location. Whilst the Council do not oppose
the need for additional tourist accommodation in Sherwood Forest, such
accommodation should be provided at sites that meet planning policy.
12. I have considered the two planning decisions2 referred to as providing a precedent.
Both relate to an extension of accommodation within existing tourism sites where
there would be a low impact on the landscape. The appeal decision3 also
represents the development of an existing tourist facility of a touring caravan site
and caravan store that represented re-use of a previously developed site that was
regarded as well screened and having a low visibility in long and medium distance
views; in addition the local plan policies were regarded as out of date. These
decisions do not directly relate to the provision of new tourist facilities within the
open countryside and my assessment in this case is necessarily based on the
specific circumstances of this appeal and the issues it raises.
13. For the reasons given, the proposal would not reflect national and development
plan policy relating to the location of development within the countryside. It would
be contrary to CS Spatial Policy 3 and Core Policy 7, saved LP Policy R28, EMRP
Policy Northern SRS 5 and Policy EC7 of PPS4 whose objectives are the strict
control of development within the countryside, restricted to uses that require a
rural setting and which do not harm the character of the countryside.
Character and Appearance
14. The site is within the “Rainworth Water Meadowlands with Plantations” area of the
“Sherwood Character Area” as defined in the landscape character assessment4.
Within this area, the intentions are to conserve distinctive features and to
strengthen and reinforce those features that may be vulnerable. The nearby river
to the west of the site, Rainworth Water, has arable fields with an open character
to each side of the watercourse with a strong belt of sinuous woodland to the east
on the slopes of the Ollerton Hills ridge.
15. The proposal would see some small improvements by the removal of the existing
low profile derelict buildings and some additional partly overgrown hardstanding,
but this would be replaced by a larger building, a significant stable block and a
large manége, all of which would impinge on the landscape character of the area.
The proposal for a 10-metre wide tree belt to the northern, western and southern
sides to act as a screen would introduce an angular landscape feature into the
open arable nature of the land that borders the river. In any case, landscaping
should complement and provide a setting for otherwise acceptable development; it
does not provide a reason to accept unsuitable proposals.
16. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the
surrounding landscape contrary to CS Core Policy 13, saved LP Policies R28 and
R29 and Policy EC7 of PPS4. These aim to ensure that proposals positively enrich
and contribute towards landscape character.
2
3
4
LPA Ref 07/00807/FULM: 16 new holiday lodges at Sherwood Castle Holiday Park
LPA Ref 08/02066/FUL: 5 villas at Center Parcs
APP/B3030/A/10/2133505: 30 Timber cabins at Robin Hood View Caravan Park, Belle Eau, Kirklington, Newark
Newark & Sherwood District Council: Landscape Character Assessment [LCA]
3
Wildlife and Biodiversity
17. The application was accompanied by an ecology report prepared in July 2010,
based on an extended Phase-1 Habitat Survey and a protected species survey of
the buildings. This found a roost site for a barn owl in the remains of the poultry
shed and recommended temporary and permanent alternative provision that could
be covered by condition. It also indicated the need for a reptile survey to
determine the populations and species present prior to any works commencing.
Rock piles on the site provide suitable habitat and common lizards and grass snake
are recorded within the study area. The “Birklands West and Ollerton Corner” SSSI
and two local wildlife sites were within 2 kilometres of the site.
18. Circular 06/20055 indicates that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of
protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed
development, is established before planning permission is granted. Allied to this, it
is indicated that the need to ensure ecological surveys should only be left to
coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances.
19. Based on the survey, there is a reasonable likelihood of protected species being
present on the site, but a protected species survey has not been undertaken.
Without such evidence, there is a risk that protected species or their habitats could
be harmed. Whilst the appellant has suggested that conditions would be
appropriate, no adequate survey information is before me and no over-riding
exceptional circumstances have been indicated. In these circumstances, it would
not be appropriate to leave the matter to be addressed by planning conditions,
even were the development otherwise acceptable.
20. The Nottingham Wildlife Trust raise the issue as to whether the substantial
population of nightjar and woodlark in the Sherwood Forest area justify its
designation as a Special Protection Area [SPA] under the EU Birds Directive, or at
least its identification as a potential SPA [pSPA]. In their view, it is at least a pSPA
and the impact of the development on relevant species must be considered.
Natural England [NE] has submitted a plan showing their Indicative Core Area and
the RSPB’s Important Bird Area boundaries over the Sherwood Forest area. None
of these defined areas includes or is close to the appeal site. However, the appeal
site, along with other extensive areas of land, is within a 5 Km buffer zone around
these areas.
21. Reference was made to evidence submitted at another appeal6, that indicated that
Sherwood Forest is known to support more than 1% of the total UK breeding
populations of woodlark and nightjar, which meets the terms of the EU Birds
Directive and that the EMRP records that the area is being considered for
designation as a SPA.
22. The ecological survey confirms that the site does not provide a suitable breeding
habitat for nightjar or woodlark, but suggests it may be suitable for foraging.
Nottingham County Council ecologists advise that this is unlikely for woodlark, but
nightjar may use the forest to the east. NE indicate that the site’s use is unlikely
to have an adverse impact on breeding populations, but are concerned that
lighting, traffic and people using the site may. It was agreed at the Hearing that
external lighting could be adequately controlled by a condition.
23. However, whilst the appellant indicates that riders would use the local area, either
directly from the site or via transporting horses and riders to other areas within the
5
6
06/2005 Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and their impact
within the Planning System
APP/L3055/V/09/2102006: Land at Former Rufford Colliery, Rainworth, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire
4
vicinity, the extent of this and the areas to be used were not specified. Whilst this
activity could be low, there is no evidence to support the appellant’s view that no
harm would arise and that riders would not disturb nesting populations of nightjar
and woodlark outside of the appeal site.
24. I therefore conclude that there is insufficient information available to indicate
whether harm would be caused to wildlife and biodiversity. It would therefore be
contrary to saved LP Policy NE17 and PPS97 that aim to ensure no adverse affect
on protected species, that biological diversity is conserved and enhanced and to
prevent harm to biodiversity interests.
Conclusions
25. The proposal would not reflect national and development plan policy relating to the
location of development within the countryside and would harm the character and
appearance of the surrounding landscape. In addition, there is insufficient
information available to indicate whether harm would be caused to wildlife and
biodiversity. Representations made at application stage and the views of parish
councils have been considered. For the reasons given and taking account of all
other matters, I dismiss the appeal.
Andrew Jeyes
INSPECTOR
7
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
5
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 August 2011
by David Kaiserman BA DipTP MRTPI
Appeal Ref: APP/B3030/A/11/2152674
Ye Olde Jug and Glass Inn, High Street, Edwinstowe NG21 9QR
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The appeal is made by Dudley Taylor Properties Ltd against the decision of Newark and
Sherwood District Council.
The application Ref 10/01538/FUL, dated 8 November 2010, was refused by notice
dated 13 January 2011.
The development proposed is the demolition of outbuildings and erection of three
houses.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues in this case are (a) whether the proposals would preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the Edwinstowe Conservation Area; and
(b) the adequacy of the proposed car-parking arrangements.
Reasons
(a) Conservation Area
3. Ye Olde Jug and Glass Inn is a public house, closed at the time of my visit,
which occupies a prominent position in the heart of the village of Edwinstowe. The
appeal site is unused and neglected land which served as the pub’s car park, but it
also includes a range of two-storey brick buildings, running along rather more than
half the length of its northern boundary: these would be demolished as part of the
proposal.
4. The site lies within the Edwinstowe Conservation Area. Other than a map
showing its extent, I have been given no information about this conservation area
or the particular features which led to its designation. From my visit, however, I
was able to see that High Street forms the linear core of the settlement, and that
some historic reminders of its relationship with streets on either side, and
especially East Lane, still exist. One of these is the narrow strip of land containing
the public house and its car park: this forms a significant link between High Street
www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
and East Lane which clearly reflects the pattern of the village’s earlier
development. Glimpses of traffic and passers-by along High Street are still possible
down the site from East Lane, which lies at a noticeably higher level.
5. The Council describe this gap as an “historic snicket”, and I consider that it is
an important feature which contributes to an appreciation of the character of the
village and an understanding of its evolution. It also appears to be one of the few
(if not the only) such passageways which are still discernable on the ground, which
must add to its significance in conservation terms. The appeal proposal would fill
the entire width of the East Lane frontage, completely obliterating the existing gap.
6. The brick outbuildings (which I am told appear to have been long associated
with the public house) emphasise the characteristics of the plot as a whole, due to
their linear form along the site boundary and their prominence in the street-scene.
In my opinion, they make a valuable contribution to the conservation area in their
own right. The appellants say that they are in poor structural condition, but I have
been given no evidence that an independent analysis has been carried out by a
qualified person which might serve to support that conclusion. In the absence of
such an assessment, I have no reason to believe that the buildings are not capable
of re-use, albeit with a reasonable level of capital investment.
7. I do not fully share the Council’s concerns about the design and siting of the
proposed terrace, since there is a wide range of house types and building form in
the immediate vicinity. In addition, details such as materials could be dealt with
satisfactorily by condition. Notwithstanding that assessment, however, I have
concluded that the loss of the historic features means the proposal would fail in
principle to preserve either the character or appearance of the conservation area,
in conflict with “saved” Local Plan policies C1, C3, C4 and H13.
(b) Car Parking
8. The proposal does not involve the existing public house itself which, while
currently closed, has an existing use which is capable of being re-activated at any
time. The Council, supported by the highway authority, are concerned that the loss
of the car park would result in increased pressure for on-street parking and
servicing were it to be brought back into use. However, there are many examples
of traditional pubs in the centres of towns and villages which have no dedicated car
parking, and I have been given no evidence of any specific problems or unusual
circumstances in this case which suggest that the future lack of access to private
parking would be likely to result in significant harm. For this reason, I am reluctant
to attach a great deal of weight to the Councils’ concerns.
9. As a separate issue, the appellants do not challenge the Council’s evidence to
the effect that the front parking bays for the dwellings should have a minimum
depth of 5.5m if obstruction to the highway is to be avoided and that this
requirement is not met by the scheme (albeit that the discrepancy is in their
opinion “marginal”). There being no other aspect of the residential parking to
which the Council object, this is potentially a matter which could, all other things
being equal, be handled by an appropriate condition.
2
(c) Conclusions
10. Notwithstanding what I have said about the parking issues, I am satisfied that
the determining factor in this case is the conflict with the Council’s polices relating
to the Edwinstowe Conservation Area, and it is this which has led me to dismiss the
appeal. I should add that I have had regard to the Government’s recentlypublished draft National Planning Policy Framework, but find nothing in it which
affects my consideration of the issues.
David Kaiserman
INSPECTOR
3

Planning Committee 6th September 2011

Transcription

Similar documents

Whirlybird®

Pencader Corporate Center

Acentech

Combined Cycle Power Plant Empalme II

Tourist Information - Newark and Sherwood District Council

DIGICON Data Sheet - AT Engine Controls

Team Dynamics swirls into Wind Turbines.

Scotrenewables Floating Tidal Energy

Open Newsletter - Classic Cruisers USA

Proposed Wind Ordinance Summary